TMR Editor’s Note:
The following two articles provide some relatively unknown yet critical history concerning the Armenian Genocide which occurred from 1915 through 1923.  That the genocide took place is indisputable; that various countries would have the world community of nations believe otherwise is quite curious.

However, considering the roles — both direct and indirect — that the genocide deniers actually had in the engineered atrocity, it is now understood why they cling so tightly  to their false version of history.  The Modern State of Israel (MSI) is particularly connected to the Armenian Holocaust as it is also known.  This has proven to be the case by virtue of the secret Jewish leadership known as the Dönmeh which surreptitiously ruled Turkey before and after the Armenian Genocide.

Ultra-Secret Conspiracy in the Middle East Revealed: The Donmeh, the Wahhabi and Zionism’s Sephardic Jewry

What is extremely important to understand is the Zionist foundation of that Jewish leadership.  For it is a cabal of hardcore Zionists who have been behind every major revolution and genocide in modern history.  For example the Bolshevik Revolution that turned czarist Russia into a massive penal colony (aka Gulag Archipelago) was orchestrated and carried out by Anglo-American Zionists.  The top tier of the entire leadership of the eventual USSR was predominantly  made up of closet Zionists or disaffected Russians of Jewish ancestry.  The authority on this factual history is no less than Alexander Solzrenitzen, author of “The Gulag Archipelago”.   As follows:

RUSSIA & THE JEWS: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Exposes The Christian Holocaust

With this correct understanding it is now much easier to comprehend why the Armenian Holocaust even took place.  Such a cataclysmic event was manufactured for reasons which can only be understood looking through the lens of a Zionist planner.  Of course, in 1915 the master plan was to establish the MSI in 1947.  Regardless of what was necessary toward the formation of Israel — civil wars and revolutions, World Wars and Great Depressions, genocides and mass exoduses — the plan would not be thwarted.

Did 70 Million Die So The Jews Could Have Palestine?

But why was the Armenian Holocaust so integral to their plans to establish the Modern State of Israel? Were there corporate oil interests also intersecting in the same region which made the genocide of Christians a business expedient?  What were the specific religious tensions and other regional influences that brought about the first genocide of the 20th century which many refuse to recognize?  Some of the answers can be found at the following link, as well as at the two exposés below.

Why Were Jewish Zionists Behind The Armenian Holocaust? 

The Millennium Report


Jewish Young Turks and the Armenian Genocide

Spirit of Serbdom

The key persons of the Young Turk movement were Jewish, including Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

The Committee of Union and Progress, later known as Young Turk movement which was responsible for the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the genocide of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians, was created and controlled by Jews. They belonged to a group called Donmeh, crypto-Jews who converted to Islam in order to hide their Jewish identity. These Donmeh Jews were also followers of Sabbatai Zevi, a self-proclaimed Jewish Messiah who converted to Islam as well. The international Jewish elite planned to create a Jewish state in Palestine but the problem was that Palestine was under Ottoman rule. Founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl wanted to negotiate with the Ottoman Empire for Palestine, but he failed. The international Jewish elite wanted to gain control over the Ottoman Empire and destroy it in order to free Palestine, therefore the crypto-Jews of the Donmeh group founded the Committee of Union and Progress under the guise of a secular Turkish nationalist movement. The Young Turks had at least two congresses (1902 and 1907) in Paris in order to plan and prepare a revolution in order to gain control over the Ottoman Empire. In 1908, the Young Turks launched a revolution and forced Sultan Abdul Hamid II into submission.

The international Jewish elite provoked the first world war in order to achieve several goals, including the revolutions in Russia and Germany and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. In 1917, Great Britain signed the Balfour Declaration, the promise for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. British troops could gain control over Palestine and prepared it for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Crypto-Jew Mustafa Kemal Ataturk created a Turkish Republic in order to destroy the Ottoman Empire completely. The Jewish revolutionist Alexander Parvus (who got rich through arms trading) was the financial adviser of the Young Turks and the Jewish Bolsheviks supplied Ataturk with 10 million gold roubles, 45,000 rifles, and 300 machine guns with ammunition. In 1915, the Young Turks committed a genocide against the Armenians, but also against the Greeks and Assyrians. The main reason for the Jewish genocide of the Armenians is that the Jews believe that the Armenians are the Amalekites, the arch enemies of the Israelites (Jews believe they are the descendants of the ancient Israelites). The Turkish government and Jewish groups such as the ADL deny the Armenian genocide, highly likely because the key persons of the Young Turk movement were Jewish, including Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Jewish author and rabbi Joachim Prinz confirmed in his book “The secret Jews” that Ataturk was a donmeh crypto-Jew, page 122:

“The revolt of the Young Turks in 1908 against the authoritarian regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid began among the intellectuals of Salonika. It was from there that the demand for a constitutional regime originated. Among the leaders of the revolution which resulted in a more modern government in Turkey were Djavid Bey and Mustafa Kemal. Both were ardent donmehs. Djavid Bey became minister of finance; Mustafa Kemal became the leader of the new regime and he adopted the name of Atatürk. His opponents tried to use his donmeh background to unseat him, but without success. Too many of the Young Turks in the newly formed revolutionary Cabinet prayed to Allah, but had as their real prophet Shabtai Zvi, the Messiah of Smyrna”


