As the vote on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum looms, Australian dissidents and other supporters of White Australia should also begin casting their eyes to the next item on the left-wing constitutional amendment agenda: a second referendum on whether Australia’s constitutional ties to the British monarchy should be severed. Prime Minister Albanese publicly poured cold water on a republic move in the days after the death of Queens Elizabeth II, stating that the federal Labor government has no plan to pursue a referendum on the monarchy within the current term of office. Behind the scenes however, moves are being made to prepare the groundwork for another referendum push. The result of the failed referendum in 1999 has shown once again that a democratic vote in support of a change desired by progressives is binding, but a democratic vote against is merely a temporary setback to be overcome at a later date.

In June 2022, just months before the death of the Queen, Federal MP Matt Thistlethwaite was appointed to the newly created position of Assistant Minister for the Republic, a role dedicated to officially campaigning for an Australian republic on behalf of the government. The Reserve Bank of Australia decided, without much outcry, that King Charles III would not replace Elizabeth II on future Australian $5 banknotes. Then in October 2022, the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), a nationwide campaign group first formed in 1991, elected a fresh group of directors, led by former soccer player and refugee activist Craig Foster.[1] The stalwarts of the ARM appear invigorated by the scandals of Princes Harry and Andrew and the passing of Elizabeth (and with her the weakening of the popularity of the institution she represented for 70 years), which has presented the perfect opportunity to renew the fight.

How should patriotic Australians approach the question of a republic? Certainly the debate is older than the formation of the country itself and there are no hard or fast rules on whether a defender of White Australia must necessarily be a Republican or a Monarchist. The recurrent split down the centre of pro-White activism in Australia over the years has always been between two broad camps. On the one side are those who favour a nativist republic and look towards an Australian ethnogenesis and a new national identity that has, with geographical distance and the arrival of non-British White migrants, evolved away from its strict Anglo-Celtic origins. On the other are those who side with the monarchy and highlight the “necessity of Britishness” and British race patriotism in the construction and maintenance of Australia’s identity, that Australia is but an extension of the history and culture of the British Isles.[2] Lest it get side-tracked by the above ethnicity debate, this essay contends only with how the broad racial principle or ideal of a White Australia (one that sits above questions of ethnicity) relates to a position on the republic question.

Delving into Australia’s pre-Federation history, in the latter days of the colonies it was republicanism which once found strong association with the burgeoning cause for White Australia. The first large swell of fervour for an Australian republic came in tandem with the workers strikes and the economic upheaval of the late nineteenth century that spurred the growth of a radical nationalist and socialist movement, one ultimately leading to the formation of the Australian Labor Party. Republicanism swam with a political current that clamoured for national manhood through some form of independence from the Crown, and was resolutely opposed to Chinese immigration and the importation of cheap Pacific Islander labourers. The fear that British imperial policy, in particular in matters affecting immigration, was no longer wholly in-line with the interests of native Australians was a common refrain.

Cartoon from The Bulletin, 1888: “The Imperial Connection” providing the access point for the Chinese migrant[3]

A series of republican riots hit Sydney in 1887 in the leadup to celebrations of Queens Victoria’s Golden Jubilee and the radical nationalist magazine The Bulletin raised the cry on July 2, 1887 with its editorial “Australia for the Australians!”, a credo that would soon appear on the masthead of the magazine until replaced with “Australia for the White Man” in 1908:

…all men who leave the tyrant-ridden lands of Europe for freedom of speech and right of personal liberty are Australians before they set foot on the ship which brings them hither. Those who fly from an odious military conscription; those who leave their fatherland because they cannot swallow the worm-eaten lie of the divine right of kings to murder peasants, are Australians by instinct—Australian and Republican are synonymous. No nigger, no Chinaman, no lascar, no kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour, is an Australian.[4]

A string of republican magazines and associations cropped up across the country proclaiming the inevitable arrival of a republic (a tradition continued to this day[5]), and among those enthralled by the fervour in Sydney was the young poet Henry Lawson, whose famous poem Song of the Republic appeared a few months later in The Bulletin:

Sons of the South, make choice between
(Sons of the South, choose true),
The Land of Morn and the Land of E’en,
The Old Dead Tree and the Young Tree Green,
The Land that belongs to the lord and the Queen,
And the Land that belongs to you.

