Never Socialism, Never Again

God-fearing capitalists built modern Western civilization while atheistic socialists destroyed it everywhere they gained power.

Let's not forget that fact in the years and tribulations ahead.

We needed to be reminded because as humans we are forgetful creatures. Most of us don't read enough history and those of who do retain only a fraction of what we read. 

Historical crimes soon fade into distant memories and tragic mistakes get repeated. 

It is unfortunate but predictable that socialism is starting to become popular in the United States as a fix-all philosophy for all the ills that have befallen the country. 

Socialism does not know how to build. The Soviet Union built ugly, soulless cities. Socialism does not know how to heal. Or create. Or imagine new solutions to problems. Government rationing soon becomes the standard wherever socialism is introduced and becomes the governing philosophy. 

It tells everyone it's okay to be a slave and a ward of the state because we're all in this together. But that is never the case. Hierarchies are inevitable in society.

There are other solutions to the economic pain in the West. The Federal Reserve in America needs to be abolished. All it does is print money for a preferred class while the rest suffer the consequences of hyperinflation.

Usury has to end. The twisted marriage between corporations and the government cannot continue.  

We in the West need to get back to building. China is the model not because it's a Quasi Communist state but because it builds. All day. Every day. If China was in possession of America they would be focusing on building bridges not stadiums.

Millions need to be put to work.

You can't build if you print money all day and think that's wealth. 

Usury is not wealth creation but wealth destruction.

The Jewish practice of "usury for thee, but not for me" cannot continue. We all must abide by one law.

This has to be part of a larger program of civilizing the Jew and making that group of people adopt Western standards and a Western code of ethics. Muslims and other immigrants must be civilized as well. Indians must be taught not to pollute rivers and oceans. Those who do will be severely fined and/or deported.

No special privileges. No special religious rules. The public space must remain secular. Fuck your Hindu deity, Islamic prayers, and ancient grudges. All prayer should be done in private, not on streets and parks.

No more special status for certain religions.

The Jewish claim to special divine status as "God's chosen people" is an insult to humanity. It serves no purpose other than making them an elevated class above the rules and regulations that other nationalities and ethnicities are subjected to. That is tyranny. It must end. And it will end.

Palmerston, The Grandfather of Modern Israel

 

Palmerston, a Master Mason and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the middle of the 19th century, sought to restore the Jewish people to the Holy Land and realize the ancient goal of rebuilding their sacred temple. 

Officially, in his capacity as Prime Minister, Palmerston was merely advancing British imperial interests in the Near East vis-a-vis the Ottoman Empire, as well as the empires of France and Russia. But his agenda to band the European Jews together and find them a home had a deeper purpose than simple geopolitics, which was connected with his Masonic eschatological aims. 

European Jews at the time, with the exception of the lands of Ukraine, Russia and Eastern Europe, enjoyed great freedoms, and had newfound status after Napoleon, a fellow Freemason, liberated them and brought them inside European civilization. The process of integration was well under away. The days of medieval prejudices and ancient superstitions were distant memories by that point.

But that emerging reality of Jewish integration into European civilization was a big hurdle for the Masons and their long-term aim of returning the Jews to Palestine.

How do you fulfill Biblical prophecy, restore Israel, and pack it with wealthy Jews if they're living great, successful lives in European capitals? How do you drive away some of the most of educated and sophisticated Europeans into the backwater that was Ottoman controlled Palestine?

They had a clever idea. Why not conjure up the phantom of antisemitism? What's the harm if a few poor Jews died if it meant the rich ones would then flee to Palestine? It was at this point that European civilization witnessed new pogroms, officially sanctioned conspiracies that pinned Jew against Gentile, and later, Nazism and Fascism.

The Masons worked their magic, funding both Zionism and anti-Semites, to split Jews from the West, and make their North star the reborn nation of Israel.

All the European and Middle Eastern wars since then have facilitated this generational, transideological, and multi-nation project. 

II.

