|The Facts Behind the
Overthrow of the Ottoman Sultaanateby Muhammad Rafeeq
24 August 2007
This article is also available in MS Word format here:
Much has been written on this subject and most of the evidence is a matter of public knowledge, however this article has been written to give links and sources for some of the proofs behind the claims. Also, this article aims to demonstrate some of the attempts to re-write history in an attempt to shift blame from the real villains behind the revolution.
BackgroundPerhaps the most famous name associated with the Young Turk revolution is that of Emanuel Caraso (sometimes spelled Carasso and the family eventually adopted the spelling Karasu). He was a Sephardic Jew from Salonica (1862-1934) and by profession a lawyer. Wrongly described as the founder of the Macedonia Rissorta Lodge in Salonica by some, he was in fact promoted to Grandmaster of the said Lodge in the early 1890s.(Given the Lodge was granted a charter by the Grand Orient of Italy in 1864, through its Istanbul “Italia” lodge, it was impossible for Caraso to be the lodge founder.)
A system known as ‘Capitulations’ had been effected by the Ottoman Sultaan, Mehmet IV, which gave amnesty to the houses of foreign nationals from being searched by his police force. Caraso, as Grandmaster for the Italian Grand Orient in Salonica, was able to offer the use of the Lodges under his control, as meeting houses for what became the Young Turk movement. Under this diplomatic immunity the Young Turk conspirators were able to meet to discuss the overthrow of the Sultaan and how to bring about the Armenian genocide (see Example 2 below for this point).
It is interesting to note that the Ottoman Sultaan even had his police attempt to steal the conspirators documents held within the Macedonia Rissorta Lodge, but they were exposed as the culprits and forced to hand the documents back.
Caraso was also one of three-man Young Turk delegation that made the formal proclamation that the Sultaan had been ‘dethroned’, thereby completing the overthrow phase of the revolution.
In all respects Caraso was the overt and apparent mastermind and facilitator of the Young Turk (a.k.a Ittihad and C.U.P.) conspiracy. This fact is denied by none.
Other Relevant Members of the Revolution
These members are relevant only in the sense of this article either because of their public admissions or because of their helping us to find the real powers behind the Young Turk movement. There are of course far more players than this short list, but they do not help to lead us to the puppet masters.
The overthrow of the Sultaan resulted in the establishment of new more secular nationalist government, under Kemal Ataturk. Of course, Ataturk himself was born in Salonica and was from a Donme(h) family of Jews. His embracing of Freemasonry occurred in 1909 and even the wikipedia acknowledges under its “list of Freemasons” that Ataturk was a member of the Rissorta Lodge (Number 80) of Salonica. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons) See under Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
• Rafik Bey
The Young Turk, Refik Bey, gave an interview to the Paris newspaper Le Temps, on the 20th of August 1908, where he 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.”
• Mehmet Cavit
The author Alexandre Jevakhoff has written in his book “Kemal Ataturk: Les chemins de l’Occident” (Paris, 1989) the following comments about Cavit:
“Cavit was a freemason – a member of a secret society with strong foreign links… The fact that he came from a Salonica donme family, and was called ‘Jew Cavit’ by his enemies, did not endear him to backwoodsmen among Mustafa (Ataturks) supporters.”
Also, Professor M. Evrum Ehrlich in his article “Sabbatean Messianism as Proto Secularism” said of this personality:
“Mehmet Cavit Bey (1875-1926) was one of the most significant Donme political figures. He was active in the revolution as a highly articulate editor of a tabloid and professor of finance and was three times Finance Minister of Modern Turkey until his execution for his alleged role in the assassination attempt of Ataturk . It is believed that Cavit Bey was an ardent Zionist and saw the advantages for Turkey in the Jewish settlement of Palestine.”
The real perpertators of this crime are still attempting to cover their tracks. A selection of these is given below, so they can be recognised and discounted, should you come across them.