A strong republican sentiment reared its head again in 1972 with the election of the Whitlam Labor government and reached a crescendo in the aftermath of the constitutional crisis known as the Dismissal. On November 11, 1975, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, the Queen’s representative in Australia, had taken the drastic step of using his reserve powers to dismiss the Whitlam Labor government from office, in order to resolve a parliamentary deadlock that had created a loss of supply. The exact role played by the British royal family in the constitutional crisis is still up for debate, but the Dismissal invigorated a generation of Labor leaders, leading to Prime Minister Paul Keating’s unsuccessful republic push in the 1990s.

What I seek to sketch out in this essay is that, given the current state of the country, defenders of White Australia — whether they be Anglo or Nativist — would be wise to hold to the side of constitutional monarchy, irrespective of any historical alignment republicanism has had with White Australia. Many Australian nationalists who considered the issue in the leadup to the 1999 referendum came to similar conclusions, but the situation has devolved further over the last quarter-century and calls for another stocktake of the nation of sorts.

This conclusion is not derived from any particular sentiment in favour of the British Monarchy itself or any delusional belief that the royal family is somehow a supporter of White Australia. Instead, it comes from the recognition of the fact that the current republic alterative on offer will leave the country worse off and is not being pursed on terms that are acceptable to the maintenance of the principle of White Australia. Should the political conditions of Australia change, it may well be that republicanism can, as it did in the nineteenth century, find co-existence with White Australia. Furthermore, should the monarchy itself expire in the UK, a republic may simply become an administrative necessity devoid of any symbolic change. But as it stands now, with the monarchy still firmly in place in the UK, an Australian republic is a poisoned chalice that should be spurned.

The Republic as Political Asset

Two key questions provide us the framework for making this decision. The first question to ask is a more technical one; will becoming a republic improve the Australian political system and/or make the defence of White Australia an easier task politically?

As modern-day monarchists often point out, history shows us that there is nothing axiomatically beneficial about casting aside a constitutional monarch and becoming a republic. It does not overnight turn your country into a more successful or cohesive nation, and there is strong reason to suggest that a constitutional monarchy is a more politically stable arrangement. In such countries, wilder democratic passions can find an outlet only in the legislature — a place where parliamentary convention, the need for compromise, and the presence of an opposition tends to temper the intensity of the demands of  voters — and ultimate power or the trappings of royal pomp and presidential status are always out of reach of an upstart despot or demagogue.

List the names of some of the most highly developed, peaceful and politically stable countries in the world — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia itself — and you will find they are all constitutional monarchies. Likewise, if you had to pick the most politicly divided and chaotically multi-racial countries in the West right now, you would have to pick the USA and France, the birthplaces of modern republicanism. Historical and modern-day tyrannies also tend to bear the name republic: the USSR, the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the People’s Republic of China. Of course, republics exist amongst the ranks of the highly developed, such as Iceland or Finland, though these tend to be parliamentary republics — recent converts to republicanism after long histories of monarchy, where the president is as ceremonial as a constitutional monarch and there is no real possibility of him or her coming into conflict with the legislature.

As regarding republicanism specifically in the defence of White Australia, the benefits also remain elusive. Historically, the racially conscious republicanism of the late nineteenth century quickly dissipated in favour of the realisation that national pride could peacefully co-exist with British imperial pride, and that White Australia was safer from Japan and the “rising tide of colour” within the Empire than without. Constitutional monarchy and the Westminster System of government turned out to be no significant impediment on the adoption of the White Australia Policy in 1901. The Policy was assented to over protests from the British government, and with the right government in charge again, it can be re-adopted by parliament just the same.

Nor is it possible to envisage how a republic could have succeeded in saving White Australia in the 1960s and 1970s where possession of a strong presidential republic failed to avert a similar outcome in America. Neither multiculturalism nor multiracialism were implemented in Australia via a democratic process that could have been opposed democratically. Instead, both outcomes were accomplished by stealth, in a form of elite (substantially Jewish) conspiracy carried out in the depths of the Australian bureaucracy, using “salami-slice” or “thin-edge-of-the-wedge” tactics that would have left voters in a hypothetical Australian republic just as much in the dark.

