Earthling

“Alert!” Follow up

Posted in "Terrorism" by earthling on June 25, 2017

 

Well, it seems not many will have heard or seen anything about what happened yesterday because the media did not cover it.

Apparently, there is now something called “The Football lads Alliance” where all the London clubs fans got together and marched through London (as I suggested was going to happen). However, I am pleased to say, it was entirely peaceful. This is exactly how the whole country should be, in my opinion. The establishment needs division and violence and they never gave them it.

What I will say, however, is the way this was told to me at the coffee shop on friday was slightly different. The guy telling me perhaps got it wrong (or perhaps not and the Police just contained it all extremely well) but there was definitely the suggestion of “getting even” in what was put over to me. I had no idea this event was going to happen and still, I suggest that the quote “Fuck you! I’m Millwall” had some sort of message contained in it to create this alliance and this event.

It would appear that this alliance is going to continue, however, and perhaps even grow throughout the UK. Hopefully, they will be smart and keep it peaceful HOWEVER, the establishment knows what it’s doing and can easily stir up violence if it so wishes through the use of undercover provocateurs. So, ok, yesterday did not become a bloodbath – let’s try and keep it that way. If it doesn’t remain that way, then you will be bringing martial law to the UK.

 

Ok, I’ve just added this video. It shows the march BUT it also shows Tommy Robinson. He’s talking about having “massive things” planned. So, it didn’t “kick off” (pardon the pun) yesterday but it was “kicked off” in terms of a movement. This is being formed by some “heavy hitters” and I don’t know who but this sort of thing DOES NOT happen at grassroots level. Tommy Robinson is an out and out zionist. If you don’t know that already then you should. I am telling you, this is all for a purpose later down the line and I STILL stand by my earlier post linking the freemasons. Freemasonry/Israel/Zionism – all linked and Robinson, I would bet (but admittedly, I’m not 100% sure), is a mossad asset in one form or another. There is no doubt in my mind that this Football alliance has some jewish manipulators behind it.

I won’t say “Civil War” coming up because it’s too dramatic BUT I will say something big is brewing.

 

Just found this on a “Go Fund me” page. It is cached because it would appear to no longer exist on the platform. It was created on 11th June…

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xOXPBhbhQgcJ:https://www.gofundme.com/football-lads-alliance+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Ah! And there you have it! The Roy Larner connection…..

“REAL NEWS! – Streaming live in HD from the streets of the UK. The Football Lads Alliance is a grass roots Anti Extremism movement in the UK. They have grown rapidly to over 40,000 members (via a secret Facebook group), of which more than 6,000 people are expected to attend. Patriots from around Great Britain, many from the football community are standing together and peacefully marching through London protesting the UK government’s reluctance in tackling the current extremism problem in the UK. The march will be led by hero of the hour ‘The Lion of London Bridge’ – Roy Larner,…”

http://uk.trendolizer.com/2017/06/football-lads-alliance—united-against-extremism-march—london—24th-june-2017.html

You may also wish to read the following very good account of what’s going on in more general terms. Yes, it’s written by Nick Griffin:

https://apfeurope.com/2016/03/the-zionist-takeover-of-european-nationalism-and-the-mohammad-cartoons-plot/

 

Tommy Robinson “The Rebel”: “I’m jewish mate!”

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare by earthling on March 25, 2017

 

TOMMY ROBINSON: Preaching his Muslim hate to all that will listen – the ignorants, the simple racists who REFUSE to accept that their “Muslim threat” is actually a jewish one. Same for Alex Jones and Paul Watson etc. Pure shite! That is what they are. As is Trump as is every last MP, Lord, Senator and Congressman in the two major western governments of the UK and USA – not to mention Germany, France etc.

Good video explaining Robinson while also explaining how/why Nick Griffin would be demonised in Britain. By whom? WHO DO YOU THINK?

Thanks to New World Agenda on youtube for his intelligence. Thank GOD there are others who understand this.

It really is very simple to uncover those who are under jewish control. You just need to peel back one layer of the onion. Clear as day.

But here’s another thing: You see, 99.9% of people in this country and in the USA get their news and understanding of the world and politics from “in the box” media (and no, don’t think Trump is actually going to make a positive difference – he is NOT). What proportion of the population, do you think, read such things as “Foreign Affairs” or papers by the “CATO Institute”? I’ll tell you: MUCH less than 1% of the population. Perhaps less than 0.1%. Perhaps even less!

So, are you going to enlighten yourself at this point? Are you going to take a few minutes to allow your jaw to drop? Than be my guest:

Here is the enlightenment written in Foreign Affairs (the author is jewish by the way) – Written in 1992! It’s been the agenda for years because your government NEEDS an enemy to keep you in dear and also to completely change the social structure AND to even out incomes across the world (haven’t you noticed western salaries are essentially the same as they were in the late 1990s?). The globalists (and yes Trump is STILL one I assure you. He can bring back jobs now to the USA BECAUSE your wages have been brought closer to par with the east. He’ll go further to stifle incomes to ensure the corporations start to invest again in America BUT the overall wealth will NOT go into YOUR pocket!) have needed and wanted that “par” on salaries across the world for obvious reasons!

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1993-03-01/what-green-peril

OR, read it in the CATO Institute paper –

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/green-peril-creating-islamic-fundamentalist-threat

 

CREATING the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat (READ the damned thing!)

Creating it! Is that CLEAR enough for some puny little brains out there?

“Islam does seem to fit the bill as the ideal post-Cold War villain. “It’s big; it’s scary; it’s anti-Western; it feeds on poverty and discontent,” wrote David Ignatius, adding that Islam “spreads across vast swaths of the globe that can be colored green on the television maps in the same way that communist countries used to be colored red.””

“The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious “sources” and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.

In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media’s spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.”

So WHO is creating it?

Well, let a “little old lady” tell you:

 

Do yourself a favour and educate yourself or you will be “howling at the moon” (and the wrong group) for the rest of your life wondering why things don’t change! 

“Christian Zionists” indeed! You bunch of ignorant, easily led, idiots!

But now, to wrap it up, bring in British politics and the ever so quiet – and darker – side of things. In the following piece, Peter Mandelson talks of the “mistake” made and the effect of “searching for immigrants” and he suggests it was a Labour idea. This is what the establishment wish you to believe as they will also suggest something else was a “Tory idea” etc. It keeps you blaming one side for something while supporting the other side. It keeps you believing in the “fight” between left and right. BUT, the reality is that there IS no fight. While you’re looking in one direction and debating an issue with your opposite political foe, the establishment is carrying on with its agenda. You see, Peter here is a Rothschild man through and through (as is dear old Prince Charlie – see previous blogs of mine). Remember the Rothschilds also “pimped” Tony Blair out to the banking sector (JP Morgan) after his stint at 10 Downing Street while Tony talks glowingly about Israel. It’s also interesting he converted to catholicism not too long before the jesuit took the reigns.

However, back to Mandelson: He’s doing what the little old lady above states would be done and that jews would be behind because it is exactly what Rothschild – the globalist and the man who built Israel – wanted. An immigration flood into the UK (and the US). Lots of Muslims and Mexicans and anyone else they could get their mits on. Why? Simple: Dilute the white race from Europe and the US – mix the races all up. And which one is left “PURE”? And you thought HITLER was for a pure race? Well he was BECAUSE of this other one but Hitler had NOTHING on these guys! 🙂 Ever heard of “projection”? Where what someone says about another is actually a reflection of themselves? Well relate that to those who were. we’re told, “persecuted” by the “mad german” and you’ve got your answer. However, it must be understood that we are not talking about an entire race here, but just the Rothschilds, the International, atheist jews in political and financial power and all the little underlings (like Trump and Blair and Merkel and many more plus thousands of “elites”). The jewish man or woman in the street (even though they are “loyal” to their tribe, will get flushed away just like any of us if it suits their masters. After all, that is precisely what the zionists did during WW2 to most of the german and polish jews because it was useful to them to ensure enough support at the end of the war for them to achieve their state of Israel.

