In JEM (Jewish Esoteric Moralization) we will also encounter the repeated insinuation of seemingly startling historical claims. For instance, it will be suggested that leadership of the Frankish Empire was fundamentally Jewish, whether by blood or influence. It will also be suggested Robert the Bruce was a Jew whom started Scottish Rite Freemasonry, a fundamentally Jewish phenomenon. I shall address both of these motifs appearing in JEM separately.
The answer to whether or not crypto-Jews comprised the pith of a “true” Frank leadership for any period early on or later or whether or not Robert the Bruce was a Jew is, of course, impossible to actually know. Indeed, the challenges of tracking cryptic Jewish influences through history are obvious, they are by design hidden. This difficulty shouldn’t, of course, remove this concept as an area of study and speculation.
The skeptic noticing and acknowledging this esoteric trend in JEM, which is brought to light in this study, might nevertheless argue these are Jewish delusions of grandeur. Here, he might argue, Jews are looking to take credit for Aryan achievement. And to be sure, such a phenomenon does exist. For instance, there have even been unusual speculations by Jews that Adolph Hitler was at least in some part Jewish.
In the latter case, it seems coyly implied that only by an infusion of Jewish blood might a person develop such energy and power, however terrible. It is, in its own way, a kind of JEM that seems equally interested in developing a sense of confidence and security among Jews. Yet the difference here is that the claim itself is an exoteric claim and not an esoteric claim. Indeed, esoteric claims must be treated differently.
There are some reasons to believe they contain verity. For instance, if JEM suggests that the Franks and Robert the Bruce were crypto-Jews, why would not the JEM also suggest that Jupiter or Apollo were Jewish deities and that the glory of Rome was theirs? Why not take credit for it all?
Yet, as it concerns Jupiter and Apollo, the JEM clearly insists on the opposite. However the myths of Jupiter and Apollo initially developed, whether from Aryan self-aggrandizing or Semitic flattery and psychic encroachment, neither deity represents the Jewish type. In fact, ultimately, they represent adversarial Aryan types. Ancient Rome, likewise, is understood in the JEM as decidedly adversarial. All this tends to lend credence to an esoteric Jewish understanding that, for instance, Robert the Bruce and the Frankish nobility were in some meaningful proportion either Jewish or dominated by Jewry.
Here we will invariably encounter a kind of wounded Aryan vanity that prefers European history to be his legacy alone. The irony here is that JEM clearly contains primarily truths, or at least beliefs, that Jews would prefer others not know. These are truths and beliefs which they would especially prefer Aryans not know about. Doubtlessly among these would be the notion that Jews existed as a privileged controlling group in the Frankish empire or that they authored Freemasonry toward, naturally, Jewish goals.
For instance, Jews would prefer to present themselves exoterically as the victims of European history, rather than among its prime movers and powerful beneficiaries. Likewise, they would like to present Christianity, for instance, as a movement that was particularly trying for them. Hence also there is a tremendous, necessary, false humility here, where true pride may only appear in whispers. Thus on one hand the Aryan desires credit, while the Jew fears blame, even if the Jew does manage to celebrate the accomplishment of Jewish power and success esoterically.
What is also clear is that Jews have successfully transmitted knowledge over tremendously long periods of time, through a hidden oral tradition and encoded symbols and parable. Remarkably, since their code is in fact decodable, they’ve preserved it for us as well. Unpacking it is part of the effort of this study.
Indeed, is it our tendency on this specific matter to defer to a contemporary Aryan historian who, riven from any continuous meaningful tradition, might “proudly” scoff at the notions of Jewish Franks or a Jewish Robert the Bruce? Or do we defer to a collective, accumulated knowledge and understanding of the Jewish body as expressed by Jewish Esotericists through Art and Myth? Myth, my theory argues, frequently contains the hidden history of history. It is merely a matter of knowing how to decipher it.
In the end, I’d rather know what is JEM in history and what is AIM (Aryan Inner Moralization), so that I can promote the latter. Jews identifying themselves with this historical person or peoples or that, should be enough for us to question the meaning and value of those things however we treat the literalness of an esoteric claim. In other words, the Jewish belief that this figure, people or movement was essentially Jewish is as meaningful as the possible reality that this was the case.
Indeed, was the Scottish nationalist Robert the Bruce, whom fought the ostensibly anti-Semitic King Longshanks, a net benefit or loss for Aryan genetic and civilizational success? Was the Freemasonry he purportedly helped author a net benefit or net loss? Were the Franks, whom established Christianity throughout the European continent, a net benefit or a net loss? We do not uniformly love “all things European” any more than we love uniformly in general.
The truth of the matter is that the reality of the history is much less important than its effect on the mentality of this or that people, whether it is moralizing or demoralizing. In this sense, history is, indeed, bunk. Jews to their credit know this. There is no history, only Myth. Look at the Hebrew Bible as exhibit A. The goal is to make sure “history” is credible to in-groups and out-groups while moralizing to the former and demoralizing to the latter.