Furthermore, if the minimalist republican model presented to voters in 1999 had been implemented, a ceremonial position whereby a candidate would be exclusively chosen by the Prime Minister of the day, the Australian president would have no more power to arrest the current demographic situation than the Governor-General currently does. The new Australia Choice Model of a republic developed by the ARM for use in a new referendum would fare no better. Even if given significant executive powers, a president elected by the Australian people with a popular mandate to end multiculturalism would still be impotent against an oppositional legislature, or cause political chaos at best. Ultimately, in the Australian political system, power to affect Australia’s cultural and racial makeup lies with the legislature and hopes for a political revival of White Australia must be focused on that body alone.

The Republic as Symbolic Act

This leads us to the second and far more important question. If becoming a republic does not benefit White Australia in the sense of the country’s political structure, then benefits of its adoption lie solely in rhetoric or symbolism, with a cultural argument that puts forth a statement of Australia’s destiny. In that case, what is the current symbolic positioning for the creation of an Australian republic?

For the longest time, mainstream supporters of a republic defended it as an egalitarian patriotic cause allied with nationalism, and believed it symbolised a positive identity for Australia’s future, not a violent break with its British past. To them, a republic was the pronouncement of an Australia that wanted to show the world it was an independent nation-state that could now go along without the ties to the motherland. The direct British connection was seen as a colonial leftover, an obstacle to the development of a truly Australian national identity, and once cast aside, the country could pursue its own place in the world with a born-and-bred Australian, not a foreign monarch, occupying the role of head of state. The popular imagery of republican arguments was one of filial affection, a mutually beneficial departure from the home by a child that had now reached adulthood and wanted to function on its own terms, and the parent that knew at some point it had to let the child leave the nest in order to grow. Republicanism of this type is perfectly consistent with the principle of White Australia and offers no barrier, in symbolic terms, to its conservation and continuance.

This twentieth-century republican sentiment, prefigured by the writings of nationalist P.R. Stephensen in the 1930s and moulded later by prominent voices such as Donald Horne and Geoffrey Dutton[6], still held true for the majority of republic-supporting voters in the 1999 referendum, and was the main symbolic argument presented to the voting public by the campaign, but there was another type of sentiment at play then too. This alternative sentiment had germinated amongst the cultural revolutionaries in the 1960s but was still hidden in the background in the leadup to the referendum for fear of needlessly jeopardising the Yes vote. Though subtle, both nationalists and monarchists identified the link between Keating’s republicanism and the ascendant multiculturalist ideology which sought greater enmeshment in Asia and indigenous reconciliation.

In the years since, the “multicultural republic” sentiment has mutated beyond even the worst fears of patriots and has come to the fore to be the dominant positioning of republican sentiment in the country, the one publicly held by the leaders of the ARM and espoused by the media, academic and political elite who speak for the republican case. If the republic campaign is launched today, it is this sentiment, not the old one, that will drive the debate and animate the discussions of its supporters, and be the one that would ultimately carry a victory.

This is the republicanism borne not out of love for Australia, but out of hatred. A republicanism that, whilst retaining its original egalitarianism and desire for a local-born head of state, has almost nothing to do with national unity, patriotism, or a sense of pride in Australia and its unique history as a European country on the other side of the planet. Instead, it is driven by a destructive anti-White impulse, one that seeks to sever the ties with Britain as a way of immunising the country from the moral contagion of colonialism and slavery and all the other racial ills lain now at the foot of the British Empire and Western Civilisation as a whole. It is a republicanism borne out of rejection of Australia’s racial, political and cultural origins in Britain and wider Europe; articulated in the loathing of the fact that Australia’s head of state is an “old white man,” and the aggrieved realisation that unless multiple royals in the line of succession die early deaths, it will continue to be an old White man for at least the next 70 years.