Mandelson talks immigration:

 He’s not going to come out with the REAL reason for god’s sakes!

The a little piece on his relationship with the Rothschilds.

Don’t be a fool. When it comes to news and media, you’re just told the bullet points and it’s wrapped up in coated candy for you to sell you a pre-determined narrative that you can argue till the cows come home with the neighbours.

Learn the REAL agendas behind the stories by peeling back layers and seeing the connections.

Or, alternatively:

Remain an ignorant twat! 😉

x

NICE: Einat Wilf tells you what it’s all about in her own words.

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, Media, Politics by earthling on August 7, 2016

“Israel is right now at war. It is a war in which the weapons are not tanks, airplanes, or missiles, but words, images, and ideas. Defenders of Israel must understand the kind of ideological war they are fighting before they can prepare a plan for victory. In this lecture, Dr. Wilf discusses how Israel can fight and win the battle of the mind.”

And who created the words and images (of which she speaks) of NICE and Munich? Her husband, the “journalist”, and his daughter, Thamina Stoll (another “journalist and student at Duke University studying political science).

As you listen to this, read between the lines AND ensure you understand that she is projecting her words “truth and facts” on “the enemy” – i.e. you and I. She is the one who is willing to use the lies and the manipulation.

If you allow people like me (and, perhaps, yourself or anyone else) to be “shut down” for using OUR words in this war, then they win and we/you lose.

By the way, who’d you guess as the “student” she spoke to re writing the PhD paper? Thamina by chance? 😉

Oh! And if you’d never heard of Thamina, then let me introduce you to Richard Gutjahr’s 22 year old daughter that very few of the mainstream media articles regarding the Munich attack even referred to as Gutjahr’s daughter, nevermind say “What an amazing coincidence Thamina with your father just having taken footage of the Nice attack a week or so ago.”:

Thamina Stoll Father's kitchen

And BOY didn’t she panic for a few seconds at the beginning of this interview? Meanwhile, the interviewer either hasn’t got a clue who her father is (doubtful) or is told not to even go there (like in so many other interviews both filmed and in print.

“Words and images” people. That’s the “war” Wilf speaks of.

NOW, listen to this one because, in my opinion, the guy who comes on at 2.37 to talk to her, throws in a little grenade and he knows he is. He’s purposefully giving a heads up. He purposefully brings up the point “Oh no, not again!” to check her reaction and she MUST then mention her father (but without naming him you may notice). You then hear her stutter and think and stutter and try to figure out how to answer this…..

Now, here’s a Daily Mail article on her and Munich:

Stoll mail 1 Stoll Mail 2 Stoll Mail 3 Stoll Mail 4

Not a word about her father. She’s just some American student who originates from Munich and was with her family and Gran. Poor little dear. What a shock for her eh?

And here is ABC:

Stoll AbC

There are 101 different articles and videos about Thamina and her family without mentioning who her dad is. Quite incredible really. And you call mainstream media people “journalists”? You’re having a laugh!

Meanwhile, the media don’t then interview her dad – you’d think they would considering just what had gone down in Nice but no, they would not wish to have the vast majority of people (who don’t read outside the mainstream if they read at all and just watch BBC. ITV. ABC etc etc) pick up on the fact it’s father and daughter (with a Knesset, Zionist, “ex” Lieutenant” of the IDF Intelligence services, mother) who took these videos and images. Attempting, desperately, to keep the two apart as separate events with entirely separate people behind the cameras.

And here she is with Daddy (by the way, I mention 22 years old above – I have seen articles where she is 18 and where she is 22) however, in this article (referred by Wikipedia), his “eldest daughter” is 21: “Whether Gutjahr would still recommend his children today, to become a journalist, Sandra Strüwing asked. The answer was slow in coming: “um ….”. In Gutjahrs eldest daughter, 21, it is already too late.” The strange thing is that Wikipedia itself states that he only has one son and one daughter: Gutjahr is the former Israeli since 2007 Knesset -Abgeordneten Einat Wilf married. [26 ] Gutjahr has a son (* 2010) and a daughter (* 1994). Perhaps lost in translation? 🙂

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gutjahr&prev=search

Gutjahr and daughter

 

And here she is following Daddy on her Facebook page (while following both, the CEO and COO of Facebook – both jews):

Thamina following

And how about this one. While her father (and mother) get invited to the British House of Commons, Thamina, in the USA, gets her photo taken with the possible next President of the United States:

Thamina Stoll with Hillary

What a lucky little nonentity of a student eh?

And daddy at the House of Commons:

Gutjahr twitter Gutjahr invite to House of commons

 

As for what happened to the victims…. well, let’s put it this way, as soon as I seen the footage of the alleged shooter outside McDonald’s and the group of kids all running past him from around a corner, I said “They’ve been hanging around waiting for directions”. These kids were plants. Furthermore, you see an old guy walking toward the “shooter” and he seems to have no idea what’s going on and is caught up in it. His face (only his) is even blanked out in some video footage of it and in most images. I don’t think he was meant to be there.

Back to the “victims” – most of them were Kosovan or Turkish. “Here’s a few Euros, off you go and spend it well”.

Kids dead 1 Kids dead 2 Kids dead 3

“And shhh… don’t say a word!”

And that, my friends, is Einat Wolf’s “War of words and images”, kindly brought to you by the “Wilf” family.

Richard wonders how Journalists are going to make a living in this new age of internet, twitter and blogs. He knows damned well I assure you. It’s called DECEPTIVE PROPAGANDA MOSSAD, CIA, MI5, MI6, DVD style.

Oh and one last thing (which makes me laugh):

Munich Police respect

“Respect” 🙂 Well, unless you share controlled pics of the victims on ITV as above for example.

After all, the authorities don’t want too many pics of the victims floating around. Someone might recognise them in a McDonald’s one day!

That’s also why so many of these “shooters” end up “dead”.

 

 

Who are the freaks of this world?

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Political History by earthling on December 31, 2015

No apologies for presenting this movie on here. I’ve seen and read a lot about these people and I’ve now had about more than I can stomach. They are simply repulsive. And before anyone even suggests this is anti semitic, I ask you to watch this and ask yourself: “Do people such as this scare me?” Because they do me. It is racist (or anti semitic) to hate a people just because of their race or religion (which I don’t and never have) but it is not racist or anti semitic to be repulsed by the inhumanity of people and those who support it. Remember, David Cameron (and untold numbers of others) support these people and their disgusting actions. It is neither racist nor anti semitic to be afraid of a people. Many are afraid of muslims (there are elements of their beliefs I have issues with also) but they’re not who I’m frightened of and, when I say frightened, I mean I’m afraid of the masses of gentiles (or goyim) who protect their actions and apologise for them and who just refuse to see the power they are given. I don’t get it – I DO NOT GET how these people are given a “multipass” for a multitude of sins. Of course, they are not sinning within their religion and in front of their “God”, after all, they INVENTED him FOR their purposes! But then who the HELL is their G-d anyway? A God that likes them cutting their children’s genitalia and sucking them off? Anyone heard the term “PAEDOPHILIA” or “CHILD ABUSE”? A God that demands they then slaughter animals in the fashion they do? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Watch the goddamned movie and you tell me!