An excerpt from, "War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization" by George F. Dillon, 1885, Chapter XVII - Lord Palmerston:

It is with difficulty that one can believe that Lord Palmerston knew the veritable secret of Freemasonry, and that for the greater part of his career he was the real master, the successor of Nubius, the Grand Patriarch of the Illuminati, and as such, the Ruler of all the secret societies in the world. As a Statesman, the distinguished nobleman had dealings of a very close character with Mazzini, Cavour, Napoleon III, Garibaldi, Kossuth, and the other leading revolutionary spirits of Europe in his day, but it was never for a moment suspected that he went so far as to accept the supreme direction of the whole dark and complex machinery of organized Atheism, or sacrificed the welfare of the great country he was supposed to serve so ably and so well, to the designs of the terrible secret conclave whose acts and tendencies were so well known to him. But the mass of evidence collected by Father Deschamps and others to prove Lord Palmerston's complicity with the worst designs of Atheism against Christianity and monarchy—not even excepting the monarchy of England—is so weighty, clear, and conclusive, that it is impossible to refuse it credence.

An excerpt from, "Chapter IV - Freemasonry": 

The Jewish connection with modern Freemasonry is an established fact everywhere manifested in its history. The Jewish formulas employed by Masonry, the Jewish traditions which run through its ceremonial, point to a Jewish origin, or to the work of Jewish contrivers. It is easy to conceive how such a society could be thought necessary to protect them from Christianity in power. It is easy also to understand how the one darling object of their lives is the rebuilding of the Temple. Who knows but behind the Atheism and desire of gain which impels them to urge on Christians to persecute the Church and to destroy it, there lies a hidden hope to reconstruct their Temple, and at the darkest depths of secret society plotting there lurks a deeper society still which looks to a return to the land of Juda and to the re-building of the Temple of Jerusalem. One of the works which Antichrist will do, it is said, is to re-unite the Jews, and to proclaim himself as their long looked-for Messias. As it is now generally believed that he is to come from Masonry and to be of it, this is not improbable, for in it he will find the Jews the most inveterate haters of Christianity, the deepest plotters, and the fittest to establish his reign.

An excerpt from, "Britain in Palestine, 1838-1882: The Roots of the Balfour Policy" by Alexander Schölch, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol.22 No.  1, Autumn 1992:

 Yet up to the end of World War I, the exclusive control of the "Holy Land"-as Palestine was called until the establishment of the British Mandate-by a single European power seemed unthinkable. From the opening of the "Holy Land" to Europe's political and religious-cultural penetration during the Egyptian domination of Syria and Palestine from 1831 to 1840, the European powers-and chiefly England, Russia, France, and Prussia (Germany)-all endeavored to build up and expand their presence in Palestine. This they did particularly through religious-cultural means, including the "protection" of religious minorities. Toward this end, each energetically supported the philanthropical, cultural, and missionary activities of its own citizens.

European interests in nineteenth-century Palestine can be discussed on two levels: on the level of politics among the European governments, and on the level of the nongovernmental and social aspirations, trends, and movements in the context of which nineteenth-century European policy on Pales- tine developed. Among the latter must be counted both the notion of a "Peaceful Crusade," which was widespread on the continent, and traditional Christian and Jewish interests in Palestine, especially the English chiliastic concept of the "restoration of the Jews." Demands for European colonization of Palestine, often connected with the aforementioned trends, were tied to efforts of European Jews even before the rise of Zionism.

A study of European interests in Palestine would thus show that the Zionist movement represented only one of many European movements during the nineteenth century that were dedicated to the "reclamation" and colonization of Palestine. The Zionist movement did not appear in its institutional form until relatively late in the game. Moreover, until British mandatory domination was established, it was by no means certain that the Zionist movement would triumph over rival aspirations. [1] The fact that it did triumph was not the result of the skill of Zionism's representatives or the magnanimity of individual British politicians. Rather, it was the consequence of the constellation of World War I powers and a partial convergence of interests of British imperialism and the Zionist movement. The English "Gentile Zionists" of the nineteenth century, the forerunners of the non-Jewish supporters of Zionism, had carried out the ideological advance work for this convergence.

The point of departure for all these developments was the opening of the "Holy Land" to Europe's political and religious-cultural penetration, which began during the period from the end of the 1830s to the Crimean War. In 1831, Muhammad 'Ali, ruler of Egypt, sent his army, commanded by his son Ibrahim, against his sovereign, the sultan in Constantinople. He conquered the entire geographical region of Syria, which included Palestine. To secure the goodwill of the European powers, especially England, in the face of his expansionist policies, Muhammad 'Ali did two things. First, he eliminated all forms of open discrimination against the members of non-Muslim religious communities in the areas he had conquered. As subjects of the new ruler, these people had the same rights as the majority and even became to some degree privileged. Second, he facilitated political and religious-cultural penetration by the Europeans by permitting them to open consulates in the interior, and to expand and institutionalize religious missionary activities.