Scenes from anti-monarchy protests held around the country in September 2022.  Republicanism has also become an intimate companion to the “indigenous sovereignty” dogma, which claims that the scattered nomadic tribes somehow possessed legal sovereignty over the Australian landmass prior to 1788.

In this form of self-flagellating republicanism, Australia’s inheritance from Britain is not something to cherish and value, but something to scorn or destroy. References are always made to the supposedly detrimental impact of the monarchy and the British connection on “first nations people”, and the words “modern” and “multicultural” are always present on the lips of these types of republicans, as it was when Minister for the Republic Matt Thistlethwaite recently appeared on the television program QandA:

But over the longer term, we see Australia as a mature, independent nation, making its own way in the world, reflecting our true multiculturalism, our unique culture and identity by having one of our own as our head of state in the future.[7]

Craig Foster, the leader of the ARM, appearing on the same program a few months earlier, went a step further and made the case that the push for the republic is an integral part of the “decolonisation” of Australia:

The answer for Australia is yes, and it has been for some time. And so, overwhelmingly, the research says that Australians are in favour of…decolonisation, really, and this is one part of it. That’s another part of it, right? Decolonisation of thinking and moving and walking together [8]

For academics and leading public intellectuals who speak on the debate[9], the issue has become overwhelmingly enmeshed with the ‘Black Armband’ view of history, arguing that a republic has no moral or symbolic weight unless it is combined with the push for indigenous reconciliation. For prominent republican scholar Mark Mckenna, this means that a republic has to be based on “an entirely different conception of Australian independence”, one that re-writes Australia’s history and grounds it not on British settlement but on “thousands of generations of Indigenous occupation”.[10] Another republican, Dennis Altman, contends that:

A republican movement that begins with the Uluru Statement from the Heart[11], rather than concerns about the symbolic links to the British crown, is a project more likely to capture the imagination of Australians.[12]

Elsewhere, Federal Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, a Pakistani-born migrant, has no fear in publicly declaring the British Monarchy to be a “racist, colonial institution”[13] and that the death of the Queen is a reminder for Australians of the urgency of becoming a republic and of carrying out reconciliation.

If the Australian republic is to be pursued for symbolic reasons, then the first act of symbolism that would be pursed under a new “decolonised” and “indigenously reconciled” Australian republic should be now clear to us — the first Australian president (or whichever title it ends up being) must not be an “old white man.” The person chosen will almost certainly be some sort of intersectionality concoction; perhaps a disabled Aboriginal woman, a transgender Asian man, or a Jewish Lesbian.

Whatever the eventual combination, this new president will be hailed as a symbol to the world that White Australia is on its way out and that the new multi-racial Australian republic has succeeded it. His or her speeches will surely be replete with references to the success of multiculturalism and a racially diverse Australia with 60,000 years of history, and the need to correct the alleged genocidal dispossession of First Nations people by Australia’s illegitimate founders. Would-be migrants from around the world will take it as a sign of a conquered nation where the White man is no longer in control of his destiny.

So long as Australia remains a constitutional monarchy and it is King Charles III, King William V, or King George VII that sit on the throne as Australia’s Head of State, White Australia is spared this indignity and this symbolic vanquishment. If Australia is to become a republic, it must be done on terms that are acceptable to and compatible with the nation’s foundational principle of White Australia, even if this means the “inevitable” republic must wait for another century.

[1] Also on the new executive board is long-time multicultural activist Vic Alhadeff, the former CEO of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies.

[2] See the article “Revolt of the Anglophiles” by Australia First Party leader Jim Saleam, where Alan James and The Occidental Observer contributor Andrew Fraser intervene in the comments section. A similar dynamic could be seen between Australia’s two most prominent patriotic historians, the republican Manning Clark and the constitutional monarchist Geoffrey Blainey — J. Saleam 2013, ‘The Revolt of the Anglophiles: The New Political Anglos & Frank Salter’s Deconstruction of Australianity’, Counter Currents, December 26, retrieved from: https://counter-currents.com/2013/12/the-revolt-of-the-anglophiles

[3] The Bulletin 1888, The Imperial Connection, Saturday 14 April, p.10, retrieved from: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-706788911/view?partId=nla.obj-706792675

[4] The Bulletin 1887, Australia for the Australians, Saturday 2 July, p.4, retrieved: from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-693332894/view?partId=nla.obj-746241180

[5] The notion of “inevitability” has ironically enough long since been a detriment to the republican case, with successive republicans citing the inevitability of an Australian republic as a reason why it is a change that should not be vigorously or urgently pursued – See: M. Mckenna 1996, The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia 1788–1996, Cambridge University Press, New York.