Example 1: A comparatively recent article by Jeffrey Steinberg, Allen Douglas, and Rachel Douglas which appeared in the Executive Intelligence Review of 23 September 2005 and is hosted on the EIR site at:
The main idea behind this false version of history is to try and blame the British government or the Establishment, for being the secret forces behind the Young Turk movement. Specifically the article cites the British Monarchy/British East India Company as being under some form of socio-political threat because of the popularity of the developing American system of government. These writers have tried to pin the blame for the orchestration of whole revolution on Lord Palmerston.
As is common with these history re-writes, many of the actual facts have to be acknowledged. Therefore this article makes no denial of the fact that Vladimir Jabotinsky was employed by Caraso as the editor of his newspaper, The Young Turk. The article also acknowledges that ‘Parvus’, real name Alexander Israel Helphand, was also employed by Caraso as the economics editor of the Young Turk journal, The Turkish Homeland.
The roles of these two Ashkenazi Jews in the Bolshevik revolution is well known. It must be remembered that the Ashkenazi banker Jacob Schiff boasted on his deathbed that he had spent something like US$20 million on that revolution, as organiser and facilitator.
The simple fact that these Zionist agents turned up in the Young Turk revolution under Caraso, is proof enough that the British Establishment were not invloved in the planning or execution of the revolution. The British powers were not in a position to give orders to men like Jabotinsky and Parvus.
Probably the most important false trail in this article is the claim that Caraso actually founded the masonic lodge that the revolution was run out of and that in turn that lodge had a ‘forerunner’ which was founded by Giuseppi Mazzini. Through this false link the authors of the article are trying to place the lodge and its activities under the control of the British establishment. However, it is possible to find the true identities of the forces behind the revolution by examining who really gave Caraso his orders.
For purposes of clarity, the non-involvement of the British powers can be easily established through several small examples, as given below.
Firstly, one of the most important British assets in Turkey prior, during and after the Young Turk revolution was Gerald Henry Fitzmaurice (biography atwww.fitzmaurice.info/dragoman.html). Fitzmaurice was absolutely convinced that the revolution was an italian influenced Jewish freemasonic conspiracy. The note written by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) to Captain Basil Liddel Hart, who was head of British Military Intelligence to the Middle East during the First World War, is incredible. It can be found at the bottom of the page at the above link. Lawrence himself admits that the entire Young Turk movement was 50% crypto Jew and 95% masonic and furthermore that Fitzmaurice as a Roman Catholic rebuffed every advance made by the Young Turks.
Secondly, the British Ambassador to Turkey, Sir Gerard Lowther (biography athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Gerard_Lowther,_1st_Baronet) wrote many reports on the Young Turk situation to the Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey (biography athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Grey,_1st_Viscount_Grey_of_Fallodon). In his report of May 1910, Lowther called referred to the C.U.P. as the “the Jew Committee of Union and Progress” and he also reported that ” liberty, equality, fraternity), words drawn from the French Revolution, were both the slogan of the Italian Freemasons (meaning Caraso’s Italian chartered lodge in Salonica) and of the Young Turkey movement….” (See Late Ottoman Rule Over Palestine in the Journal for Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, January 1999 for references to the report)
Thirdly, Lawrence led the British campaign against the Turks during the First World War. If the British establishment were really pulling the strings behind the Young Turk revolution, there would have been no need for the British to go to war against them.
Example 2: Attempts have been made to somehow ‘distance’ the Young Turk movement from the Armenian deaths and these take two forms; one is to deny that a murders occurred and that the claim is made that the Armenian deaths were only casualties of war, disease and starvation etc; the second, and most relevant from the persepective of genocide, is to try and deny that the deaths were in any premeditated, thereby ruling out the term genocide or holocaust. These writes often also claim that the total number of Armenian deaths were much lower than the estimated 1-1.5 million.
A good example of this type of writing is “Negative Factors in Turco-Armenian Relations” by Salahi Sonyel.
