Rothschild: King of the “Jews” (and Israel to this day)

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Political History by earthling on August 12, 2010

I discovered that but for the backing of Baron Edmond Rothschild the settlements of Russian Zionists established at
Rison, Zikron and Rosh Pina would have failed and there would have been virtually no Jewish presence in Palestine. This was a
key part of Rothschild strategy to make it appear that Jews were already living in Palestine — a subterfuge that worked.
Rothschild also assisted with establishing two new colonies, Ekron and Medull. Altogether twenty-one Agricultural
settlements existed by the end of the century, but Rothschild did not trust the abilities of the colonists and insisted in keeping direct supervision and control of the settlements.

Hubert Herring in his book And So To War sums up the price the U.S. had to pay to so that the Zionists might have
We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of 126,000 dead, of 234,300 mutilated and wounded. We paid with
the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful
world. We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashings of war hysteria. We
paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war reached
the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned.

And what was the quid pro-quo from the Zionists side?

As far as I could ascertain it amounted to absolutely nothing. An interesting aside was the failure of Herzl to obtain the blessing of
Pope Pius X for Jewish immigration to Palestine: We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going
to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it.
According to A History of Zionism, pages 129-130, the exchange took place at a meeting with the Pope in 1903, meaning
that Lord Arthur Balfour knew that there was strong opposition from the Catholic Church against Zionist immigration to
Palestine, long before he signed on to the declaration, but about which he informed no one. So the pattern of double-dealing was
already apparent in 1903.
Catholic opposition to Israel may have contributed to the Rothschilds violent hatred of Russia with its large Christian
Herzl, the father of Zionism died when he was 44 years old. According to A History of Zionism, he never got on
very well with the Rothschilds or with Orthodox Jewry whose leading rabbis did not like his autocratic style. Herzl always
wanted to have the final say on everything.
There was, as Herzl’s critics pointed out, very little specifically Jewish in Herzl. This emerges perhaps more
clearly in his vision of the Jewish state…
Herzl envisaged a modern, technologically advanced and enlightened state, enlightened by the Jews, but not
specifically a Jewish state. (A History of Zionism, pages 132-133)

It can hardly be argued that Herzl was interested in Palestine as a religious “homeland” for the Jews, particularly in
light of the fact, that the bulk of the new settlers came from Russia and had no previous connection to Palestine and there was no
history of Russian Jews ever having lived there, nor were they particularly religious.
Lacquer makes this abundantly plain. Lord Chamberlain came forward with an offer to provide a “homeland” for the Jews
in Uganda, even though Uganda was not the British Government’s land to give. Chamberlain told Herzl that he had been on a tour of
Uganda and thought: Here is a land for Dr. Herzl, but of course he only wants Palestine or its neighborhood. He was right. Herzl
brushed aside the idea. His fixation was with Palestine and nothing else would do. On May 30, 1903 he wrote Rothschild:

I am not discouraged. I already have a very powerful man to help me. (A History of Zionism, Walter Laqueur, pages 122,123)
This was the true autocratic style of Herzl in action.
Although I was not able to uncover any direct links between the Rothschilds and Sir Halford Mackinder, such as correspondence
that passed between intermediaries hinting that the two did consult on a number of matters, especially in writing the blue print
for the coming One World Government-
New World Order which had been assigned to Mackinder to complete. A protege of the London School of Economics which
was a hotbed for Communist ideals, Mackinder nevertheless put up a good conservative front and is believed to have influenced
President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference as to what steps were to be implemented to usher in a New World Order through
a League of Nations mandate. It is certain that the Rothschilds provided a great deal of input for the World Socialist dream. One
month after Wilson arrived at the Paris Peace Conference, Mackinder’s new book Democratic Ideals and Reality was published.