[6] Anti-racist undertones were present in the writings of both Horne and Dutton, though its impact on their republican arguments was limited.

[7] QandA – Words That Offend and Referendums 2023, television broadcast, 6 March, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, Australia, transcript retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2023-06-03/102019930

[8] QandA – The Year of the Voice 2023, television broadcast, 30 January, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, Australia, transcript retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2023-30-01/101868690

[9] See Jones. B T & McKenna. M 2013, Project republic: plans and arguments for a new Australia, (B. T. Jones & M. McKenna, Eds.), Black Incorporated, Collingwood, Australia.

[10] M. McKenna 2021, ‘The Stunted Country’, The Monthly, Dec 2021-Jan 2022 Issue, retrieved from: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2021/december/1638277200/mark-mckenna/stunted-country#mtr

[11] A statement of principles derived from the Final Report of the Referendum Council in 2015, which recommended a constitutional amendment to enshrine an ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament. ‘ The referendum council was co-chaired by Australia’s leading Jewish activist Mark Leibler.

[12] D. Altman 2022, ‘The republic debate is back (again) but we need more than a model to capture Australians’ imagination’, The Conversation, January 19, retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/the-republic-debate-is-back-again-but-we-need-more-than-a-model-to-capture-australians-imagination-175058

[13] M. Faruqi 2022, ‘There’s nothing to celebrate about the British Monarchy, The Greens Magazine, 25 March, retrieved from: https://greens.org.au/magazine/theres-nothing-celebrate-about-british-monarchy

The Sykes-Picot agreement map, signed in May 1916, with the proposed dividing line, once the Ottoman empire is defeated, between A = French zone, B = British zone (yellow, the «Jewish reservation in Palestine)

The Balfour declaration consists of 129 words, including the date and the polite formula, so why has it not fallen into oblivion, being little more than similar agreements between General Custer and Sitting Bull to define a reservation limit?

Take it easy, this short article is not meant to set the records straight for the sake of fairness, nor is it a matter of French willing to take credit for a Balfour-like declaration. There is nothing to be proud of there. But, the thing is, should the declaration of the unfortunate Jules Cambon have not fallen into oblivion — that is, if people were aware that a very similar declaration was made in two different countries in the same year within a five-month time period, perhaps the international wheeling and dealing of the Jews would become obvious to everyone.

Besides, the two declarations may have a common origin. The secret Sykes-Picot agreement signed on May 16, 1916 — in the same context of the First World war as the Balfour Declaration. From a French point of view, the link is crystal clear: while it was Jules Cambon who made a declaration similar to the Balfour Declaraion, it was his younger brother, Paul Cambon, who assisted Picot during the negotiations with Sykes, and their project was colonial in nature, not Zionist.

I. We know the English version of the Balfour declaration:

It was meant to thank the chemist Chaim Weizmann  – who would later be the first president of Israel for a crucial discovery he made for the Royal Navy;  according to Wikipedia:

While serving as a lecturer in Manchester Weizmann became known for discovering how to use bacterial fermentation to produce large quantities of acetone.  Acetone was used in the manufacture of cordite explosive propellants critical to the Allied war effort. Winston Churchill became aware of the possible use of Weizmann’s discovery in early 1915, and David Lloyd George, as Minister of Munitions, joined Churchill in encouraging Weizmann’s development of the process. The importance of Weizmann’s work gave him favour in the eyes of the British Government; this allowed Weizmann to have access to senior Cabinet members and utilise this time to represent Zionist aspirations.

One of these senior members was none other than Sir Arthur Balfour, who took over Churchill as First Lord (i.e. The head of the Royal Navy), and as such, equally aware of the importance of the Weizmann contribution to the fleet.