The most important event in Palestine in this connection was the establishment of a British consulate in Jerusalem in 1838. Because the Ottomans had to continue with Muhammad 'Ali's policy even after the Egyptians were expelled in 1840, Jerusalem witnessed the entrance of still other European consuls [2] and religious dignitaries. As a result, the European public's interest in the "Holy Land" markedly increased. Thus, Palestine fell into that whirlpool of opposing European interests: the Great Powers' "Eastern question" of the nineteenth century. Once the "Holy Land" had come into view, inordinate desires were awakened, plans were devised, and visions were given free reign. None of these, however, was politically feasible, despite the fact that the sultan would not have been able to drive the Egyptians out of Syria and Palestine without European (primarily British and Austrian) help.

Given that European intervention was undertaken for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire (Britain's Middle Eastern policy in particular held the conservation of the empire's core as an urgent goal), there could be no question of partitioning Ottoman territories. The problem-the nineteenth century's "Eastern question"-was how much of the Ottoman Empire had to be preserved, and in what form, in order to protect the interests of the European powers. Since European penetration could not take the form of territorial control, then, it could only be a matter of influence. One of the most important vehicles through which the European powers tried to exercise their influence was the "protection" of non-Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire.

Masonic Zionism with Joe Atwill

Masonic Zionism with Joe Atwill - WORD UP with Dani Katz (November 27, 2024).

In this podcast author Joseph Atwill provides a very informative breakdown of the Freemasonic origins of Zionism. He touches on the role played by Palmerston and the British ruling class in creating this movement in the 19th century to the detriment of historic Judaism, the Jewish people, and the peoples of the Middle East.

I myself have to check myself and remind myself that the Jewish people have been victimized, brainwashed, and bamboozled by these evil demons. 

The symbolism of Israel and the story of the Bible have been utilized by Freemasons with great success in the West, and also in the Muslim world. 

Let's not forget that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Masonic organization. The mother organization of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and all these terrorist offshoots is rooted in Masonry. 

Netanyahu can claim all he wants that he financed Hamas. Very well, good for him, that's counterinsurgency politics 101. 

Staging the October 7 attacks isn't high level realpolitik but basic police tactics. After police commit a murder they plant evidence at the crime scene to lay blame on the deceased victim. It's the same thing Mossad does with the Palestinians. 

These creatures aren't genius criminals.

It wasn't Mossad who created Hamas. They have the Masons to thank for that. It wasn't Mossad who brought the Ayatollahs to power. That was the work of the CIA and MI6. When they found out the Shah had cancer they threw his ass to the curb.

Netanyahu can boast all he wants. Let him boast.

But give credit where credit is due. Netanyahu is not some evil mastermind. He plays the role of a bossman, pointing fingers and giving lectures, but when real war came to his house this year he hid like a rat. 

That's all he is. A big fat rat.

His masters are the same.

The Question of Zionism And Its True Origins + The Strange Persistence of Ukrainian Nazis

Is Zionism an Anglo-Germanic-Protestant-Occult project or a Jewish-Nationalist-Socialist-Rothschilds one? 

We must remember that Nazi Germany politically partnered with the Zionists throughout the 1930s to intimidate and drive out well-established European Jews into the Holy Land and the ancient lands of Israel. 

It doesn't matter what religion, ideology, or race theory that Hitler professed, what matters is his regime assisted in the creation of modern Israel. The Zionists were using the Nazi's race-based political program to achieve their own ends; to settle Israel with successful and wealthy Jews, demonize Europeans, and manufacture an atmosphere of distrust between Jews and Europe.

Only after the usefulness of the Nazis expired and they lost the war came the accusation of the Holocaust, which served as a political and moral justification for the State of Israel and gave it spiritual legitimacy in the eyes of the global public at the time.

But let's leave aside the question of the Holocaust. It obviously didn't happen. There's no evidence for it. But let's just dig deeper into the ties between the Nazis and the Zionists.