The timing of the release of the book was no accident.
In his book Mackinder called for a New World Order (NWO) to be established in a One World Government, ostensibly The
League of Nations. If this goal could not be achieved by peaceful, voluntary means, then force was to be resorted to.
Mackinder admitted that while the New World Order would be ideally a democratic institution, it could never be
expected that at times it would not be a dictatorship. The Zionists claimed that The League of Nations was their concept and this is
referred to by Maria O’Grady in her book where she stated:
President Wilson was surrounded by Jewish financial fraternity pushed hither and yon by the sinister Colonel House and
counseled by the Zionist Brandeis. (Page 342)

The Zionists greatly favored the concept of a League of Nations and claimed it as their creation: The League is a Jewish
idea, said Nahum Sokolow at the Carlsbad Conference. We created it after a fight of 25 years.
Ultimate World Government dominated by Socialists is the long-held goal of Socialism, and it is well known that the
concept was favored by the Rothschilds. As one of their own family, Jacob Schiff worked hard to establish a League of
Nations. It received a donation of 3,000 pounds from N.M. Rothschild of the London branch of the family. As we shall see
there may have been an ulterior motive to this, as the League was to play a decisive role in granting a mandate for Palestine to the
British Government, a decisive step along the road to granting “a Homeland” for the Jews in Palestine. With that in mind I return to
Lord Balfour and his so-called “Balfour Declaration,” based on double-dealing, deception and secret deals behind the backs of
Colonel Lawrence and the Arabs.
Balfour made haste to explain that a “Jewish Homeland” in Palestine did not mean the imposition of a Jewish state upon
the inhabitants of Palestine, but in the light of subsequent events, this emerged as the goal of the Zionists. As Balfour put it:
. . . but the further development of the existing Jewish community, in order that they may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a whole, might take, on grounds of religion and race, interest and pride.
What Balfour left out was that nothing the British did or said could obscure the fact that Palestine was not theirs to give,
nor did the British Government have the slightest right to secure a mandate for Palestine. But Balfour, backed by Lord Nathan
Rothschild, pressed ahead anyway, as if the two men had an inherent right to act in the arbitrary manner which they saw fit.
The right of the Arab and other population groups, including Christians that extended back for more than 7,000 years was
totally disregarded by Lord Balfour. No less an authority than Walter Laqueur, one of the foremost experts on Zionism
confirmed that the bulk of the Jews who were to inhabit Palestine under the Balfour Declaration came from Russia. They had no
previous connection to Palestine. Laqueur also pointed out that Russian Jews were not overly happy about being uprooted from Russia and sent to Palestine:

Russian Jewry was divided in its attitude toward Zionism and a Jewish national home (a religious homeland) and
would not have in any case have been able to keep Russia in the war. The Allies on the other hand, to put it
somewhat crudely, would have won the war even if no promise to the Zionists had been made.
What Laqueur was explaining, if somewhat obliquely, was the “deal” the Zionists had struck with Balfour, namely, that
if the Zionists could bring the United States into the war on the side of the allies, the British would establish a Jewish Homeland
in Palestine in return.
At a private meeting soon after the passage of the Balfour Declaration, when asked whether it had been his intention
to make a bid for Jewish support in the war, Balfour snapped ‘certainly not’ and went on to explain that he felt
that he was instrumental in righting a wrong of world historical dimensions. In 1922 Balfour made a speech in
which he said that the whole culture of Europe had been guilty of great crimes against the Jews, and Britain had taken the initiative in giving them the opportunity of developing in peace, the great gifts which they had, in the
past been able to apply in countries of the Diaspora. (A History of Zionism, page 203)
Balfour did not explain why it was considered legal to give Palestine to the Jews when it belonged to a people who had
been there for 7,000 years, especially as a big tract of land in Madagascar, as well as land in Uganda, had been offered and
rejected without discussion. Nor did Balfour explain that his magnanimous gesture in favor of the Jews
would be at the expense of the Arab and other non-Jewish populations of Palestine. He never explained what connections
the bulk of the new settlers, coming as they did from Russia had with Palestine.