Dr. Chaim Weizmann invented a fermentation process that converted starch — a poly-sugar readily available from corn and potatoes — into acetone and butyl alcohol, facilitated by a bacteria, Clostridium acetobutylicum, that Dr. Weizmann had previously isolated.

But why should the United Kingdom care about the fate of Palestine whilst engaged in a struggle with its survival at stake?

II. We also know the Benjamin Freedman theory:

The Balfour declaration was the result of bargaining between Great Britain and American Jews, the latter pledging to make use of their influence on the US government and public to push them into war in exchange for Palestine, we refer to the speech by Freedman to the Marine cadets in 1974:

…when Germany was winning the war, the Jews were very happy, because they didn’t want Russia to come out the winner, with France and England, because they thought it would be tougher for the Jews in Russia. So, they were all pro-German. What happened? When the Germans trotted out the submarines, … General Haig, in London, warned the English, “We have less than two week’s food supply for the whole nation of 55,000,000 people.”… So, England was offered a Peace Treaty by Germany. … It was on the desk of the British War Cabinet, ready to be signed. … What happened? The Khazar Jews in New York, Washington, led by Brandeis, made this promise through Fleischman & Sockloff in London. They went to the British War Cabinet and they said, “You don’t have to make peace—which is tantamount to surrender. We can show you how you can win the war, if, when you defeat Germany, and carve up the Ottoman Empire (or Turkey) you will give us Palestine.

This version is not flawless since it doesn’t fit the chronology of events; the Balfour declaration is dated November 2, 1917. However, by this date, the transfer of American troops to Europe was already well underway, the declaration of war by the United States on Germany itself dating back to April 6, 1917.

Of course, we could just say that we shouldn’t worry about getting an exact chronology. It is enough to say that by the end of 1917, England had other fish to fry and that this Balfour declaration doesn’t make sense except for the bargain Freedman was hinting at.

III – But we have better than that now: the French Jewish version:

On June 4, 1917, Jules Cambon, General Secretary at the Quai d’Orsay, published an open letter to Nahum Sokolov, representative of the World Zionist Organization in France:

You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine.You consider that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.

The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies.

I am happy to give you herewith such assurance

Cambon letter — Wikipedia

Two top French diplomat: left, Paul Cambon who took part in the Sykes-Picot negotiations signed on May 16, 1916, and right, his elder brother, Jules Cambon, who made a declaration favouring the creation of Israel on June 4, 1917.

With this letter, the timing and the rationale are perfect. Here are two entries from the Raymond Poincaré diary, the French President during the war:

June 13, 1917 Pershing arrival in Paris:

American General Pershing arrived in Paris at the end of the afternoon. Colonel Renoult, my military attache, went to meet him at the station. He tells me that the welcome was very warm.

July 4 1917, review of a first American battalion on the American national holiday:

In the morning, courtyard of the Invalides, review of an American battalion, which has just arrived in Paris. Painlevé picks me up at the Élysée and we both leave in a «Victoria». General Duparge, Colonel de Rieux and Commander Helbronner follow us in a landau. On the Alexandre III bridge and on the esplanade, a very dense and unanimously enthusiastic crowd.

We arrive in front of the Hôtel des Invalides and we dismount. We are received by General Pershing and General Dubail. We enter the courtyard, around which are ranged the American soldiers and a French company.

Under the arcades and on the first floor, in the galleries, many spectators applauding. We pass the troops who look very good in their khaki uniforms.

In other words, Pershing and the first American detachment arrive after Jules Cambon’s declaration of June 4, 1917. Note how Combon points out in his statement that “your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies” — and how one wants to add “and vice versa”.

Strangely enough since Poincaré also served as a noted minister of Foreign Affairs before the war, a critical period, we found nothing in his memoirs about the Cambon letter, whether it be because, as many politicians of that time (including former president William Howard Taft in America) believed, he didn’t realise the importance of the rise of the Jewish power, or whether it be, on the contrary, as with President Wilson, that he didn’t dare speak about it openly. The fact is that the immediate situation was very bad for France on the frontline with the ongoing mutiny and the arrival of German reinforcements from the East. From Poincaré’s diary:

June 3, 1917:

[…] In a secret committee, Augagneur, so firm and so optimistic at the start of the war, gave a speech of discouragement and immediate peace, repeating that there was no longer anything to count on with Russia and that America would arrive too late, that all was lost. However, he was applauded by a good fifth of the House.