How close were these two sides politically and ideologically? Were they talking behind the scenes? Were they coordinating even before Hitler came to power in 1933? Were they only interested in finding common ground about the emigration of European Jews to Israel? Or were there other issues that they mutually agreed upon?

This legacy is important and has to be understood because it is alive today, especially in Ukraine, where Jews in political and military leadership are sending Ukranian Nazi youth to their doom against a Russia that is now supposedly Orthodox Christian and left behind all traces of its Communist ideology.

Why would Nazis fight against Christians? I thought their whole purpose was to defeat Communism and the Soviets. What has made these Ukranian Nazis hate Russia so much? Historical grievances can only motivate one so much.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of these Nazi soldiers are given drugs to dull their critical faculties and turn them into killing machines. We saw that with ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria. 

Hate and drugs can be a powerful combination for any soldier, whatever his/her background or designated enemy.

The Protestant Prophecies: Britain, Prussia, And Palestine In 1840

Related:

Squaring The Circle In Syria For Two Centuries.

The Return of The Ottomans? Syria's Collapse And The Coming Pogroms.

The Evolution of Political Football In Jerusalem.

Political Intrigue In The Holy Land Two Centuries Ago.

Power Follows Justice, or How The British Supplanted The Ottomans.

Jonathan Parry - Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East.

Another Excerpt From Jonathan Parry's "Promised Lands" - On The Geopolitical Value of Cyprus And Egypt.

An excerpt from, "Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East" by Jonathan Parry, Princeton University Press, 2022, Pg. 227 - 232:

By June 1841, Friedrich Wilhelm's aspirations had coalesced into a new and more plausible plan: a joint Anglican-Lutheran bishopric of Jerusalem. This would symbolise the fellowship between the two Protestant churches, would give them crucial political weight and institutional presence at Jerusalem, and would allow them to take the fight to papal missionary activitv in the East and eventually to Islam. It would provide Middle Eastern Protestantism with a recognised episcopal head who could reach out to other Churches, would give weight to the Anglo-German LJS mission, and would encourage German Lutherans to appreciate the merits of episcopalianism. The as yet unbuilt Anglican church in Jerusalem would be a purified temple for a "national and universal Christian foundation." Friedrich Wilhelm IV sent Bunsen to Britain that month to persuade the archbishop of Canterbury of the idea. 

He needed no persuasion. Archbishop Howley, and Bishop Blomfield of London, had already been thinking hard about a bishop for the Middle East. This was part of their concern to build the Church's global role, which was threatened both by the papacy and by internal challenges. At home, it was under pressure from Dissent and from the Liberal government's preference for loosening the Church-state partnership after the pluralist constitutiona reforms of 1828-32. In the 1830s, legislation was introduced making some of the historic revenues of the Church of England in Ireland and in Canada available for the needs of the non-Anglican majorities there. So the Church was now very conscious of the need to rely on its own resources to raise its global profile. The episcopal structure was weak in the colonies, and Howley and Blomfield did not trust voluntary missionary activity to spread sound religious doctrine there. In the course of the 183os, the diocesan structure in Canada, India, and Australasia was extended, but this was known to be just the first step needed in a strategy of stronger local organisation throughout the empire, headed by bishops. Howley and Blomfield began a major campaign for colonial bishoprics, building on the public mood in Britain in favour of Church defence, which was reviving the fortunes of the Conservative party. Ashley, Lindsay, and the young William Gladstone were among the Tories active in it. This led to the founding of new bishoprics in New Zealand, Tasmania, Guiana, and Antigua in 1841-42.85 An indication of the growth of Anglican enthusiasm for global evangelising activities at this time is shown by the increase in the annual voluntary income of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which had been £1,459 in 1821 and £7,402 in 1831, but rose to £44,318 in 1841 and £84,909 in 1851. The income of the CMS, which had benefited much more from the enthusiasm of the 1810s and 1820s, rose from £39,814 in 1832 to £90,305 in 1842. Average yearly LJS income was £12,687 in the 1820s and £30,020 in the 1840s.