And find out who wanted to protect the animals by the way. Oh yeah, it was the big nasty dictator!

Now listen to this other jewish fellatio artiste as he defends this inhumane slaughter while the “Great Dictator” chose not to:

But he’s not the only one…..

And, of course, why did UKIP finally get the “ok” by the UK establishment? Well here’s on of the reasons….

 

Next, let’s consider your “beloved” Winston Churchill (another kosher fellatio artiste who started a war on behalf of the jews while he held vastly contradictory views on them – but then money does have the impact of changing one’s views doesn’t it? Especially when you’re an impoverished leader and the jews help you from facing bankruptcy):

churchill_helmet

Winston Churchill’s 1920 article, in which he highlighted the predominant Jewish role in the world-wide communist movement, is pretty well known. What is not discussed is how he misled his readers in essays and books published many years later. In many contemporary academic environments, it is held that the concept of “International Jewry”—groups of powerful Jews who operate on an international basis and feel that the world-wide Jewish community is united by racial bonds—is a “neo-Nazi” and “radically anti-Semitic” canard that should be immediately dismissed. Sir Winston and the British government showed us otherwise. Finally, it may raise the eyebrows of many when they find out what Churchill told the House of Commons in August 1946 about his knowledge of the Holocaust during the war.

Jews and Communism: Churchill’s Duplicity

During the early part of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill was very much aware of the decisive role that Jews played in the rise of Bolshevik Communism in Russia. Gilbert writes:

“He was familiar with the names and origins of all its leaders: Lenin was almost the only member of the Central Committee who was not of Jewish origin. Neither Churchill nor his colleagues, nor the Jews, knew that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew.” The Jewish historian adds an observation that, if stated by a non-Jew, could possibly earn him the dreaded “anti-Semite” label: “Churchill had studied the Bolshevik terror against political opponents, democrats and constitutionalists, and he knew the significant part individual Jews had played in establishing and maintaining the Bolshevik regime.”2

In a June 1919 telegram to a British general, Churchill pointed out the prominent role Jews played in the Bolshevik regime and the atrocities they were guilty of.3 In a 10 October 1919 letter to Lloyd George, Churchill again noted that Jews certainly “have played a leading role in Bolshevik atrocities.”4 Gilbert attempts to put this in historical context: “Not only was there a deeply anti-Semitic tradition in southern Russia and the Ukraine that had seen pogroms and massacres in both the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, but after the Bolshevik revolution in November 1917 many Jews, hoping for a better break, had thrown in their lot with the Bolsheviks. A few Jews, whose deeds were much publicized and greatly feared, became political commissars, charged with the imposition of Bolshevik rule in southern Russia, and carrying out their tasks with cruelty and zeal.”5

Gilbert devotes a long discussion to Sir Winston’s famous 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”6 Churchill pointed out that left-wing Jews were a major force behind Communist Marxism in many parts of Europe and Russia, which ultimately brought horror and suffering to millions. He discussed:

“the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”7

Churchill specifically stated that Jewish Marxists were causing major problems in Germany. He wrote:

“The same phenomenon [i.e., Jewish involvement with left-wing and Communist movements] has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is astonishing.”8

More recent scholarship has vindicated some of Churchill’s views. Jewish-American political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, and anti-National-Socialist historian Robert Payne documented the decisive role that Jews played in far left and Communist movements in Germany prior to World War II, although they may not believe that Jewish influence was as destructive as Churchill believed it to be.9

Despite Churchill’s 1920 exposé of the decisive Jewish involvement with Communism, in a November 1935 article he criticized Hitler and the German National Socialists for believing that Jews “were the main prop of communism.”10 Of course, this is precisely what Churchill had stated in “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” when he wrote:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews [Gilbert pointed out that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew. Ed.]. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”11

Furthermore, in his famous book, The Gathering Storm, written after the Second World War and widely regarded as a “classic,” Churchill again misled his readers. He insinuated that Hitler and his followers engaged in “delusional thinking” when they claimed that Jews played a major and destructive role in German Communist and Left wing groups. Describing the alleged fantasies of Hitler in regard to Jewish influence prior to and during the First World War, Churchill wrote: “As in a dream everything suddenly became clear [to Hitler]. Germany had been stabbed in the back and clawed down by the Jews, by the profiteers and intriguers behind the front, by the accursed Bolsheviks in their international conspiracy of Jewish intellectuals.”12 In fact, there is nothing in this “masterpiece” about the decisive role that Jews played in German communism, the international Bolshevik movement, and the threat this posed to Germany and the world, which Churchill had so vividly complained about in decades past.

On this issue, Churchill was deceitful. In 1935, he criticized National Socialists for holding beliefs that he himself had propounded years earlier. In 1948, when criticism of Jewish influence became taboo, he implied that the National Socialist idea of Bolshevism being a world-wide conspiracy of left-wing Jews that wreaked havoc in Germany was all a “paranoid fantasy.” He dishonestly failed to point out that this is very similar to what he emphatically stated in his 1920 article.

Churchill, the British Government, and the Reality of International Jewry

In his widely known works on National Socialist Germany, Jeffrey Herf asserts that the concept of “International Jewry” is a paranoid fantasy of “radical anti-Semites.” This allegedly false notion “rested on the belief that the Jews were a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds that transcended any allegiance to nation-states.”13 Of course, enlightened people of today should immediately reject this “canard.” The University of Maryland professor insists that Hitler was delusional, as he believed “International Jewry” to be an “actually existing political subject with vast power that was hostile to Germany.”14 According to Herf’s politically correct mode of thought, a world-wide Jewish entity that transcends the boundaries of nation-states had no existence whatsoever before, during or after the Second World War. Winston Churchill’s statements and behavior, and that of the British government, show us otherwise.

We remind the reader that in his 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Churchill referred directly to the “schemes of International Jews,” their “sinister confederacy” and “world-wide conspiracy.” Historian Gilbert, relying upon Churchill, defines “International Jews” as “those Jews who supported Bolshevik rule inside Russia and Bolshevik revolution beyond its borders.”15 (As we shall soon see, this is an incomplete and inadequate definition of the term, “International Jews.” To cite just one problem, it does not include international Jewish Zionists who were opposed to Bolshevism.)

What was the goal of these “International Jews?” Churchill believed that they were seeking “a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination.”16 It is important to note that in The Gathering Storm, he correctly imputed this very belief to Adolf Hitler. In Churchill’s description, Mein Kampf promoted the idea that the aim of Soviet communism was the triumph of international Judaism.17 Of course, Churchill never informed his readers of the striking similarity between his 1920 article and Hitler’s book on this issue.