[…] New painful incidents on the front. Colonel Fournier informs me that a division of the 21st Corps has deliberated on the point whether it would consent to go up to the trenches and resume the offensive. She decided to go to the trenches, but to stand on the defensive; another division, that of the 7th Corps, refused to go to the trenches. General Pétain is looking for the ringleaders, whom he believes to be connected with the General Confederation of Labour, and he will not regain his command unless action is taken against pacifist propaganda.

It was therefore about time for the Americans to arrive, fortunately, the negotiations had started even earlier, here is again the chronology found in Poincaré’s memoirs:

May 15, 1916:

Victor Basch, whom I asked to come to my office, gives me his impressions of America. He found the Israelites there very hostile to Russia but favorable to France; he succeeded in penetrating among them; he lectured to them; he acquired the assurance that the house of Jacob Schiff would agree to place a loan of 250 million dollars for the Allies, if Russia granted some advantages to the Israelites.

1. Poincaré does not specify it, but Victor Basch is himself a Jew, on June 4, 1898. In the wake of the Dreyfus affair, he was one of the founders of the League of Human Rights and he would become its fourth president. Take note: League of Human Rights, not League of French Rights, there is a nuance.

2. What are these advantages that Russia should grant to the Israelites? The right to emigrate to Palestine, maybe?

3. It is plausible, since on May 15, we are precisely on the eve of the signing of the Sykes/Picot agreement. Poincaré, with his relative frankness, especially when it comes to the Israelites, does not breathe a word about it, yet this secret agreement is undoubtedly at the origin of the two declarations, that of Cambon and that of Balfour.

On the map that draws the dividing line between the French zone of influence and the English one, we notice a small but ominous yellow spot on the bottom left where before there was nothing special, nothing else that a small part of the Ottoman Empire had not even identified; it seems almost obvious that the two subjects — Sykes-Picot and Cambon-Balfour – one year apart, between the same two countries, in the same context of the First World War, are not entirely disconnected. Besides here is a very interesting entry in this regard, again from Poincaré ,three weeks after these Sykes-Picot agreements:

June 8, 1916

Edmond de Rothschild talks to me about the Jews of Russia. He tells me that before taking an interest in them, he wants to safeguard the alliance, but he noticed that Mr. Protopopoff was quite ready to improve their lot and he would like the French government, with all the necessary prudence, to intervene in their favor.I insist on the delicate nature of this intervention. I tell him, however, that I will bring the conversation to this subject when I see Mr. Protopopoff again, but he is not a minister yet; he can only become one.

1 . Note how the Jews have easy access to the President of the Republic. Moreover, they are ablve to intervene directly in foreign policy in wartime, while at the same time, a finicky secularism prevents him from meeting so easily the Catholic hierarchy; see 1917 : le Rond-point Poincaré.

2. The question remains, was “the Jews of Russia” the sole purpose of Edmond de Rothschild? Was it not rather “the Jews of Russia being transferred to Palestine”? As if by chance, Balfour handed out his declaration to a Rothschild in London.

Let’s end with these few entries during the rushing hours, still from Poincaré’s diaries:

February 4, 1917:

Jules Cambon telephones the Élysée that Mr. Sevastopoulo has received from the Russian ambassador in Washington notice that President Wilson has assembled a commission made up of a few friends and that he has examined three points there:

1 – negotiations between the United States and Germany

2 – waiting for a new torpedo before any decision

3 – immediate severance of diplomatic relations.

Wilson would have chosen the latter course. Press cables say that he sent a new message to the Senate and declared that he was going to hand over his papers to the German ambassador and make an appeal to the neutrals.If this news is correct, the assistance of the United States will be an invaluable moral support for us.