Blomfield definitely intended this global mission to include the original Christian heartlands of the Middle East, where Anglican activity lagged so far behind that of Roman Catholics. His appeal of April 1840 for new bishoprics envisaged the day when the Church of England would "be recognised, by all the nations of the earth, as the stronghold of pure religion, and the legitimate dispenser of its means of grace: and will be a chosen instrument in the hands of God for purifying and restoring the other branches of Christ's Holy Catholic Church." In October 1838, Ashley had already floated the idea of a bishopric at Jerusalem, linked to Malta and the existing Anglican chaplaincies around the Mediterranean.

In July 1840, just after the signing of the Treaty of London, Howley and Blomfield sent George Tomlinson on a mission to the Levant. He was Howley's former chaplain and secretary of the Church's senior outreach society, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK). The three men hoped to build on increased public interest in the Ottoman Empire, and to create connections with the historic Churches of the East. After Tomlinson returned, they proposed that an Anglican bishop, based in Malta, should coordinate this activity around the Mediterranean, and in April 1841 Blomfield connected this idea with the colonial bishopric campaign. In December 1840, Howley pressed the government to secure toleration for Christians as well as Jews in the Ottoman Empire, particularly so that the ancient Churches of the East could maintain their independence from aggressive Roman missions. One of the particular objects of Tomlinson's journey was to make contact with the bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church and to urge more cooperation in the circulation of printed Bibles in Greek, Arabic, Turkish, and Armenian throughout the region. This would be facilitated by the current political understanding between Britain and Russia. Tomlinson argued that, as Anglicans could not beat the Greek Church's local strength among Orthodox laymen, they should work with it: "the only rational---and, as it appears to me, the most Christian---way of improving their spiritual condition, is to support and improve their own institutions."

So when Bunsen arrived in London in late June, he found that the Church hierarchy was very keen on his idea of a Protestant bishopric of Jerusalem. The Germanophile Queen Victoria shared this view, and terms were settled. Nomination to the post would alternate between Britain and Prussia, but the archbishop would be able to veto the Prussian nominee. A Lutheran candidate would have to receive Anglican ordination. The government passed the legislation necessary to allow a bishop of the Church to minister in a foreign country and to be a foreign subject. The king of Prussia gave half the endowment necessary to pay the bishop's stipend; the British portion was raised by voluntary means, superintended by four lay trustees.

The territorial remit of the Bishopric of Jerusalem was agreed to be the heartlands of Christianity in 500 CE: Palestine, the rest of Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia. So it complemented a Malta-based Mediterranean bishopric, which was created in 1842. The latter had to be called the Bishopric of Gibraltar since the British government had already acknowledged a Roman Catholic bishopric of Malta, but its Malta base signified that its jurisdiction would reach through the eastern Mediterranean, as far as the British embassy in Constantinople and the consular chapel in Smyrna. It therefore fell to the bishop of Gibraltar to liaise with the Greek Church around the shores of the Aegean, in the way that Tomlinson had foreshadowed in his 1840 report. Unsurprisingly, Tomlinson was appointed to the Gibraltar see in 1842, by Peel whose children he had tutored.

The Jerusalem episcopate was founded on the principle of cooperation with the Syrian, Nestorian, and Coptic Churches---rather than challenging the authority of their patriarchs, which the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem did. The bishop was also told to be on good terms with the Greek Church, and Howler appointed George Williams as the bishop's chaplain in that particular hope. Howley's official "Statement of Proceedings" described the bishopric's object as to secure "relations of amity [with] the ancient Churches of the East, strengthening them against the encroachments of the see of Rome, and preparing the way for their purification." By setting forth pure Christianity in Jerusalem for the first time, it also promised to help the "desultory efforts" so far made for the conversion of Jews. "The hand of Providence" could be seen in the recent events in the Ottoman Empire that had allowed Britain and Prussia to open a door for "the advancement of the Saviour's kingdom, and for the restoration of God's ancient people to their spiritual birthright."

In other words, the Jerusalem bishopric represented both main facets of Protestant religious interest---most immediately, to reach out to the Churches of the East, but also to promote the welfare of Jews in whatever ways might become practicable. In Jerusalem itself, however, its creation strengthened the impression that the aim of Britain and Prussia was to play the game of sectarian Christian rivalry. The Spanish minister assumed they would press for a separate millet for Protestants. The French consul in Beirut feared that Britain would attempt a protectorate over the Maronites. When the first bishop, Michael Solomon Alexander, a converted Prussian Jew who was professor of Hebrew at King's College London, arrived in early 1842, he faced so much antagonism from the existing denominations that Hugh Rose, the consul-general in Syria, had to get the Ottoman government to guarantee his protection. "All are more or less, I regret to say, against him." Aberdeen, the new Tory foreign secretary, was conscious of the need to pacify the other powers and the Ottomans over his appointment. In May 1842, he reminded Alexander, who was known to have a particular interest in the conversion of Jews, that he was forbidden to proselytise. His jurisdiction was merely spiritual, so he could not offer British protection to any Ottoman subject whom he might convert. In any case, Alexander could not reach out to the European Jews, since Russia, through Bardaki and Bazili, continued to protect them- and Bazili was upgraded to be consul-general in Syria in 1849. In the autumn of 1842, three Russian Jews who were being tried by Bardaki for an offence wanted to escape his jurisdiction. They took refuge with the LJS missionary Ewald, claiming to be interested in Protestantism. Bazili demanded that they be handed back; Young supported his request. Alexander refused to do so, but eventually had to give in. Relations between Young and Alexander never recovered, and Rose had to make clear to the latter that to give asylum to Jews who were subject to Russian authority violated international law.

In January 1844, Young lashed out at religious people in Britain who imagined that his role as consul in Jerusalem was "to shape a course in order to meet the views of a popular reading of Prophecy" about Jewish restoration. They needed to "regard the actual condition of these Countries" and understand "the real position and wants of their present inhabitants," or else they would damage Britain's cause, and the Jews, by stirring up hostility from Latins and Greeks. When Alexander died suddenly in November 1845, the LJS mission in Jerusalem had only made thirty-one converts. There was now a clear gulf between its aspirations and the priorities of the British government. When Thomas Tully Crybbace travelled from Stirling to London to advocate the return of the Jewish nation to Palestine, he was drily told by the head of the Foreign Office that this matter did not come "under [our] cognizance."

The British government continued to try to uphold Jewish rights in more practical ways. In April 1841, at Ponsonby's suggestion, Palmerston issued a circular to British consuls in the empire that they should watch for cases of oppression or injustice to Jews and report them to local authorities and to Constantinople. He reminded them that in the Edict of Gülhane the Porte had pledged to protect the legal rights of all its subjects; moreover, the sultan had issued a special firman guaranteeing Jewish civil rights after his meeting with Montefiore in November 1840. Palmerston had also wanted to get special assurances from the Porte for European Jews settling in Palestine, because he thought that they would not otherwise risk their capital. However, Ottoman ministers (and Ponsonby) had argued that that there was no evidence that this was required, and that it would create awkward precedents and tensions. In fact, there was hardly any sign of European capital investment.

Bishop Alexander's clash with the Russians also further delayed the attempt to build the Protestant church in Jerusalem. Despite the lack of permission for construction, a foundation stone had been laid, but then local complaints prevented further digging. In February and August 1841, Palmerston got Ponsonby to press the matter at the Porte, finding it difficult to understand how, "at a moment when the whole of Syria has so lately been restored to the Sultan by the powerful interposition of Great Britain, so small a favour as this could be refused to the British Government upon grounds of a pedantic adherence to Mahomedan doctrines." Construction began again, but permission was still unforthcoming. After the affair of the Russian Jews, the local governor pointedly stopped the work in January 1843.

As sectarianism increased, the Ottomans were becoming more adept at playing the powers off against one another. Other European powers felt the need to set up consulates in Jerusalem: Prussia in 1842, France and Sardinia in 1843. Moreover, in 1842, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch sent a delegation to Russia to seek material and moral support against intensified Catholic and Protestant missionary activity in the region. As a result, an archimandrite, Uspenski, was sent on a tour of Syria and Palestine in 1843-44 to find ways of strengthening the Orthodox position. In 1845, one visitor to Jerusalem observed that "in a paltry, inland, eastern town, without trade or importance of any kind, sit the five consuls of the great European powers, looking at each other, it is difficult to say why or wherefore."

Bishop Alexander's personal history gave him a particular concern with the Jews of Palestine. However, for many churchmen at home, the primary anxiety about the East continued to be the threat from Roman Catholicism. This led to Britain becoming entangled with both the Druze and the Nestorians. In each case, the original cause was the zeal of local American Protestant missionaries.