Professor Herf apparently believes that only “radical anti-Semites” promoted the concept of “International Jewry”—but Winston Churchill was a philo-Semite and Gentile Zionist who worked for Jewish interests his entire career, and was accused of being “too fond of Jews” by his friend and fellow parliamentarian General Sir Edward Louis Spears.18

In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration. It read: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor 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”19 Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war, and that American Jews would be stimulated to accelerate the military participation of the United States—already at war, but not yet in the battlefield. To secure these results, [Jewish-Zionist diplomat] Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to lead a campaign to rouse the pro-war sentiments among the Jewish masses in both countries.”20

In 1921, Churchill reiterated the British government’s position on the Balfour Declaration. One of the main reasons that it was issued is because the assistance of Jews from various parts of the world was needed to induce the nation states in which they lived to enter the war on Great Britain’s side.21 A similar agenda motivated Churchill during the late 1930s: he believed continuing British support for a Jewish home in Palestine would motivate American Jewry to help bring the United States to Britain’s side in the expected war with Germany. Here is a quote from a December 1939 Churchill memorandum:

“…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”22

In order that there is no misunderstanding, we will quote Professor Cohen:

“[Churchill] believed that the Zionist movement commanded powerful political and economic influence, particularly in the United States. As late as in December, 1939, he lectured his cabinet colleagues on the important role Zionists could play in mobilizing American resources to the British war effort. He told them that it had not been for light or sentimental reasons that the Government had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, but in order to mobilize American support. In 1939, Churchill believed that history would repeat itself, that the Zionists, via their proxies across the Atlantic, could be influential in accelerating the vitally needed early entry of the Americans into the war.”23

Churchill’s beliefs regarding “international Jews” had validity: certain groups of Jews from one continent did engage in political actions that served the interests of Jews on other continents. As historian of the American film industry Neal Gabler pointed out in his An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Jewish screen writers and movie executives in Hollywood USA were concerned about the plight of their Jewish brethren across the ocean in Europe.24 These important Hollywood figures held a meeting in early 1936 during which they discussed what was to be done to combat Hitler’s Germany. Film producer David Selznick wanted to fight against Hitler “in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.” He further suggested: “Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.” Apparently, other screen industry figures present wanted to conduct a more open and straightforward campaign.25

In autumn 1936, the more conservative Jewish film industry figures began launching “tentative attacks upon the Hitler regime.”26 Film producer and studio executive Louis B. Mayer warned that war in Europe was looming, and he urged the United States to join forces with Britain. Before the US declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, certain Hollywood Jews were willing to use their influence to incite a pro-war sentiment in the United States. In a 20 May 1940 memo to President Roosevelt from studio executive Harry Warner, the latter stated: “[P]ersonally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” A few months later motion picture mogul Nick Schenck offered to place his entire studio in the service of President Roosevelt’s campaign for war with Germany.27

Here we have another example showing the reality of International Jewry, as Churchill would have conceived of it. Viewing the fight against Hitler’s Germany as in the interests of Jews everywhere, Hollywood executives put their powerful instruments of mass persuasion in the USA in the service of Churchill’s across-the-Atlantic campaign for war with Germany.28 As Professor Cohen so rightly noted: “Until the American entry [into the Second World War], Jewish influence was naturally at its highest premium, as a solid force countering neutralist forces in the United States [groups that opposed US involvement in a war with Germany].”29

In March 1922, on Churchill’s instructions, the Middle East Department issued a defense of the Balfour Declaration. They wanted the Jewish National Home in Palestine to “become a centre in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride [emphasis added].”30 Churchill discussed the Zionist desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine in his 3 September 1937 Jewish Chronicle article: this political entity would serve as a “rallying point for Jews in every part of the world.”31

The reader should take special note of the beliefs that Churchill and his British government acted upon. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the English promise to support a Jewish national home in Palestine would be used to enlist the aid of Jews from Russia and the United States to encourage their respective countries to keep fighting the First World War. In addition, an international Zionist diplomat would travel to these two nations to arouse pro-war feelings. Similar beliefs motivated Churchill in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Supposedly, Jewish proxies across the Atlantic would help bring the US onto the British side in a war with Germany.

But just as importantly, the Jewish National Home would be of interest to Jews on the basis of race and religion, an entity that would galvanize Jewish support from all parts of the globe.32 Significantly enough, this is very similar to the viewpoint of German National Socialist Foreign Minister Constantin von Neurath, who said that a Jewish state in Palestine would provide an internationally recognized power base for Jews world-wide, like the Vatican for Catholics or Moscow for international communists.33

Directly refuting Jeffrey Herf and those who think like him, by enacting policies such as these, Winston Churchill and the British government clearly realized that many powerful and influential groups of Jews throughout the world in fact saw themselves as “a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds.” In other words, the entity “International Jewry” does in fact exist, although not all Jews should be considered a part of it.34 There are Jews from all parts of the world who feel little or no attachment whatsoever to any world-wide Jewish community. Nevertheless, this belief that Jews are an internationally organized, racial entity has survived the Second World War and is still held by many Jewish groups world-wide, influencing Zionist and Israeli thinking to this very day. One example should suffice to demonstrate my point.

A convinced believer in the traditional view of the Holocaust, Dr. Herf claims: “The radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the Holocaust described Jews first and foremost as a racially constituted political subject.”35 Well lo and behold! Something strikingly like this “radical anti-Semitic idea” has led to Israel’s interest in scientific studies that delineate genetic/racial differences between Jews and non-Jews.

In an article that appeared in Natural History of November 1993, renowned Jewish scientist Jared Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”36 According to Diamond, Israeli policy asserts that Jews are a racially constituted political subject: they differ from non-Jews on a genetic/racial basis, and these biological differences may be used to determine who will be granted citizenship in the political entity of Israel.

The reader may scratch his head in wonder, asking: “So why do intellectuals like Jeffrey Herf deny the reality of International Jewry?” In the Twentieth Century, the Jewish community has emerged as one of the most powerful elements in the United States and Europe.37 If they become widely viewed as an international, racially constituted political entity that is separate and distinct from the surrounding culture, this could create suspicion and distrust in the minds of the non-Jewish peoples they reside among. Non-Jews might start saying: “Since certain segments of the Jews are separate and distinct from us and they form a hostile and alien elite, perhaps they should not wield the power over our society that they have.” If such ideas ever attained widespread legitimacy, it might spawn political and social movements that could bring about a marked reduction in Jewish power and influence. Jeffrey Herf’s denial of the existence of International Jewry may be based in a desire to maintain the Jewish community’s elite status in the Western world.

Churchill and Holocaust Revisionism

In June of 1941, British code-breakers at Bletchley Park were intercepting and reading the most secret communications of the German enemy. Gilbert claims that decoded top-secret messages about the alleged mass murder of Jews and non-Jews in the German-occupied Soviet Union were shown to Churchill. In response, the Prime Minister emphatically stated in his radio broadcast of 24 August 1941, that “whole districts are being exterminated,” and concluded with this judgment: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”38

On August 27, and September 1, 6, and 11, 1941, Churchill was shown German police decrypts reporting on the execution of thousands of Jews on Soviet territory.39 This information is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. As far back as the mid-1970s, Revisionist scholar Arthur Butz made the point that this is the one part of the Holocaust legend that contains a kernel of truth. During the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, thousands of Jews and non-Jews were shot by German police units and auxiliaries of local police in their attempt to stop the guerilla warfare being waged against them.40 Brutality was practiced by both the Soviets and the Germans.

On 27 August 1941, the Bletchley Park code-breakers informed Churchill: “The fact that the [German] Police [in the Soviet Union] are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically, unless so requested.”41

Gilbert admits there is nothing in Bletchley Park decrypts about the alleged mass shooting of 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941. Therefore, should one conclude that this atrocity never took place? Not according to Gilbert: he says that German police units in Russia were cautioned by Berlin “not to compromise their ciphers.”42 Gilbert encourages his readers to conclude that this alleged mass killing took place, although supposedly a top-secret message about it was never sent out.