What a pity, Poincaré does not give us the names of the “friends” in question, but we are starting to get a little idea for ourself …

March 31, 1917, meeting with the Prince Sixtus who, with a view to possible peace negotiations, delivered a message from the Emperor Charles of Austria to Poincaré and Cambon (general secretary of the Quai d’Orsay), Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma leaves them also a personal note alluding to regime change in Petrograd:

Until the change of regime which has just taken place in Petrograd, Russian opinion seemed, in fact, unanimous in demanding the possession of Constantinople as an essential condition for the development of the Muscovite Empire. But the feelings of the current Russian government already show differences in this regard. If the Foreign Minister, Mr. Milioukov, maintains the previous point of view, which was that of an annexation of Constantinople to Russia, his colleague, Mr. Kerensky, reflects the new opinion that Russia must renounce any enlargement: in this case, Turkey could keep its capital, the regime of which would simply have to be combined with a European international status.

April 5, 1917, exchange of telegrams between Poincaré and Wilson:

The Chamber of Deputies adopted a resolution similar to that of the Senate. To protect the Americans against the attacks with which they remain threatened, Wilson had torpedo boats armed which were directed towards American waters. One of them has just been sunk in the English Channel by a German submarine.

Ribot delivers a highly acclaimed speech in the Chamber on American determination.

I telegraph, for my part, to President Wilson. Mr. William Martin communicates the telegram that I wrote to Ribot, who gives his full support:

At the moment, when under the generous inspiration of your Excellency, the great American Republic, faithful to its ideal and its traditions, is preparing to defend by arms the cause of justice and freedom, the French people quivered with brotherly emotion. Allow me to renew to you, Mr. President, at this grave and solemn hour, the assurance of the feelings of which I recently addressed the testimony to you and which finds in the present circumstances an increase in strength and ardor. I am sure to express the thoughts of all of France by telling you, to you and to the American nation, the joy and the pride that we feel to feel our hearts beating, once again, in unison with yours. This war would not have had its full meaning if the United States had not been induced by the enemy himself to take part in it. From now on, it appears more than ever to any impartial mind that German imperialism, which wanted, prepared and declared war, had conceived the insane dream of establishing its hegemony over the world. He succeeded only in revolting the conscience of humanity. You have made yourself before the universe, in an unforgettable language, the eloquent interpreter of outraged law and threatened civilization. Honor to you, Mr. President, and to your noble country.

Please believe in my devoted friendship.

Raymond Poincaré
Wilson’s response:

«His Excellence Raymond Poincaré, President of the Republic, Paris.

In this trying hour when the destinies of civilized mankind are in the balance, it has been a source of gratification and joy to me to receive your congratulations upon the step which my country has been constrained to take, in opposition to the relentless policy and course of imperialistic Germany. It is very delightful to us that France who stood shoulder to shoulder with us of the western world in our struggle for independence, should now give us such a welcome into the lists of battle as upholders of the freedom ant the rights of humanity. We stand  as partners of the noble democraties whose aims and acts make for the perpetuation of the rights and freedom of man  and for the saveguarding of the true principales of human liberties in the name of the american people. I salute you and your illustrious countrymen.

Woodrow Wilson»

Conclusion

The common point of the three versions of the Balfour declaration, the English, the American and the French, is, of course, the international Jew, the three versions already push aside the Sykes – Picot agreement and its colonial prospect, and anyway, only one version will prevail before history. On February 10, 1918, through its own Foreign Minister, Stephen Pichon, France associated itself with the declaration before Parliament by Lord Arthur Balfour, British Foreign Minister, which is officially consecrated by the Treaty of Sèvres , in August 10, 1920.

On that day, Raymond Poincaré still thought that the Jews were only pawns in his war against Germany and, with the extension of the French colonial empire in the Middle East, he could not imagine that it would turn out to be the other round: France, Germany, UK and the USA as being pawns in the history of Israel.

And so it was, after two world wars, that the state of Israel came to light. Think of the consequences:

1 – No First World war, no Balfour declaration and no fall of the Ottoman empire (a prerequisite for the setting of a Jewish state in Palestine).

2 – No Second World war, no Israel.

*   *   *

Appendix, the Balfour Declaration

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour