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 endeavors 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.
Arthur James Balfour
One might be forgiven for asking the question as to what the handing over control of Palestine to the Zionists had to do with the Great War? The Cambon letter appears to suggest that it was in response to some sort of attack.
The Secretary General of Foreign Affairs
to Mr Sokolof
Paris 4th June 1917
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.
Why Cambon should be addressing his letter to Nahum Sokolof, a Zionist, Jew journalist is not too clear, it gives one the impression however that all of the events leading up to the Great War and indeed the events following that war, were all directed towards the promotion of Zionism.
The Great War ended at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918,suggesting that the Balfour Declaration had already been discussed long before that and written and posted before the war’s end and Cambon’s letter long before that, on the 4th of June 1917 this smells strongly of “conspiracy”, so what could that conspiracy possibly have been?
One of the most important ingredients in the agreement between Lord Balfour and Baron Rothschild, hinged on the participation in the Great War, of the Americans. That participation was brought about by the deliberate sacrifice of the Lusitania and more than a thousand of the passengers onboard that doomed vessel, when it was deliberately presented as a sitting duck for German submarines.
By the time that the”Yanks” arrived in Europe, Germany was on top of the war. There had already been calls made for a truce, calls which were being delayed by the British, quite obviously while they awaited the arrival of the Americans. That was the preferred outcome of the Zionists, whom having assured Baron Rothschild, the controller of the British, that they could deliver the American Military machine, through the medium of the control they now had over the American money supply, through their recently installed Federal Reserve Bank, along with whatever power they held over Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, Baron Rothschild, we have been told, then demanded Palestine in return for the American Military to which no mention is made in the records of the Minutes of the Cabinet.
All these things went on under the radar, as they say, because the real aim of the Great War had nothing whatsoever to do with a squabble between the “Royal Families” of Europe, it was to kick off the Zionist Century. The first step being the taking of Russia, which was achieved with “International” assistance and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, to place the Middle East firmly under the control of the Rothschild Family in the United Kingdom and France. These matters were under discussion even as the War raged on.
Minutes of War Cabinet Meeting No. 227, Minute No. 2, 3 September 1917
The War Cabinet had under consideration correspondence which had passed between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Lord Rothschild on the question of the policy to be adopted towards the Zionist movement. In addition to the draft declaration of policy included in the above correspondence, they had before them an alternative draft prepared by Lord Milner. They had also before them a Memorandum by Mr. Montagu entitled “The Anti-Semitism of the present Government.”
It was suggested that a question raising such important issues as to the future of Palestine ought, in the first instance, to be discussed with our Allies, and more particularly with the United States.
There was even discussion about the sustainability of a large population in Israel, as if anyone believed even back then that the Jews would be satisfied with what they were given.
“With regard to the first, he understood that there were considerable differences of opinion among experts regarding the possibility of the settlement of any large population in Palestine, but he was informed that, if Palestine were scientifically developed, a very much larger population could be sustained than had existed during the period of Turkish misrule. As to the meaning of the words ‘national home,’ to which the Zionists attach so much importance, he understood it to mean some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real centre of national culture and focus of national life. It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution.”
In furtherance of these aims, Germany had to have lost the War, in order to justify the massive destruction of Europe, which was completely re-designed and the Ottoman Empire, which would have been impossible had the “Armistice”* been allowed, which would have meant that everything reverted to as it had been before the War. It was therefore decided that Germany had lost and the Jews called for the first blockade of Germany, which murdered a massive nine-hundred-thousand Germans, forcing them to accept full responsibility for the Zionist war and to sign the Treaty of Versailles, while the “Yanks” participation in the war amounted to zilch, they were finally used to pressurise the Germans and little more.
*(Armistice: a formal agreement between warring parties to stop fighting while discussions take place)
There is a very familiar thread running down through the ages, a thread going all the way back to the Tudors and the first Elizabeth. Being young and without solid family support, She was apparently surrounded by a whole gaggle of Jews. She
was dominated by a couple of Jews in particular, Lord Cecil and John Dee. There are all sorts of tales flying around about her giving birth to a child, who was taken from her, but with who she met years later and with who she became pregnant, but that is a tale for another day.
She was however encouraged by Lord Cecil and John Dee to make the first English incursion into Ireland. The very same family Cecil, was still hanging around, when the Dutch Jews were brought into England, after the Civil War, and the Cecil Family promptly sent Cromwell into Ireland to slaughter a few more Irish Catholics. The same Cecil Family was sat in the Houses of Commons and the Lords, when the Irish Genocide kicked off in the 1840s and yes, they were still there when Cecil Family member Lord Balfour, wrote his famous Declaration.
There is a sinister thread of similarity and barbaric cruelty , running through events from medieval days to the present day and the number of connections to groups which are still with us and still holding a firm grip on power during those long centuries is incredible.