There is no doubt that a considerable amount of strife had developed between the Sultaan and sections of the Armenian. It is even believed that one Armenian terrorist group had made an assassination attempt on the Sultaan in 1905. There is plenty of evidence that suggests these seditious groups were being encouraged to revolt by the British, Germans and the Russians, all of whom saw nationalistic advantages in being allied with the Armenian cause. These forces encouraged various Armenian groups to protest and undertake militancy, all in the name of Armenian independence from Ottoman rule. The miitant elements even engaged in direct conflict with the Ottoman military forces and deaths, at times running into thousands, occurred on both sides.
These Armenian separatists supported the Young Turk revolution, believing that after the revolution they would be at least granted greater autonomy. However, the Young Turks recognised the Armenian separatists as a useful ally to help them gain control, but planned pan-Turkish nationalism for the medium term and there was no way that they were going to agree to further autonomy.
Within a few years after the revolution the new young Turk government had begun a series of purges against the Armenians, initially with a view to bringing them into line. Of course this hrdline approach only served to stiffen the resolve of the Armenian separatists and this resulted in the Young Turk government bringing about the wholesale slaughter of Armenians. Even the re-writes such as Sonyel admit that around 400,000 Armenian deaths occurred at the hands of the Young Turk government.
In 1909 the Young Turk forces (by now the CUP government) murdered 20,000-30,000 Armenians at Adana and afterwards they immediately disclaimed responsibility and publicly tried to blame the atrocity on forces loyal to the deposed Sultaan. History has demonstrated that the Young Turks were undoubtedly responsible for the particular mass murder. (See http://www.armenian-genocide.org/adana.html)
The only remaining question is the matter of premeditation, had the young Turks actually planned this genocide in advance? The Turkish author Mevlan Z. Rifat and his book “Inner Folds of the Ottoman Revolution” (1929) seems to be much quoted on the web as one early source claiming premeditation. It has also been claimed that the Jewish writer David Morrison in his book “Heroes, Antiheroes And The Holocaust” (1995) has stated that:
“The evidence is overwhelming that the massacre of the Armenians was a deliberate, planned genocide. The Young Turks allied themselves with Germany and used World War I as a cover for their slaughter of Armenians… As did the Nazis in World War II, the Turks used their intended victims as slave laborers building a trans-Turkish railway for German business interests.”
However, there are even more reliable sources than these. Vahakn N. Dadrian in his book “The History of the Armenian Genocide” (2003) makes the following observations and quotations in Chapter 10 The 1909 Twin Adana Massacres:
“At the 1910 Ittihadist (CUP) Congress at Saloniki, the secret discussions outside the formal sittings revolved around the plan for the coercive homogenization of Turkey, euphemistically called 2the complete Ottomanization of all Turkish subjects.2British Ambassador Lowther observed that ‘to them “Ottoman” evidently means “Turk” and their present policy of “Ottomanization” is one of pounding the non-Turkish elements in a Turkish mortar’3
Surveying the thrust of these decisions, the British Foreign Office in a report employed the words ‘to level’, with the forecast that ‘the Young Turks will endeavour to extend the “levelling” system to the Kurds and the Arabs’4….
The French Consul at Saloniki informed his Foreign Ministry in Paris that the Young Turks decided to emply force and violence, including massacres, as a last resort for the resolution of nationality conflicts.5
All these disclosures are confirmed by the Dean of Turkish historians who stated that, weary of the protracted Turko-Armenian conflict, Ittihad (CUP) would turn to the army to resolve the conflict by a force of arms. 6”
It is also worth noting that no less a person than the Jew, Henry Morgenthau sr, who was the US Ambassador to Turkey, (biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Sr.)wrote about the same evil plans and machinations in his reports back to the US and also in his book Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story (1919) about the Armenian Genocide. The re-writers have attempted to belittle the statements made by Morgenthau as ‘black propaganda’, including Sonyel quoted above. Yet the basis for all of Morgenthau’s claims are all upheld as correct by the Dean of Turkish historians. So it would appear that Sonyel and his ilk are in fact the real ‘black propaganda’.
The Real Trails
So where do we need to look to find the thread that will bring us to the real powers behind these Young Turk scenes? We will start to move in the right direction if we go back to Caraso and his position of Lodge grandmaster. How does one become grandmaster of a Lodge, it is not the type of role that gets advertised in the job centre. The answer is that freemasons are supposed to ‘work their way up in the craft’ and advance from spiritual stage to spiritual stage. As they grow they are raised in rank and degree. Each degree has its own practices, known as rites. A major Lodge with several thousand members would have masons at all different levels (degrees) but there is only ONE master mason for the Lodge.
Therefore, for Caraso to have reached the position of Lodge grandmaster, the Lodge which granted and therefore OWNS the charter for his Macedonia Rissorta Lodge, is the Lodge that will have given him this appointment. In this case the charter was granted by the Grand Orient of Italy, through and not by the Istanbul Italia Lodge. This means that the grandmaster of the Istanbul Italia Lodge would have been at a similar rank to the granmaster of the Macedonia Rissorta. Therefore in this case ‘head office’ in Turin must have appointed Caraso.
We now have to ask the question, who was the power behind the Grand Orient Lodge of Italy at that time? We should start by looking at who was the founder of the Grand orient Lodge and who was its first grandmaster. The answer is surprising, in that we find the Lodge was established by no less a person than Napoleon Bonaparte, at the time that he conquered Italy. We find that after founding a chivalric order called The Order of the Iron Crown, Napoleon and his advisers continued.
“Furthermore, a Grand Orient Masonic lodge was founded on 20 June, 1805; Eugène was its Grand Master and Marescalchi the Grand Conservator. In the kingdom, for certain higher levels of responsibility, membership of Free Masonry was almost obligatory. On the other hand, a modern administration had been formed, and the young Italian agents (average age of under forty in), were soon integrated.”
(See www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/biographies/files/marescalchi_melzi.asp for the fuller story)Summing up this state of affairs we find that the charter for the Grand Orient of Italy (in Turin) was in fact granted its charter by the Grand Orient of France (in Paris). The first grandmaster named above, Eugene, is in fact Napoleon’s stepson, Eugene Beauharnais(biography at www.napoleonguide.com/soldiers_eugene.htm). The appointment of Eugene was made by the grandmaster of the Grand Orient of France.
At this time, 1805, no Jews were accepted into Lodges anywhere in Europe. In fact the first Jew to be accepted into any significant position within European Lodge, was a man by the name of Isaac Adolphe Cremieux (biography athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Cr%C3%A9mieux). He was very much seen as an assimilated Jew by his contemporaies and as a result managed to gain access and prominence in many important french institutions. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica however, his crowning achievement was in freemasonry.
“Adolphe Cremieux was not only a freemason from his early youth but in 1869 became the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Scottish Rite in Paris”.
Cremieux was the first Jewish grandmaster of a Grand (charter issuing) Lodge, and one which was international, being the charter issuer and therefore owner of several Grand Orient Lodges, including of course the Italian.
The Return of Mehmet Cavit
These apparently separate pieces come together when we re-visit Mehmet Cavit at the time of his death. Alexandre Jevakhoff further informs us that when Ataturk had decided on the death penalty for Cavit in 1926, for an alleged attempt on Ataturk’s life, an important aspect of Cavit comes to life.
“He had connections with French financial circles. And both the French government and the house of Rothschild appealed to Ankara on his behalf.”
Cavit was openly a zionist and he had major connections into Paris, so high that the French government intervened for his life.
Who could this connection have been? Given the year was 1926 there were only 9 members of the Rothschild dynasty that would have been of an adult age and of them only one was openly a rabid zionist, namely Edmond James de Rothschild. (Biography athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_James_de_Rothschild). It is worth noting that his wife was Adelheid and that she was born in Naples, given the importance of the Italian freemasonic influence.
Given that Caraso made his own personal fortune AFTER the revolution of 1908, the question arises as to who put the money up for this entire operation? The answer lies in the FACT that Rafik Bey was present in Paris in 1908 and therefore able to give an interview to Le Temps about his activities. He was part of the zionist cabal that was working over and through the Young Turk movement, receiving instructions and financing directly from Edmond James de Rothschild, who supported the movement as part of Rothschild’s plan to acquire the land of Palestine.