This editorial is based on a talk given by Dr. William Pierce at the Sunday evening meeting of National Alliance members, supporters, friends, and other interested persons in the Washington area on October 16, 1977. 

by Dr. William L. Pierce

In our universities today and in the pages of the scientific journals a battle is being waged between scientists concerned with racial matters on the one hand — biologists, psychologists, and anthropologists of professional integrity — and pseudo-scientists concerned with upholding the fundamental liberal dogma of universal human equality on the other hand. Despite the well entrenched position of the pseudo-scientists and their powerful allies in politics and the communications media, encouraging progress is being made by the scientists. Bit by bit the truth is coming to the fore, and the forces of censorship, moral intimidation, and liberal bigotry are losing ground. Reference was made to this struggle in an article on sociobiology in a recent issue of ATTACK!

The battle is far from being won, however, even in the pages of the scientific journals. And on the popular front the pseudo-scientists still rule almost without opposition. The same, tired, old lies about race are being fed to high school students and college undergraduates via their textbooks and their brainwashed teachers and to the general public via their television receivers and their daily newspapers. The slow and painful progress being made on the scientific front is not filtering down to the man in the street.

And it will never filter down to him if a dangerous trend now under way is not halted. That trend is cosmopolitan elitism, and it is flourishing most unwholesomely in those very segments of our society where the greatest progress has been made against the pseudo-scientific equalitarians.

Consider, for example, the scientists themselves. Their classes have been picketed on university campuses, and they have been heckled and sometimes physically attacked by gangs of Jewish, Chicano, Negro, and other non-White students who have accused them of being racists. The all-too-common response to this intimidation has been the claim by the heckled scientists that they are not racists; that they are not interested in promoting racism but only in establishing the truth in racial matters. William Shockley, a Nobel laureate physicist-turned-geneticist at Stanford University; Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley; and Richard Herrnstein, a Jewish psychologist at Harvard University, are all in the forefront of the battle against the equality myth, and all have repeatedly announced that they are not racists.

To the hecklers, of course, wanting to establish the truth is racism; the only way not to be a racist is to fervently believe the equality myth. For our discussion here let us adopt a somewhat less extreme definition of racism; let us define it as a subjective preference for living, learning, and loving among the members of one’s own race — as a spiritual and emotional bond between the members of a racial group. That is a definition with which most reasonable people will agree. That is the definition most scientists have in mind when they claim they are not racists: they are claiming that they have no subjective preference for members of their own race.

That does not mean that they regard their race as equal to all others. They recognize the manifest fact that individual men are unequal in intelligence, in aggressiveness, in creative ability, and in every other characteristic you might name — and they also recognize that there are racial differences in all these characteristics. They recognize the scientifically demonstrated fact, for example, that the Negro population as a whole is less intelligent than the White population as a whole. But they maintain that it is not the population as a whole with which they are concerned in making personal decisions about living, learning, and loving but only the individual.

This attitude was illustrated especially well by an article which appeared in American Opinion, the magazine of the conservative John Birch Society, some months ago. The author of the article was complaining about the Federal government’s forced-housing program. His position was that a person should have the right to sell or rent a home to the kind of people he wants to, not those the government says he has to.

The Bircher said that he — and conservatives generally — have no objection whatever to living next to clean, quiet, orderly, upper-class Negroes — in fact, they prefer such Negroes as neighbors to lower-class Whites; they just don’t believe the government ought to stick its nose into the business of choosing people’s neighbors for them.

Now, I have a suspicion, although I can’t prove it, that if that Birch Society writer were presented with the choice of living next to an upper-class Black say, a Black neurosurgeon like we see on TV — or an upper-class White, he would choose the upper-class White; and if given the choice of having his daughter marry a Black garbage collector or a White garbage collector, he would again choose the White.

In other words, there is racism in all of us, even Birch Society members. It’s in our genes, and even the unnatural and artificial lifestyle of today hasn’t been able to suppress it entirely.

But the Birch Society writer — and, I am afraid, a great many other upper-class Whites who consider themselves conservatives — still consider race a matter of only secondary importance. It is the individual, not the race, which comes first in their scheme of values.

They recognize that the average Negro is less intelligent than the average White, but they’re perfectly ready to accept the Negro who isn’t average. The Black banker, the Black store-owner, the Black high school principal, the Black judge are perfectly acceptable to them, while they look down their noses at the White factory worker, the White coal miner, the White who never finished high school and never earned more than $600 a month in his life.

They judge a person by his socio-economic status — by his class — rather than by his race. They are elitists.