I have just spent a couple of days, involved in one of the strangest debates in which I have ever taken part. I have been called contemptible, a merchant of hate and a holocaust denier. I believe that if I went through all of the responses, I could probably come up with a few more examples.
The discussion was based on the question, “Was the Irish Famine a Genocide?” The basic rule of the debate was, that for a Genocide to be a Genocide, there had to be evidence of intent, it was suggested that in Ireland, there had been no Genocide, because there was no evidence that the English were deliberately attempting to exterminate the Irish.
My response to this rule, was to demand an explanation as to “What was a Famine.” The general response to my question was, that the potatoes were blighted. This was perfectly true, however a potato blight is not a Famine. During the course of a couple of days, I received no explanation.
I presented a link to a book which listed the cargoes of ships which had left Ireland bound for England, with cargoes of Cows, Pigs, Wheat, Oats, Butter, Cheese etc. by the hundreds of tons. This was dismissed as insufficient.
Suggestions that the Irish were not even allowed to fish the sea and the rivers, brought a response: The Irish had sold their fishing equipment so they could not fish and besides the Irish were so uncouth, that they ate cheese, which they referred to as “white meat” with their fingers, they did not even put it on a plate. Apparently they had very little in the way of cooking skills, all they appear to have been capable of, was to boil potatoes and carrots.
The defence which was offered, against the claim of a holocaust, was that the English were doing their level best to “improve,” the Irish people, every act of the English, was in some way designed to help them out of their misery. They just happened to be looking the other way, while these five million Irish people were starving to death.
Somewhere in the middle of all this nonsense, I asked for some sort of evidence of intent on the part of Hitler. Could anyone supply me with a document showing that Hitler intended to exterminate the Jews. I believe that it was in response to this, that I was accused of belittling the real extent of the holocaust, no matter, but I did receive a response from a fellow whom described himself as Irish and Jewish.
In a response to a question I referred to him as an Irish Jew. He explained that to question the holocaust was not good etc and that his father, had liberated a Death Camp in Germany and that he had taken photographs of the inmates and how shocked all of the GIs had been. At that point I did not realise that his Jewish half, even though he had in no way been involved with the events in Germany, any more than I had been, with the events in Ireland, had been mortally offended. It appears that the Irish may only be referred to as Irish Catholic or Irish Protestant, Irish Jew, seems to be considered as an insult.
He provided no photos from his fathers collection, telling me to look on-line, where there were many examples and a report from another source, which was not his father.
There you have it, the holocaust of the Jews, can be based on hearsay, without the need of proof of intent. It is not necessary to present any evidence of the means by which the victims had been killed. There is no existing photograph of a real live Gas Chamber, while there have been no mass graves discovered with cadavers showing any evidence of having been gassed.
The photos of those poor skinny people, whom were liberated in Germany, were mostly dying of Typhus and starvation as a result of the destruction of food convoys, it was not only prisoners whom suffered but everyone in the surrounding countryside and towns. Why indeed were these folk not dead, they were allegedly in a Death Camp, in prison garb, which would seem to be unnecessary in a “Death Camp.”
Nevertheless, these people were presented as suffering Jews, when in fact there were very few Jews amongst them, in one camp out of thirty-two-thousand inmates, there were only one-thousand-two-hundred Jews.
As for Ireland, the Famine is discussed as if it was a real famine. However it is not until you search for the evidence of it, that you realise that it is never explained. There has been no mention of animals dying of thirst and corn wilting in the heat of the sun nor indeed any of the other well-known signs of crop failure, it is of great significance that only the potatoes are ever mentioned.
That being so, what became of the thousands of tons of food which were annually exported to England? To where did it vanish if not into the mouths of the rich Irish and English Landlords? I would suggest that the food was always there and as usual only the potatoes were given to the Irish peasants.
Nearly half of all the farms in Ireland were under 5 acres. These Strokestown families being lined up for emigration were of average size, two parents and three children. And they occupied roughly four acres per family. By comparison to millions of others they were fortunate, but there is no material difference between half an acre of rotten potatoes and 4 acres of rotten potatoes.
The agent pointed out that if the potatoes were replaced by oats to provide the
staple diet for the tenant population, each family would need 12 acres to grow a crop large enough for them to exist for a year, following a good harvest. “It would seem, if this calculation be correct, the population on this land exceeds what it can support by two-thirds at present, the agent wrote, containing:
“The cost of keeping a pauper in the Roscommon Poor House averages about 2s. 9d.
a week [68 cents], that is £7 3s. a year [US $36].
The cost of emigration to Quebec averages £3 12s [US $18].
So it would seem from the above that there was certainly the possibility of growing other crops, suggesting that the “Famine” affected only potatoes. There was also a system known as the “Conacre” system where landlords, prepared land for the peasants to use, helping them to prepare the soil and took a cut of the harvest. However, it was “cheaper,” to put them onto a leaky boat and deport them.