According to Dr. Jacob de Haas, Balfour’s altruistic protestations must be very much doubted because the real motive
behind the Declaration was to get the United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies.
Confirmation of the true motives behind the Balfour Declaration came from another well-founded source, Congressional Record, April 25, 1939, pages 6597-6604, which reflects a speech made in the U.S. Senate by Senator Nye:

There has been published in a series of works under the title “The Next War.” One of the volumes in this series is
entitled “Propaganda in the Next War.” This particular volume was written by one Sydney Rogerson.
I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background; but the editor in chief of all of these works, including the
one entitled “Propaganda in the Next War” is by a man whose name is recognized the world over as a authority
in Great Britain. He is none other than Captain Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and military authority in Europe.
I understand that this particular volume “Propaganda in the Next War,” published last fall and placed in circulation, instead of having the circulation enlarged, now is suffering at the hands of those who desire to retire it from circulation. A few days ago I came on the floor of
the Senate with the volume itself. I am sorry that I do not have it with me today. I am told that it is the only copy of “Propaganda in
the Next War” available in the United States. It can be had, I can borrow it against if there is any occasion for me to need it in the Senate, but it is no longer easy to obtain. I wish I had the entire work and that it could be read by every member of the Senate.
The following are quotations from Propaganda in the
Next War:
From time to time the issue of which side the United States would take hung in the balance and the final result
was a credit to our profaned machine. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world’s population
of 15,000,000 no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25 percent of the population of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge Jewish public by the promise of a National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorf to be a masterstroke of
propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to the Jews in America, but to the Jews in Germany as well.
George Armstrong in his work The Rothschild Money Trust explains how this came about:
There can be no doubt about the fact that prior to President Wilson’s second election in 1916 he kept us out of the war. There can likewise be no doubt about the fact that he was elected on that slogan. Why did he change his mind soon after the election ? Why did he make an
arrangement with the British Government to help the Allies? That has been until now, an unexplained mystery.

Balfour’s Declaration (and ASS LICKING) of Rothschild (remember still not even 100 years ago):

But prior to this, we also had the story of the Suez canal. But that’s another long story. For now just appreciate what this is telling you. And if you think “That’s just a fictional representation” I’d ask you to consider again because, if this was not fact, it would be libelous. In being libelous, the Rothschild family would sue. But then again, would they? Because to create a fuss about it all would bring it all to the attention of the public – the very LAST thing that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world wish for:

Question: “What is your security?”

Answer: “The British Government”

Rockefeller EUGENICS (A Nazi in disguise as a philanthropist)

Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Vaccinations by earthling on August 4, 2010

Lily E. Kay:

Dr. Lily E. Kay, a visiting scholar in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society (STS) and one of the outstanding historians of biology of her generation, died on December 18 2000 of cancer.

Dr. Kay’s work drew from multiple disciplines to understand science in its many social and cultural dimensions. Her most recentbook, Who Wrote the Book of Life? (Stanford University Press, 1999), traced the efforts of biologists, biochemists and information scientists to explain the genome as an information system written in DNA code. Dr. Kay showed how the “code” is not really a code and thus why cryptoanalytic techniques failed, and how the genetic “code” was eventually broken instead by biochemists who only reluctantly translated their work into the metaphor of code because that language had become the only way to get a hearing.

Her earlier book, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rise of the New Biology, has become a classic account. When it first appeared, it too was controversial but also received accolades from scientists such as Joshua Lederberg and Linus Pauling. Her views were always sharply argued, holding to account both extreme biologial reductionism and legacies of eugenicist views in contemporary biology.

Born in Krakow, Poland in 1947 to concentration camp survivors, Dr. Kay moved with her parents to Israel and then came to the United States in 1960. After she graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1969, she taught high school physics in Pittsburgh and was a research associate in biochemistry at the University of Pittsburgh from 1974-77. In 1977 she became a senior research assistant at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA, working on the molecular biology of viruses. She earned a PhD in the history of science from Johns Hopkins University in 1986.