Gilbert believes that Churchill received sufficient details from other sources about the mass killing of Jews in the Soviet Union, and in response, sent the Jewish Chronicle a personal message, which was published in full on 14 November 1941. It read in part: “None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew,” and he referred to “the unspeakable evils wrought on the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime.”43

In London on 29 October 1942, Christian and Jewish leaders led a public protest against the alleged mass murders of Jews that were supposedly taking place in the German concentration camps. Churchill, who was in the United States at the time, addressed the gathering by way of a letter that was read by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It stated in part:

“I cannot refrain …to protest against the Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews…The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetuate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes…”44

In December 1942, Churchill was shown a report from a Polish Catholic member of the Resistance, Jan Karski. He claimed to have seen Jews being forced with great brutality into cattle cars, and then taken to an unknown “extermination location.”45 In response, Anthony Eden of the War Cabinet wanted to issue a public declaration. “It was known,” he asserted, “that Jews were being transferred to Poland from enemy-occupied countries, for example, Norway: and it might be that these transfers were being made with a view to wholesale extermination of Jews.”46 (Notice that Eden said the exterminations “might be” happening, and not that they were in fact happening. This suggests that he was skeptical of the “evidence” regarding the alleged mass exterminations of Jews. More on Eden in a moment.)

The Allied Declaration, supported by Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other members of the Allied cause, was published on 17 December 1942, and it had considerable political impact, just as Churchill wished. Its central paragraph condemned “in the strongest possible terms” what was described as “this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”47

On 19 December 1942, Polish-Jewish official Samuel Zygielbojm appealed to Churchill to save the one and a quarter million Polish Jews who were still alive and were in danger of “being exterminated” by the Germans. As Cohen points out, there is no record of any reply from Churchill, and no Allied operation was initiated to halt the alleged slaughter.48

In June 1944, Churchill viewed a Jewish Agency report on the workings of the alleged “Nazi gas chambers” in the concentration camps. He sent a memorandum to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, asking: “Foreign Secretary, what can be done? What can be said?” The evidence indicates that Churchill wanted to issue another Allied threat of retribution, but the Foreign Office said that too many such pronouncements had already been made.49

On 6 July 1944, Foreign Secretary Eden informed Churchill of an appeal he received from Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann, that the British government should take steps to mitigate the “appalling slaughter of Jews in Hungary.”50 We let Professor Cohen pick up the story here:

“Now Weizmann reported mistakenly that 60,000 Jews were being gassed and burned to death each day at Birkenau (the death camp at Auschwitz II). Eden told Churchill that this figure might well be an exaggeration. But on the next day, Eden forwarded an additional report to Churchill, describing the four crematoria at the camp, with a gassing and burning capacity of 60,000 each day. Some 40,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported and killed there. Over the past one year and a half, some one-and-a-half million Jews had been done to death in the camp.”51

Cohen, a firm believer in the traditional version of the Holocaust, still highlighted the exaggerations in the story. Buried in a footnote he writes; “It seems that the Zionist figure of 60,000 per day, should in fact have been 6,000.”52 As of the date of this writing, even anti-Revisionist Holocaust historians would point out that the figure of 1,500,000 Jews being murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau is another exaggeration of around 540,000 deaths! Robert Jan van Pelt, widely considered to be a contemporary expert on the alleged mass murder of Jews at this concentration camp, wrote in 2002 that total number of Jewish deaths at the site was 960,000.53 The important lesson here is this: we have evidence from a respected academic source that, during the war, Churchill was being handed exaggerated atrocity information, to say the very least.

On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitz by the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55

At the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56

Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.

Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58

As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59 In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60

The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.

Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.

Churchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62

Throughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65

Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66

I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67

Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.

We will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70

Notes:
Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (Frank Cass, 1985); Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (Henry Holt, 2007); Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Belknap Press, 2006).
Gilbert, p. 37.
Ibid., p.31.
Ibid., p.33.
Ibid., p.31.
Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920. Online: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionchurch.html Gilbert reproduces the article in facsimile, but it is virtually unreadable.
Ibid..
Gilbert, pp. 40-41.
Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp.84-89; Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (Popular Library, 1973), pp.124-125.
Gilbert, p. 104.
Ibid., p.40.
Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Bantam Books, 1948), p.48.
Herf, p.7.
Ibid., p.3.
Gilbert, p.40.
Ibid., p.42.
Churchill, p.51.
Gilbert, p.xv.
Ibid., p.27.
Ibid., p.28.
Ibid., pp.69, 78-79, 112.
Cohen, p.195; Gilbert, p.165.
Cohen, p.328.
Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988), p.342.
Ibid..
Ibid., p.343.
Ibid., p.343.
Ibid., pp.342-343.
Cohen, pp.186-187.
Gilbert, p.74.
Ibid., p.132.
Gilbert, p.132.
Quoted in Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (University of Texas Press, 1985), p.121.
For a further discussion of this topic, see Paul Grubach, “Does ‘International Jewry’ Exist?: Grubach Contra Herf.” Online: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionpgint.html
Herf, p.265.
Jared Diamond, “Who Are the Jews?,” Natural History, November 1993, pp. 12-19.
The following is just a small sample of the works that document Jewish power and influence in the Western world. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (Oxford University Press, 1986); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1993); Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (Stein and Day, 1969); Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, 2008); Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israeli Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985); Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? (North American, 1982); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (The Occidental Press, 2007); Janine Roberts, “The Influence of Israel in Westminster,” The Palestine Chronicle , 24 May 2008. Online: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13821; Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982); Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (Summit Books, 1985).
Gilbert, p.186.
Ibid., pp.186-187.
Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp.241-242. Online: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf
Gilbert, p.186.
Ibid., p.187.
Ibid., p.187.
Gilbert, p.192.
Ibid., p.194.
Ibid., p.195,
Ibid..
Cohen, p.271.
Ibid., p.290.
Ibid., p.294.
Ibid..
Ibid., p.368fn120.
Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), p.116.
Cohen, pp. 294-296.
Cohen, p. 291; Gilbert, pp.215, 216.
Gilbert, p.219.
Ibid., p.220.
Gilbert, p. 257; Cohen, pp. 266-267.
Cohen, p.267.
Ibid., p.268.
Gilbert, p.188.
Butz, p.114.
Gilbert, pp. 46, 58-59, 71-72, 76, 77, 78, 93, 102, 117, 144, 154, 157, 202, 205, 222, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237, 246, 249, 285.
Ibid., pp. 109, 180, 213, 243, 245, 257.
Ibid., p.193.
Cohen, p.325.
Butz, p.113.
Gilbert, p.257; Cohen, p.267.
Gilbert, pp.240-241.
A good place to start would be Ernst Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 285-309.

from the website “Inconvenient history”.

 

Then, finally, after “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY” in 1933 (THIS is the year WW2 started and let noone tell you differently), who, of all people, did Great Britain decide to have as SECRETARY OF WAR?

Well I never! A JEW!

And note, this jew was also responsible for the conscription of British men into the British Army to fight a battle with that “Great Dictator” on behalf of the jews.

One of the most mysterious episodes of the second world war was how did the Franco-British armies, superior in numbers to the Germans, whose French tanks were of higher quality than the Panzers, whose Franco-German border was protected by an impregnable defence, come to be crushed by the enemy?
The pre-war issue most exercising the Government was not Hitler, but what the press had termed “The Massacre on the Roads”. To solve this acute problem, the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, appointed as Transport Minister a dynamic young man whose vigour, as a junior member of the government, had created quite an impact. He came from the “right” class. Had served with distinction in the First World War. He had been Mentioned in Dispatches.

His father had been an officer in the Royal Fusiliers, followed by a career as a cotton broker. His mother was similarly socially “correct”, with a finishing school background and also an author of children’s books. His family had been settled in England for hundred and fifty years and were committed to their Jewish faith. Indeed, he had only failed to make his public school’s Rugby team because it would have entailed playing on the Sabbath.