Elitism certainly isn’t a new phenomenon — and, in fact, it is not inherently an undesirable phenomenon, under the right circumstances, and I’ll get to that in a minute. But elitism is an especially important phenomenon today, because it is gaining ground among White intellectuals, among upper-class Whites, among intelligent Whites who think of themselves as conservatives — and it is gaining that ground at the expense of White racial solidarity.

There are several reasons for this, and we should understand them. One of the reasons is that elitism is an acceptable alternative to equalitarianism.

As we are all painfully aware, a lot of White people are not very bright. They actually believe their TV and their morning newspaper and their minister when these oracles tell them that the races are really equal and that all indications to the contrary are illusory. They really believe that.

But that’s a pretty hard thing for an intelligent White person to believe — a hard thing for a hardheaded, alert, successful White person to swallow. After all, he makes his living by having a good head on his shoulders and by using it, and it’s just too obvious to him that Blacks and Whites aren’t inherently, biologically equal. He just can’t swallow the equalitarian lunacy the TV preaches. Such myths may be all right for the boobs, for the great unwashed, but not for him. He knows better.

So what is he to do? Is he to be a racist?

Goodness, no! That’s not acceptable. That’s disreputable. That’s dangerous.

So he becomes an elitist. “Equality is a bunch of baloney,” he says. “But I’m not a racist. I don’t have anything against superior Blacks, against Blacks who are a credit to their race. I despise only inferior Blacks, just as I despise inferior Whites.”

And why is this an acceptable alternative to equalitarianism? Well, it’s acceptable because it is the position held by Mr. Herrnstein — and by a number of other Jews as well. The elite is an open club; Jews are admitted. Therefore, one will not be socially stigmatized by the controlled media for being an elitist. It’s a safe position.

Of course, the communists don’t like elitists. They denounce elitism almost as vehemently as they denounce racism. But, then, one can live with that.

Elitism can be justified by the successful, aggressive White person in terms of his essentially individualistic outlook on life. Furthermore, it jibes with the insidious idea, which was subtly planted deep inside his head by the brainwashers during his earliest years, that it is somehow unjust to judge a person by his race, but that each person should instead be judged only on his individual merit.

The elitist reasons that a person can’t be blamed for his race, because he has no control over that; but he can be blamed for his socio-economic status, because he does have control over that. If a White person — or a Black — had any intelligence and any ambition, reasons the elitist, he wouldn’t be a garbage collector or a coal miner. If he isn’t making a lot of money, then that’s his fault, because in our free and democratic society it’s only ability that counts.

Again, the communists disagree. They claim that a person’s class is forced on him: that if a person is doing disagreeable work for low wages it’s not his fault, not his lack of ability or ambition, but the fault of the capitalists, of the ruling class, which is holding him down. But, again, who cares what the communists say?

Finally, elitism is an unconscious and indirect way of satisfying — at least, partially — the inherent racism in all of us. Because, after all, it is really the lower-class Blacks — the field niggers — who evoke the strongest racial feelings in most of us. They behave more naturally, whereas the Black bankers and the Black judges and the Black neurosurgeons — the house niggers — have repressed their Blackness to a greater or lesser extent. They have learned to dress like Whites, to talk like Whites, to act like Whites. (Most of them, in fact, are more White than Black, genetically.)

They are what the real Blacks refer to as “oreos” — Black on the outside, but White on the inside. And oreos just don’t evoke as strong a feeling of racial antipathy on the part of most upper-class Whites as genuine Blacks, as real niggers, do. It’s easier to accept the oreos, easier to live next door to them, easier to convince oneself that they’re really equals.

And, in a certain sense, they are equals. It is clear that, despite the low average intelligence of Blacks, there are some who are quite intelligent. And if intelligence is all that counts, if IQ is all we measure a man by, then, there are Blacks — or, at least, mulattos, part-Blacks — who are roughly equal to most upper-class Whites.

Intelligence, of course, is not all that counts, but there is a tendency in some circles today to believe that it is. This tendency is associated with one of the prevailing errors of our times: the error of rationalism, the error which leads a man to the conceit that, because he is capable of reason, he stands far above the animal world, which is merely mechanical. Reason, the rationalist believes, is the master of everything.

The amazing accomplishments of Western science in the last century help to reinforce this conceit. And if one is a rationalist, then it is easy to slip into an elitist attitude and reject the primacy of race.

The elitist will say: “Reason is above race; it has nothing to do with race. Nuclear physics has no race; thermodynamics has no race. How can one decide the race of a mathematical equation or a chemical formula?”

“I recognize,” says the elitist, “that fewer Blacks than Whites are capable of learning what the mathematical equation or the chemical formula means, but there is still no race to it. The exceptional Negro, who is able to understand it, is just as good as the White man who is able to understand it — and just as acceptable to me.”

So elitism has what seems to be quite a substantial basis. That basis consists of three elements —  if we ignore the fear of being considered a racist, the all-too-human tendency to have only socially acceptable opinions.

First, there is the tradition in this country of individualism, a tradition which is used today to justify the claim that only the individual counts and not the group to which he belongs. It is considered wicked to categorize people, to stereotype them.

Second, we have a tradition closely related to the first one, and that is our tradition of meritocracy, the tradition that a man should be able to rise just as far as his brains and his energy and his character will carry him, and that no artificial barriers should be placed in his way.

And finally we have rationalism, the belief in pure reason as the highest faculty, coupled with the notion that reason is inherently raceless.

Let’s examine these elements one at a time.

First, an individual Black may be superior in some particular regard to the average White person, but he is still a member of his race, despite all our prejudices against stereotyping. That is, he is still genetically a Negro, and when he mates his genes carry not only his specific qualities but also the general qualities of his race. In other words, his genes carry two competing tendencies: the tendency to yield an offspring identical to himself and the tendency to yield an offspring representing the average Negro. This latter tendency is called by geneticists regression toward the mean.

What that means is that when two persons mate, who both exhibit some particular quality (e.g., intelligence) to a greater degree than the average for their race, their children will, on the average, not exhibit this quality as strongly as their parents. On the average they will exhibit it to a degree which falls somewhere between that of their parents and the norm for the race as a whole.

And if that generation mates indiscriminately with each other, generation after generation, the degree to which each generation exhibits the particular quality in question will approach more and more closely to the norm for the race.

From the foregoing we can understand that racial intermarriage is not just a private matter between two individuals, as it is regarded by the equalitarians and the libertarians. In a very real sense, one does not marry an individual of another race: one marries the other individual’s race.

There is nothing mysterious about this tendency of regression toward the mean — it is a statistical thing — and geneticists today understand it. But our genes have always understood it, and this gene-based understanding manifests itself as xenophobia, as an instinctive abhorrence of race-mixing. This is just one more case of our instinct being ahead of our intellect.

Clearly, the natural, human tendency toward stereotyping, toward categorizing people according to the group to which they belong, is a manifestation of a much deeper wisdom than that which tells us not to stereotype, but only to see each person as an individual. Only because our ancestors stereotyped are we White today. And only if we continue seeing people not just as individuals but also as members of groups — as White men or Black men or Chinamen or Jews — can our race survive.

Second, our tradition of meritocracy was largely responsible for America moving out ahead of the rest of the world economically and industrially during a time when American society was, for all practical purposes, all White. Allowing each man and each woman to contribute to society to the limit of his abilities, allowing him to reap a commensurate reward and also to rise to a position of influence and control commensurate with his individual achievements — that is the social principle which, with certain safeguards, should govern any racially homogeneous society. It is the principle of greatest social efficiency — in a racially homogeneous society. But it is one of the shorter paths to hell in a racially mixed society, because it alienates the natural leaders of a race from the masses of their racial kinsmen.

America today, of course, is no longer strictly a meritocracy. There is no reigning social principle at all, but rather a shifting and confused state of affairs in which old institutions and patterns are being obliterated, and a general scramble is underway on the part of a great many factions to set new patterns most favorable to themselves.

Thus, we have the grotesque and shameful situation in which White conservatives — ideological elitists and actual members of the former elite — are fighting desperately now, in the Supreme Court and elsewhere, not to restore the former precedence of their race, but rather to outlaw all forms of racial preference in an attempt to salvage their own, individual rights. Even people with misgivings about cosmopolitan elitism are grasping for it as a counter to those who want special rights for minorities.

Whites who object to favoritism for Blacks or Mexicans or other non-Whites can take one of two positions. They can take our position, which is that race should be considered in everything, in immigration, in hiring people, in promoting them, in assigning them to schools, or what have you, and that it should be considered in such a way as to promote the welfare of our race. In other words, America should not be a country where Whites have equal rights, but where they have the only rights.

And the other position, of course, is that which the pro-Bakke people are taking in the present Supreme Court case: the position that race must never be considered, in anything — that we must have an absolutely colorblind society — that individual merit must be the only criterion by which people are judged.

The especially insidious and dangerous character of elitism under multi-racial conditions is now becoming evident: Whites who feel threatened by the government’s programs favoring racial minorities are locking themselves into a position which denies that any group should have priority. The present threat of special minority rights is leading people who might otherwise have some healthy racial feelings left in them to react in a panicky way and reject any claim to special status as a consequence of their White birthright.

They suppress all feelings of solidarity with their less able and less fortunate racial kinsmen, abandoning them to fend for themselves, and they grasp for the elitist straw. And once they do that, they’re fighting on the enemy’s terms. It’s a no-win position, a purely defensive position.

IT’S NO JOKE — this is Abednigo K. Hlope, an official delegate from Swaziland, addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations and demanding Black rule in White Rhodesia, Swaziland is a bona fide “nation” of 470,000 naked Negroes, ruled by a polygamous absolute monarch, King Sobhuza, who will have you skinned alive and staked down to an anthill if you look sideways at him. Swaziland has exactly as much a voice in the General Assembly as the United States does. The piece of filth currently occupying the White House agrees with the feather-bedecked Mr. Hlope that the White people ought to be forced out of Rhodesia, so the Blacks can take over and run things there the way they’re run in Swaziland.

Third, we have rationalism. The rationalist position is false for several reasons. It is false, in the first place, because even pure reason — or what appears to us to be pure reason — is influenced by race. We speak, for example, of Western science, and the racial adjective, Western, is meaningful. That is because the way our minds work — not just how well they work, but the particular way in which we reason — is a function of our race. A White man, a Black man, a Chinaman, and a Jew have different types of minds, and the different types of cultures they develop, when left to themselves, are reflections of these differences.

The differences tend to be masked today, because of the universal dominance of Western science. When a Negro, for instance, writes a mathematical equation the same way a White man would write it, it is not because his mind is the same as the White man’s, but because the Negro has adapted himself to the White man’s way of reasoning, to the extent that he can.

Actually, it’s difficult to imagine the ways in which a Negro science, a native African science, might develop differently from Western science, because the former has never existed. But there have been in the past, before Western science became the dominant model everywhere, other sciences, of sorts: what served the ancient Egyptians as science, for example, or the ancient Chinese.

The former science was as distinctly Egyptian as the latter was distinctly Chinese, and they were both distinctly un-Western. We can read translations from ancient Egyptian or Chinese documents on scientific matters, and it becomes painfully obvious that the thought processes of the beings who wrote those documents were rather different from ours.

Classical science, Hellenic science, was also different in many ways from modern, Western science, and philosophers of history who overemphasize the purely cultural aspects of history at the expense of its racial aspects (e.g., those of the Spenglerian school) make much of these differences. But the fact remains that when we read today the works of Euclid or Archimedes, there is no sense of alienness, as there is with the Egyptian or Chinese works. The reason of the Hellenes was our reason, because they were of our race.

But reason, as I mentioned earlier, is not everything. In particular, it is not the supreme faculty, not the master of our lives. Reason is a tool, a weapon, an instrument, a means. It is a servant — not the master.

Reason is a very powerful tool, to be sure, an extremely important servant — but still a servant. Pure reason can tell us the easiest way to get from A to B, but it cannot tell us, in the final analysis, why we should want to go from A to B. Reason cannot define our ultimate objectives for us; it cannot give us our basic values, our fundamental criteria. Those things are all purely subjective — that is, they come only from within us, while reason has power only over objective things.

Why should a man live? Why should he shun death? He cannot answer, except to say that he should live because he wants to — which is another way of saying that he has an instinct to survive. It is in his genes, it is subjective, and reason has nothing to do with it. Reason can be used as a tool to make survival easier, to make it more nearly certain. But it is quite clearly the instinct which is the master, and reason the servant.

And the same applies to everything else. Reason cannot tell us what is beautiful and what is good and what we should strive for. It does not give purpose or fundamental meaning to our lives, but only helps us to achieve those things which our souls, our genes, tell us we should try to achieve.

Purpose, values, ultimate meaning are in our genes — which is another way of saying that they are all racially determined. When a society’s racial composition changes — even if it is able to maintain its ability to reason, its average IQ — then its values change, its ultimate meaning changes.

And that is why elitism — raceless elitism, cosmopolitan elitism — is a false and dangerous position.

If we are to survive as a race, then we must be White before we are physicians or lawyers or other members of the professional class. We must be White before we are rich or before we have high IQ’s. We must prefer the White garbage man to the Black neurosurgeon or the Jewish psychology professor. We must, in other words, be racists rather than elitists. Elitism is only permissible after we have solved our race problem, and then it must be an elitism which is coupled to a strong sense of racial consciousness.

The White elitists in America today may think that they have every justification for rejecting, for cutting themselves off from, their less successful racial kinsmen and allying themselves with Blacks and Jews and other non-Whites of their own educational level or income class, but the day will come when they themselves are the ones who are rejected and cut off and cast out. Then they can turn to their fellow elitists for help, but they will not find it.

Source: National Alliance

” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”size-full wp-image-26535″ src=”https://i2.wp.com/www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NY_Times_Armenian_genocide.jpg” alt=”New York Times Headline” width=”353″ height=”506″ style=”box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; vertical-align: middle; height: auto; max-width: 100%;”>

New York Times Headline

On 14 October 1922, the Literary Digest published an articled entitled “The Sort of Mustafa Kemal is” which states:

“A SPANISH JEW BY ANCESTRY, an orthodox Moslem by birth and breeding, trained in a German war college, a patriot, a student of the campaigns of the world’s great generals, including Napoleon, Grant and Lee—these are said to be a few outstanding characteristics in the personality of the new ‘Man on Horseback’ who has appeared in the Near East. He is a real dictator, the correspondents testify, a man of the type which is at once the hope and fear of nations torn to pieces by unsuccessful wars. Unity and power have come back to Turkey largely through the will of Mustafa Kemal Pasha. No one has yet, it appears, referred to him as the ‘Napoleon of the Near East,’ but some enterprising journalist will probably do it sooner or later; for Kemal’s way of rising into power, his methods at once autocratic and carefully considered, even his military tactics, are said to resemble those of Napoleon.”

In an article entitled “When Kemal Ataturk Recited Shema Yisrael” by the Jewish author Hillel Halkin, he quoted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk:

“I’m a descendant of Sabbetai Zevi—not indeed a Jew any more, but an ardent admirer of this prophet of yours. My opinion is that every Jew in this country would do well to join his camp.”

Gershom Scholem wrote in his book “Kabbalah”, page 330-331:

“Their liturgies were written in a very small format so that they could easily be hidden. All the sects concealed their internal affairs from Jews and Turks so successfully that for a long time knowledge of them was based only on rumor and upon reports of outsiders. Donmeh manuscripts revealing details of their Shabbatean ideas were brought to light and examined only after several of the Donmeh families decided to assimilate completely into Turkish society and transmitted their documents to friends among the Jews of Salonika and Izmir. As long as the Donmeh were concentrated in Salonika, the sect´s institutional framework remained intact, although several Donmeh members were active in the Young Turks` movement which originated in that city. The first administration that came to power after the Young Turk revolution (1909) included three ministers of Donmeh origin, including the minister of finance, Djavid Bey, who was a descendant of the Baruchiah Russo family and served as one of the leaders of his sect. One assertion that was commonly made by many Jews of Salonika (denied however, by the Turkish government) was that Kemal Atatürk was of Donmeh origin. This view was eagerly embraced by many of Atatürk´s religious opponents in Anatolia.”

Inspector-General of the Turkish Forces in Armenia and Military Governor of the Egyptian Sinai during WW1, Rafael De Nogales, wrote in his book “Four Years Beneath the Crescent” that the chief architect of the Armenian genocide, Talaat, was a donmeh Jew, page 26-27:

“That was the renegade Hebrew (donme) of Salonika, Talaat, the principal organizer of the massacres and deportations, who, fishing in muddy waters, succeeded in raising himself from the humble rank of postal clerk to that of Grand Vizier of the Empire.”

In 1915, the Young Turks committed a genocide not just against the Armenians, but also against the Greeks and Assyrians.

Author Henry Wickham Steed stated in his book “Through Thirty Years: 1892-1922: A Personal Narrative”, page 218-219:

In this task he failed. King Ferdinand, the chief culprit, outlived him and was destined to lead his country into yet greater disaster. Meanwhile the Turks, among whom the influence of the—largely Jewish—Committee of Union and Progress was still powerful, were accentuating the ‘national’ policy which had provoked the first Balkan War and were dreaming at once of pan-Islamic and ‘New Turanian’ dreams. Many of the Young Turkish leaders I knew already. Talaat, Minister of the Interior and afterwards Grand Vizir, I had met in Paris in 1909. Others had visited me in Vienna. Upon Talaat I called soon after reaching Constantinople. He received me with almost affectionate cordiality and began at once a magniloquent dissertation upon high politics.”

One of Marcelle Tinayre’s article in L’Illustration in December of 1923, which was translated into English and published as “Saloniki”, The Living Age, Volume 320, Number 4156, (1 March 1924), pp. 417-421, one part of it mentions that:

“The donmehs of today, affiliated with Free Masonry, instructed in Occidental universities, often professing total atheism, have given leaders to the Young Turk revolution. Talaat Bey, Djavid Bey, and many other members of the Committee of Union and Progress were deunmehs from Saloniki.”

“It is a well-known fact that the Salonika Committee was formed under Masonic auspices with the help of the Jews and Donmehs, or crypto-Jews of Turkey, whose headquarters are at Salonika, and whose organization took, even under Abdul Hamid, a Masonic form. Jews like Emmanuel Carasso, Salem, Sassun, Fardji, Meslah, and Donmehs or crypto-Jews, like Djavid Bey and the Baldji family, took an influential part both in the organization of the Committee and in the deliberations of its central body at Salonika. These facts, which are known to every Government in Europe, are also known throughout Turkey and the Balkans, where an increasing tendency is noticeable to saddle the Jews and Donmehs with responsibility for the sanguinary blunders which the Committee has made. ” – “Jews and the Situation in Albania”, The London Times, 11 July 1911, page 5

On 9 August 1911, The London Times published a Letter to the Editor from “The Time´s” Constantinople Correspondent, followed by the Chief Rabbi´s closing comments on the matter, where one section informs us that:

“Gaster’s views concerning Freemasonry in Turkey do not coincide with those held by many Moslems. I need only mention Colonel Sadik Bey and the Committee insurgents, and Sheikh Rashid Ridha. Heaven forbid that I should express an opinion as to which is right. I will merely remark that, according to information which I have received from genuine Freemasons, the majority of the lodges founded under the auspices of the Grand Orient of Turkey since the revolution were, at the outset, avatars of the Committee of Union and Progress, that they have not yet been recognized by British Freemasonry, and that the first ‘Supreme Council’ of the G. O. of Turkey appointed in 1909, contained three Jews (Carasso, Cohen, and Faraggi) and three Dönmés (Djavid Bey, S. Kibar, and Osman Talaat).”

Author Nester Webster wrote in her book “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements” page 284:

“The Young Turk movement began in the Masonic lodges of Thessaloniki under the direct supervision of the Grand Orient Lodge of Italy, which later shared in the success of Mustapha Kemal.”

On 20 August 1908, the Paris newspaper Le Temps, printed the interview of the Young Turk Refik Bey  who said:

“It’s true that we receive support from Freemasonry and especially from Italian Masonry. The two Italian lodges [of Thessaloniki] — Macedonia Risorta and Labor et Lux — have provided invaluable services and have been a refuge for us. We meet there as fellow Masons, because it is a fact that many of us are Masons, but more importantly we meet  so that we can better organize ourselves.”




By Brother Nathanael Kapner

BUSINESS AS USUAL is a powerful motivating force especially when Jews like the Rothschilds are running an oil business.

Banking is the forte of the Jewish House of Rothschild. But raw materials–especially oil–aremoney in the bank.

The Young Turk movement, AKA Committee of Union and Progress, arose out of the Rothschilds’ oil interests in the Black Sea area of the Ottoman Empire in the late 1800s. ‘Creating stability’ in an incendiary realm was necessary for the Rothschilds’ new oil enterprise Baku Oil. The instability of the Armenian Christians’ financial and intellectual prominence in the area was not “good for business.”

Thus hand-picked Jews of Salonika, (Jews made up the majority of the city’s population), and foreign agitators such as the Russian Zionist, Vladimir Jabotinksy, the editor of The Young Turk newspaper, were just what the Rothschilds needed for ridding the source of that instability, the Armenian Christians.

Now, the Zionist Young Turks who sought for the break up of the Ottoman Empire in order to obtain Palestine–and the House of Rothschild, who needed a Jewish-controlled Turkey and hegemony over the entire Middle East, could work together. This meant funding for the Jewish Young Turks and revolutionary subversives for the Rothschilds.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE JEWISH YOUNG TURKS1680: Sabbatai Zvi, a Turkish Jew, proclaims himself to be the Jewish Messiah in Salonica. After amassing a following of thousands of Jews – he led them on a Zionist exodus to Palestine. On the way he decided to become a Muslim. Many of his followers saw this as God’s plan and also became Muslims.

1716: A group called the “Donmeh” forms in Salonica of Sabbatai Zvi’s followers headed by Sabbatai Zvi’s successor, Baruchya Russo. By the early 1900’s, the Donmeh numbers in the hundreds of thousands. They were known as “Crypto Jews” because though outwardly appearing to be Muslims, they were still Jews following the customs of the Jewish occult Kabbala which Sabbatai Zvi taught. They continue in their fervent, (yet secret), Zionist vision.

1860: Jewish Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery becomes an advisor to the Sultan Abdül Mecit while secretly working as an agent for Lord Palmerston of the British Foreign Office. Vambery tries to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodore Herzl and Sultan Abdul Mecit over the creation of Israel but fails.

1891: Out of the Donmeh a Zionist political group forms called The Committee of Union and Progress, later calledThe Young Turks. The group is headed by a Freemason Jew by the name of Emmanuel Carraso who organizes the secret Committee of Union and Progress in Geneva with the help of the Rothschilds.

1895-1896: Sephardic Jews of Salonika together with the Turks massacre Armenian Christians in Istanbul.

1902 & 1907: Two Congresses of The Young Turks meet in Paris to plan, prepare, and effect the penetration the Sultan’s army leading to the military coup of 1908.

1908: The Jewish Young Turks revolt and force the Sultan Abdul Hamid II into submission.

1909: The Jewish Young Turks rape, torture, and slaughter over 100,000 Armenians in the city of Adana, also known as Cilicia.

1914: The Jews of The Young Turks create unrest, turmoil, and bolster the paid Serbian assassin, Gavrilo Princip, which leads to World War I.

1915: The Armenian Holocaust engineered by the ruling Jews of The Young Turks, leaves 1.5 million Armenian Christians starved, tortured, and murdered.

1918: Jew Mustafa Kemal ‘Ataturk’ ascends into leadership.

1920: Russian Jewish Bolsheviks supply Ataturk iwth 10 million gold roubles, 45,000 rifles, and 300 machine guns with ammunition.

1921: Ataturk occupies the Port of Baku in conjunction with the Russian Jewish Bolsheviks ceding it to the Bolsheviks five days later. The Rothschilds are delighted.

1922: Jewish Kemalists orchestrate the burning of Smyrna resulting in the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of over 100,000 Armenian and Greek Christians left tortured, starved, raped, and dead.

THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE SIR GERALD LOWTHER’S LETTER TO SIR CHARLES HARDING, May 29, 1910— “Shortly after the revolution in July 1908, it soon became known that many of the Young Turks’ leading members were Freemasons. It was noticed that Jews of all colours, native and foreign, were enthusiastic supporters of the new dispensation, till, as many Turks expressed it, every Hebrew became a potential spy of the Young Turks. Turks began to remark that the movement was rather a Jewish than a Turkish Revolution.” —

JEWISH MURDERERS KNOWN AS THE YOUNG TURKS1. Emmanuel Carraso: B’nai B’rith Official of Italian origin. Grand Master of the Macedonia Resurrected Masonic Lodge in Salonika; Established the ’secret’ Committee of Union & Progress in Salonika in 1890.

2. Tallaat Pasha (1874-1921): Thought to be a Turk but in reality a “Donmeh Jew.” Interior Minister of Turkey during World War I; Member of Carasso’s Masonic lodge and Grand Master of the Scottish Rite Masons in Turkey; Chief architect of the Armenian Holocaust andDirector of Deportations. He wrote, “By continuing the deportation of the Armenians to their destinations during the intense cold we are ensuring their eternal rest.”

3. Djavid Bey: “Donmeh Jew.” Talaat’s Finance Minister; Arranged the finances of revolution in Turkey with the Rothschilds; Later assassinated by Ataturk as a perceived rival.

4. Messim Russo: Assistant to Djavid Bey.

5. Refik Bey, AKA Refik Saydam Bey: Editor of Young Turk newspaper Revolutionary Press; Became Prime Minister of Turkey in 1939.

6. Emanuel Qrasow: Jewish propagandist for The Young Turks. Headed the delegation to inform Sultan Abdul Hamid II that “the nation has removed you from your office.”

7. Vladimir Jabotinsky: Russian Zionist who moved to Turkey in 1908. Supported by B’nai Brith of London and Dutch Zionist millionaire, Jacob Kann; Editor of Young Turk newspaper. Later started the terrorist Irgun political party in Israel.

8. Alexander Helphand, AKA Parvus: Financier/liaison of the Rothschilds of the Young Turk revolution; Editor ofThe Turkish Homeland.

9. Mustafa Kemal ‘Ataturk’ (1881-1938): A Jew of Sephardic (Spanish) origin. Ataturk attended the Jewish elementary school known as Semsi Effendi School run by the Jew Simon Zvi. Over 12,000 Jews welcomed to Turkey by Ataturk in 1933 when Hitler came to power.

JEW ABE FOXMAN OF THE ADL DENIES THE ARMENIAN HOLOCAUSTFor many years, the Anti Defamation League and now its director, Abraham Foxman, refuse to acknowledge that the massacres of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1923 constituted genocide. Jews simply can’t stand to share their so-called “martyred-race” status with anyone else. And besides, Jews don’t like to have their crimes pointed out to them. If one does, he is instantly labeled an “Anti Semite!”

Foxman has reiterated the ADL’s opposition to formal U.S. recognition of the Armenian Holocaust calling a proposed Congressional resolution “a counterproductive diversion.” This position is inconsistent with the ADL’s mission statement “to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike.”

But the Jew Abe Foxman and his racist ADL organization do not care about any other ethnic group but their own. And they will lie and suppress the historical facts (and all historical facts that incriminate the Jews) of the Armenian Holocaust and the role that the Jews played in it. Foxman and all Jews do this in order to perpetuate their image as “innocent victims.”

WE CANNOT ALLOW THE JEWS to get away with their suppression of historical facts that incriminate the Jews any longer. Abe Foxman and his racist Jewish friends love to see Revisionist Historians thrown in jail for questioning particulars of the Jewish Holocaust in Germany.

But it is Foxman and the rest of the Jewish censors who should be thrown in jail for denying the Armenian Holocaust! Why do Jews abide by a double standard constantly? Aren’t we all sick of it and all these Jews for that matter by now?

I, for one, Brother Nathanael Kapner, a former Jew and now an Orthodox Christian, will do all in my power to expose the Jews. For the Jews are *not* innocent victims of persecution against them but have *prompted* backlashes against them throughout their “wandering-among-the-nations” history.

The Jews in fact are the most fierce perpetrators of racist crimes the world has ever known.And the Armenian Holocaust of which the Jews are responsible is a clear example of their Jewish racist crimes.

Jack Manuelian, The Founding Fathers of Modern Turkey
Times of London, The Armenian Massacres
Joseph Brewda, Young Turks To Control Middle East
Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Jewish Racism
Documents, Photos, History of Armenian Massacre By The Young Turks

Jacob M Landau, The Zionist Jews who founded the idea of Turkish Nationalism; National Geographic Magazine, September 1916 issue, Saloniki; Yair Auron, The Banality Of Indifference: Zionism & the Armenian Genocide

Richard Davey, The Sultan and his Subjects; Arnold S. Leese, The Real Jew-A Lesson From Turkey; Grant Richards,The Cause of The World’s Unrest; Dr. H. Stuermer, Two War Years in Constantinople; Andrew Mango, Ataturk; Clifford Shack, The Armenian & Jewish Genocide Project that Eliminated the Ethnic Conflict; Joseph Hantman,The Turkish-Israeli Connection and Its Jewish Roots; Hillel Halkin, Ataturk’s Turkey Overturned; Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

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