After two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, she joined the history of science faculty at the University of Chicago, and in 1989 she began an eight-year stint on MIT’s faculty in STS, which had just established a new PhD program. In recent years, she worked as an independent scholar, with guest appointments at Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.

When she died, Dr. Kay was working on a book on the MIT neuroscientist Warren S. McCulloch and the fields of research he helped spawn: serial computing, artificial intelligence and models of brain function.

One can read most of the book, “The Molecular vision of life…”, here:


However, let me offer you just ONE small section taken from Page 9:

I’m sure you will recognise that Dr. Lily E. Kay was as far removed from “Conspiracy theory” as one would wish to be. It is simply this: When you LOOK, you FIND and there are masses of absolute facts proving who and what the Rockefeller family is and what it’s agenda is.

So, with the very best intentions of not hurting anyone’s feelings: Shut your ignorant mouth if you are, once more, going to throw the pathetic “Conspiracy theory” insult at any of this for if you do, it is this simple, you are insulting yourself by displaying your own incapacity for logic and understanding. Of being able to see what is right in front of you!

While isn’t it interesting to note:

Rockefeller Foundation: 1913

Federal Reserve Act: 1913

Founding of the ADL: 1913

Founding of the IRS: 1913

This is all ridiculous right? Of COURSE it is!

While the NHS is being pressurized by Doctors and government suggest it should have a renewed “Constitution”. Don’t heal the sick from lifestyles which have been pushed on people as A-OK and have, in fact, provided the government with huge sums of tax income while they still legalise it. BUT they criminalise such things as medical marijuana.

Yes yes, it’s all a ridiculous fabrication indeed!

‘Gordon Brown promised this month that a new NHS constitution would set out people’s “responsibilities” as well as their rights, a move interpreted as meaning restric­tions on patients who bring health problems on themselves. The only sanction threatened so far, however, is to send patients to the bottom of the waiting list if they miss appointments’.


‘Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.

Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services – such as jumping the queue for council housing.

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.’

So, we’ll push the drugs. We’re admitting they kill people (just like illegal drugs but the legal ones kill even more) but what we’ll say in our and the tobacco and alcohol industry’s defence is that it is a choice and choice is a cornerstone of peoples human rights and freedoms. However, we will remove such rights and freedoms (therfore proving we’re a crock of shit) when it comes to those drugs which grow freely on god’s earth. There, we say you have no rights (because that’s just too lucrative a business for us).

So while we offer SOME rights that we know kill you, what we won’t now provide is your right to healthcare. It’s a LOVELY genocide tactic isn’t it?

Meanwhile we government, banking and other corrupt bastards with money which we control the issuance of, have our private health and no matter WHAT we do to our bodies WE will get that healthcare – a healthcare which is, in fact, funded by you the taxpayer (Yes, even though “private” it STILL gets funded by the tax you pay) who perhaps can’t afford it yourselves!

“Trusts are being encouraged to concentrate on profitable areas of work rather than the most essential … like mental health, accident and emergency and care for the elderly. These are not profitable. But heart operations for wealthy Arabs will be.”

What did he just say????…. Ah! Wealthy Arabs he said not Wealthy Jews. I guess that’s not anti semitic or racist then huh? The ADL won’t be chasing after his ass then! Funny the double standards we have isn’t it? And it’s like a one way street: Say whatever you want about any other religion and no-one gives a toss but if you mention a political ideology such as Zionism (which is actually the most anti semitic ideology on this earth) then, ironically, you’re treated as if you are some form of jew hater! I wonder what the Scottish judiciary think of the substantial number of jewish people who are anti Zionist?

I say: Get a fcuking brain and learn something!

We’re just brilliant aren’t we? Brilliantly Evil!