After the war, in which he reached the rank of Major, he served as a King’s Messenger; a role of extreme responsibility, which carried with it the onerous duty of personally delivering the most important of state documents. He then went on to Oxford University where he was elected President of the Union, became a Barrister, and then entered politics. Chamberlain appointed him Minister of Transport, and immediately the nation felt the impact of his personality.

He created driving tests, also a code of behaviour that had to be followed; Road crossings were introduced, marked by a flashing beacon. In a twelve-month period, in the face of increasing road traffic, Injuries were reduced by 12,805; Deaths by 822.

Isaac Leslie Hore-Belisha had arrived.

Hore Belisha

Hitler now dominated the Horizon. War was inevitable. The British Army was in a state of crises with twenty thousand men below strength and deeply unpopular. On the 25th May 1937 Belisha was appointed Secretary of State for War.

He called in Sir Isadore Salmon, head of Lyons Corner House to advise on catering. Barracks were to be centrally heated, provided with spring beds, showers, recreation rooms, radios. Married men could sleep with their wives out of Barracks. Soldiers under 21 could sleep at their parent’s home. Generous pensions were to be provided. Men with dentures were to be accepted. Soldiers leaving the service were to be trained, on full pay, for a civilian occupation. He replaced the tunic with the practical battle dress. Promotion was to be on merit.

The result was that recruitment rocketed with the Territorial Army doubling in size.

There now occurred an extraordinary side effect:

The British League of Fascists lost its most prominent member, General J.F.C. “Boney” Fuller. “Because,” he announced “of what a Jew was doing for the army”.

The Army at this stage was becoming mechanised and Belisha appointed a Tank officer to the command of what would become the 1st Armoured Division. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff opposed this because it would involve cavalry officers taking orders from an officer from the Army’s mechanical branch.

Belisha sacked him. He then sacked the Adjutant General, and went on to sack The Master General of Ordinance.

He now forced through, in the face of fierce opposition, conscription. In cabinet he was compared to Stalin. Never the less his actions delighted the Prime Minister.

At the outbreak of war France’s border was protected by the impregnable Maginot Line. Belgium, demonstrating “The Triumph of Hope over experience,” had declared itself neutral and forbade the extension of the Line along its border. This meant that an attack on France would come via Belgium.

The Allied plan, Plan D, was to advance into Belgium and there, because of overall superiority, defeat the Germans. Belisha, far from happy with this Plan, wanted the original defence system strengthened. This was to be done by building 240 pillboxes (small forts).

The Army told him it would take 3 weeks to construct a pillbox. Belisha ascertained that it would take 3 days. Accordingly he brought to France a team of Civil Engineers to do this. Unfortunately the Army resented them and gave minimal co-operation.

Belisha now visited France, and attended a meeting of senior officers, which included the commander of the British force, Lord Gort.

A shocked Belisha found that the 1st item on the agenda was “Over which shoulder should a soldier carry his steel helmet when it was not on his head?” He also found that only 2 pillboxes had been constructed.

On his return he reported the situation to the Army Council, and informed the Prime Minister who said that if he wanted to sack Lord Gort he would support him. Belisha refused to do this. Instead he sent General Packenham Walsh to convey to Lord Gort the Army Council’s disquiet at the state of his defences.

In doing this Belisha had committed a breach of etiquette. An officer can only be reprimanded by a senior. Packenham Walsh was junior to Lord Gort.

This faux pas increased the already deep hostility to Belisha to a blinding rage. Lord Gort referred to him as Belli; His Chief of Staff General Sir Henry Pownell now referred to him as a “Shallow brained, charlatan, political Jew boy”. Michael Foot, later to become leader of the Labour party thought of him as “a shit”. Chips Chanon a prominent socialite referred to him as “An Oily Jew”.

An army song went:

“Onward Christian Soldiers,
You have nothing to fear
Israel Hore-Belisha will lead you from the rear,
Clothed by Monty Burton
Fed on Lyons Pies
Die for Jewish freedom
As a Briton always dies.
Other officers were referring to him as Horeb Elisha.

Aware of this viscous attitude the Chief of the Imperial General Staff visited France. On his return he supported the Armies attitude, and reported to the King who called in the Prime minister. On January 4th 1940 Belisha was sacked.

On May 10th the Germans attacked through Belgium, and the British Army following plan D advanced to combat the enemy. They were then completely out flanked, and but for the miracle of Dunkirk would have been annihilated.

After this debacle Belisha was asked, “why were you dismissed?” “Jew boy.” was his reply.

from the July 2008 Edition of the Jewish Magazine

 

But freaks aren’t freaks when they can buy their way out of it.

SMELL the desperation!

Posted in New World Order Religion, Politics by earthling on February 9, 2015

If it was truly about hate crime and racism then it would cover all “hate” and all “racism”. But it doesn’t. It’s all about this bullshit called “anti semitism” (but what is a semite? It certainly isn’t a caucasian from Khazar or Eastern Europe commonly known as AshkeNAZI and it certainly isn’t a christian or any other type of zionist.) So what is it they are REALLY protecting?

It’s the information! The one thing you need to do when you cannot argue the facts and disprove them and when you must cover up the lie, is hit the “kill” switch so that the information cannot be spread. They can’t control it and they are DESPERATE to do so! It’s the ONLY way!

You allow them to and you are signing your own journey into sheer hell however. Mark my words!

Trolls anti semitism

http://rt.com/uk/230547-anti-semitism-internet-trolls/

“You don’t have to be jewish to be a zionist!” as the jew smiles in acknowledgement because he knows a zionist need not be a jew. But the British MPs and European establishment – hen-pecked by the jewish lobby – think zionism equates to jewishness. But then they have to try and maintain that lie but, like all lies, it exposes itself in the end. Not to give the jews a “get out of jail card” of course because they do not stand up and speak out generally. Why? Because zionism = judaism has served them well overall for decades! To the tune of $billions!

So, they state that using “zionism” is a cloak for anti semitism? Hmmm… They cannot get out of this one! If Joe Biden was the only zionist on the planet, I would stand against him. How could I be this fabled “anti semite” then? He’s no jew!

But they will use and abuse this term to the very end. I just hope it is the very end of them! And any true, honest, fair minded and non ignorant, thinking person on this planet will know exactly what I mean by that. Of course some won’t but only because they have an agenda of either BEING zionist OR, such as in the case of Jim Murphy for example – they do well out of supporting and protecting the zionists. Don’t you Jim?

Murphy Israel

 

But what is it that the vast majority of British, European and American/Canadian/Western politicians love about “Israel”? Why, of all the countries around the world, is Israhell of so much importance? Because of this thing called the bible? Then if it were that, then our politicians are bringing religion into politics! (well I never!!). But if they say it isn’t that, then what?

Well, as we keep trying to explain – “Mr Rothschild” (the family) and “Mr Rockefeller” (the family) and a few other jewish/zionist families OWN this neck of the woods called “The West” (yes I know, on paper, the Rockefellers aren’t jewish – but then neither is Joe Biden or Tony Blair! ;-))

BUT, it’s all just “Conspiracy theory” isn’t it? 😉

You gotta laugh!

 

MH370: Pilot had Diego Garcia included on his simulator

12.46 Intriguing new line from The Malay Mail Online.

Police scouring Capt Shah’s flight simulator – which he installed in his home – have found five Indian Ocean practice runways.

One is in the Maldives.

One is on Diego Garcia.

The other three are in India and Sri Lanka.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10704769/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-live.html

So, not such a crazy idea after all. We have the Anwar/Globalist issue. Anwar now coming out to admit he’s related to the pilot. We know why the west wants to destabilise Malaysia and we know the CIA are active in Malaysia and have been for some time. We also know the Council on Foreign Relations is happy with Anwar and the west definitely want him as their man in Malaysia.

We know it is highly unlikely that this plane could have travelled across multiple territories such as the northern arc suggests without being spotted. The southern arc leads to nowhere. So what’s left?

Ping DG

 

Why fly over Maldives instead of direct to Diego Garcia? Well it makes sense to me. You see, by doing so (if, in fact it did) it would give the possibility of being spotted by the Maldives. It would then suggest that the plane was heading to Africa. The straight line between Maldives and Africa suggests the flight is heading toward…..

SOMALIA!

Somalia

 

And we all know who live in Somalia don’t we? It’s full of pirates and Al Qaeda! 🙂 So we’re told by our wonderful media programming on behalf of our governments.

So then what do we expect next? Well, what I expect is for Israel to start screaming! “Oy vey! Oy Vey! They have a plane now in Somalia loaded up with nuclear bombs. The Iranians are in on it! We need to destroy Iran before they use it. They’re going to wipe out Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! Oy vey! Oy vey! The International community must now attack Iran and Somalia and destroy half the middle east so we, god’s people, can continue to live on this planet, in peace and suck the life out of every last living human creature with our monetary system!”

Ok perhaps I’ve slightly overdone what the Israeli’s might say and demand but have I? They’re fricking “religious” (yet atheist?!) nutters! And they’re desperate for a war!

Share amongst the Nation

Posted in Politics by earthling on February 19, 2013

For some reason, I completely overlooked a response I got from Nigel Farage’s office in the EU Parliament approximately 2 years ago.

I think it is VERY important that this be shared. It is also important to notice the PERCEPTION of individuals and how one individual’s perception (without giving one an opportunity to correct that perception) can go a long way to demonise an individual in the eyes of others.

If one simply chooses to take one’s PERCEPTION as a fact and then use that perception against another without giving the other recourse to correct a misperception (either purposefully conceived or otherwise) then that can lead to bad feeling, jail or even war between countries.

It is a lack of communication and/or willingness to listen to other opinions which can cause all of these things so very easily. You will see what I mean when you read the following:

 

His office's words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don't, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right. So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

His office’s words. I want to hear it from his own mouth.
The country DOES need to understand this otherwise they cannot appreciate the full reasons for potentially voting UKIP and getting us out of an UNLAWFUL EU membership. They also need to know the full depth of the deception against them. If they don’t, they will just continue swinging their vote fro left to right.
So my concern is this: If Mr Farage is unwilling to strongly put this message out then he is trying to steer things in an other direction STILL controlled by the establishment.

Subject: RE: Results from form on website…
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:13:50 +0200
From: nigel.farage@europarl.europa.eu
To: Removed@hotmail.com
CC: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com

Dear Mr (Earthlinggb)
Thank you for your very pertinent questions, to which, however, in your closing “opinion”, you seem to assume certain answers.
The UKIP is opposed to the global politico-commercial cartel, in which the Rothschilds are prominent, and which underpins a number of supra-national organisations, notably the UNO and the EU.  If that cartel has undue influence on some members of UKIP, then I can only say that UKIP has its moles, traitors and agents provocateurs, just as you would expect in an anti-establishment party.  They expose themselves fairly regularly and we expel them as regularly.
UKIP is not “aligned with Zionist policy”.  We are in favour of democratic, sovereign nation-states, however, and are opposed to multiculturalism, which we see as a form of apartheid.  How this will play out in the Levant, with a minimum of bloodshed and loss of democratic structures, is not clear.
The written constitution of the UK consists of Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and numerous statutes, which are now being over-ridden by a treacherous EU-élite, which has no justification whatever for its actions, and which has made a mockery, among much else, of the Coronation Oath.
The CFR, whose “shop-window” and recruiting-office is the annual Bilderberg-Meeting, must be seen as the epicentre of the conspiracy, of which the UK’s treacherous EU-élite is a part.  Throwing off the EU is therefore a key objective in opposing the formation of global, totalitarian government; but this is not something the public will readily understand – and does not need, at this stage, to understand – as long as the objective of dissolving the EU can be attained.  Moreover, as a poorly-funded, anti-establishment party, UKIP’s capacity to reach the public is severely limited.  We simply cannot afford, financially or tactically, to depart from our simple anti-EU message, at this time.
The face-book forum is too time-consuming to permit much dialogue.  I apologise, for example, concerning the ability of our correspondence-team, to answer your questions systematically.  We do not have the resources to do this, and Mr Farage has no time at all to answer general enquiries.  You won’t find any national party-leader who does.
Yours sincerely
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
www.ukip.org    www.ukipmeps.org

From: Fuller Annabelle [mailto:annabelle.fuller@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 June 2011 15:42
To: FARAGE Nigel
Subject: Fwd: Results from form on website…

This guy has been causing real problems on Nigel’s facebook page, being anti semitic and offensive. Can you check that Nigel is okay with me saying that given his comments on the facebook page he does not wish to interact with this person?

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Office of Nigel Farage <admin@nigelfaragemep.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Subject: Results from form on website…
To: annabelle.fuller@gmail.com===[Contact Nigel]===Name: Earthlinggb

Address: None of your business.

E-mail: Removed for privacy

Your Query: Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?

7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?

8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?

9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?

10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?

11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?

12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.

My opinion of you Nigel is you\’re a fraud and a cheap one to boot. It\’s easy to stand up in the EU Parliament (a controlled venue) and make theatrical speeches which are then posted on Youtube which make you out to be \”Spartacus\” (My God!) but it\’s a lot harder to answer questions in public on your Facebook page isn\’t it?

As for your comment about not intentionally ignoring comments on your page, it doesn\’t quite hold water when then you resort to deleting them and then deleting the questioner entirely so he can no longer post questions YOU don\’t like.

Van Rumpoy may have the appearance of a damp rag but you have one of a Double Glazing salesman. You\’re just as transparent!

Islamic fundamentalism (Wahhabism) created by Zionists! (Update)

Posted in Political History by earthling on August 3, 2011

Recently released documents by the US Dept of Defense have now supported the information in a previously blog written approx 2 years ago regarding the founding of the Wahabi sect of Islam and the relationship between the Al Saud family and jewish roots. The US Dept of Defense have culled a number of Iraqi intelligence documents from 2002.

Document:  wahhabi.pdf

Original blog:  407

Time and again, the information which has previously been condemned as “ridiculous” and “Conspiracy theory” is proven to be factual.

I only wonder why all of this is finding its way out into the public domain.

I have stated many times that, having read Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” it is clear to me that the west is no longer (and perhaps never was except for when it was of use) interested in the state of Israel. The true nature of the west’s gameplan is to have a united Middle East and that United Middle East (and Africa) – the Muslim world in total in fact – to be led by a strong leader who will be in the pocket of the west. They are never going to achieve this by retaining a zionist threat in the shape of the state of Israel. They will, therefore, sacrifice Israel and have a strong Muslim leader to unite the region instead. This muslim leader COULD be Ahmadinejad (or another Iranian figure) or it may be a grouping of leaders all under western control. To eliminate Israel however, also means eliminating the Saudi support of Israel – Wahhabism. We may yet see the downfall of the Al Saud family.

Personally, I would like to see the Muslim world wake up to this while I would not want to have a muslim take over of the west. The people of Islam and the people of the west need to destroy both sets of leadership through knowledge and intelligence. Only then will we have peace.

We can live harmoniously with the two cultures which, at their root, have the principle of “Non usury” in common. It is a simple fact that the jewish religion (and the zionists who now control it from a political standpoint) has no issue with usury while it is the most disgusting form of a Crime on Humanity that you can think of. After all, the entire planet is in financial turmoil right now entirely due to it.

It MUST be eradicated.

I still think how telling it is that the names given for 9/11 were, for the most part, Saudi nationals. It would make a great deal of sense considering 9/11 was carried out by Israeli interests.

Islamic Fundamentalism (Wahhabism) created by Zionists!

Posted in "Terrorism", Geo-Political Warfare, The illegal wars by earthling on January 15, 2010

291a

 

 

You ALL believe that Islam is the enemy. You believe Muslim Fundamentalism is at the root of all evil.

But you are wrong. The con is massive and the con stretches across the entire Islamic world also. As much as YOU (We) don’t understand the conflict NEITHER DO THE TRUE MUSLIMS!

Why?

This is why:

  • Give some thought to the fact “Osama Bin Laden” came from a sect of the Wahhabi tribe.
  • Consider the fact that the majority of the hijackers on 9/11 weren’t Iranian or Iraqi or even Afghani but were SAUDI NATIONALS!
  • Consider the fact that the Saudi Royals and their country – while the rest of the Arab/Muslim world are demonized by the USA and it only takes ONE guy (Nigerian but boarded a plane in Yemen) to have the USA focus on “Al Qaeda in Yemen” – is NEVER a target of the USA while the MAJORITY (yes I repeat it) of the 9/11 alleged hijackers were Saudi nationals!!
  • Consider that, for now, it is the Saudis who are in control of the Oil in the gulf to the greatest degree AND they set the price to the world (along with their Zionist/American “friends”) while Iran (and Iraq) have significant oil reserves and are happy to consider LOWER prices!!
  • Do you never wonder why Saudi does not protest about Israeli nuclear missiles, while they object to Iranian power plants?
  • Did you forget that AL SAUD were SADDAM’s biggest supporters to attack Iran in 1980?
  • Isn’t it strange that Saudi is very quiet when Israel attacks Lebanon / Gaza or American/Nato troops kill civilians in IRAQ and Afghanistan?

I COULD GO ON AND ON but I won’t.

Let me just let you chew over this for a moment:

King FAISAL AL-SAUD declared to the WASHINGTON POST on Sept. 17, 1969:

“WE, THE SAUDI FAMILY, are cousins of the Jews: we entirely disagree with any Arab or Muslim Authority which shows any antagonism to the Jews; but we must live together with them in peace. Our country (Arabia) is the Fountain head from where the first Jew sprang, and his descendants spread out all over the world.”

In the 1960’s the “Sawt Al Arab” Broadcasting Station in Cairo, Egypt, and the Yemen Broadcasting Station in Sana’a confirmed the Jewish Ancestry of the Saudi Family ” – James Matthew Cantu


The Saudi Royal Family are Zionist with their origins going back to MORDAKHAI BIN IBRAHIM BIN MOSHE’.

And Wahhabism is the House of Saud SECT – a total corruption of the Islamic faith which was promoted by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of “Wahhabism” an ‘austere’ form of Islam. al-Wahhab arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to “pure” Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab’s austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab’s followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

The research of Mohammad Sakher led to an order for his death by the Saudi Regime for the following findings: The Saudi family, who, despite claims otherwise, were descended from Jewish merchants from Iraq. Sakhir found that the Jewish Ancestor of the Saudi family was called Mordakhai Bin Ibrihim Bin Moshe but changed his name to Markhan Bin Ibrahim Musa.

There are records in the British war Museum that the British paid 15,000 pound sterling per month to the thug Ibne Saud to oppose Muslim Ottomans and with explicit instructions to share the money with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab because he introduced Ibne Saud to the British. The British ordered Ibne Saud to have a relationship with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab and now the present day Saudi family are descendants of both Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab and Ibne Saud. Also, the british sent a spy named “Hempher” to convince Muhammed bin abdul wahab to create the “wahhabi” sect…this was to create groups between muslims and divide them…..due to this, today all saudis are wahabis.

The House of Saud, therefore, works WITH the US, British and Israeli elites AGAINST the REAL Muslims of Iraq/Iran etc. The House of Saud (with their 9/11 hijackers – who, in fact, I do not believe WERE on those planes) works WITH their Zionist chums to create the vision that the true Islam is terrorist when, in fact, the House of Saud are Zionist working with the west and hate the true Islam.

Why? Because the House of Saud – if they did not play this game with the UK, USA and Israel – would be targeted for regime change as much as Iraq/Iran and Afghanistan etc. What you need to remember is that, not only are they Zionist by this ‘austere’ form of religion CREATED by a zionist BUT they also have a LOT to lose if they don’t play with the west.
The people of the Muslim world are as confused as we are about all of this. The Saudi people do not recognise this con. They know as much (generally speaking) about the history of their country and the history of their religion and politics as we do. Perhaps less because they are so controlled and conditioned.

It’s a pure mindf*ck people. It is again, the elites brainwashing the masses for divide and conquer and this little part of the story goes back to the Ottoman Empire and why that was destroyed by “us” (“us” being the Bankers again!).

Now, you may say “But the Saudis and Israelis are mortal enemies and have fought wars!!”

Yes they have fought wars. Who has died due to them? The House of Saud? No. We Brits have fought wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. Are the people of these countries mortal enemies of the people of the UK? Yes IF you believe the propaganda of our governments. How many of you are willing to today? How many of you believe Blair should be convicted for lying to us? And who have died in OUR “wars”? Name a government official’s child who has died?
A country they refuse to recognise or even negotiate with: Hmmm look deeper and just read the words of the King again! “Cousins”.

You may point to the Saudis giving safe havens to Hezbollah etc….

Think on this:

Does a government do what it’s people wish? Has ours?
When our government supported the Iraq war and the people didn’t, did they care?
Again, this is nothing to do with Saudi people OR Jewish people. This is to do with governments and regimes.

When our government threw its people into Iraq and Afghanistan, did it affect our government? Have any of our government or their families died in those “wars”? No.

Did any of the House of Saud die in the Saudi/Israeli war? No.

The House of Saud (as with our own government/establishment) manouvre the pieces of a chess set as and how they wish. The House of Saud will quite happily give safe haven to organisations which are against the Israelis while the House of Saud shall support the Israeli regime. But you can’t get that in your head can you?

As for safe haven? Let’s take a look at one Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad (Islam4UK Choudary’s chum):

In Beirut, he joined Sheikh Khalil Al-Mat and the local branch of Hizb Al-Tahrir. Then, in 1983, (or according to some versions in 1979 during Syria’s invasion of Lebanon) he took the alias of Omar Fustuk and settled in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he established “Al-Muhajirun” as a front for the Hizb Al-Tahrir in the Arabian Peninsula. Al-Muhajirun now has offshoots in Lille, France, and Hanover, Germany. In 1995, 47 Sunni organizations were reported to be active in Western Europe under the umbrella of Hizb Al-Tahrir, which is headquartered in Hamburg.

In 1985, after the Saudi government deported him he then went to London where he later left Hizb Al-Tahrir following a disagreement with its leaders. While Bakri wanted to deal with numerous issues troubling the Muslim community, such as racism and unemployment, the Hizb Al-Tahrir leaders claimed that such activity would sidetrack the party from its main goal, the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.

In 1993, Bakri became a legal resident of Britain, and in March 1996 he applied for citizenship.

So: The Saudis DEPORT the guy and where does he end up going? THE UK!!

So here we have a government (the British Government) accepting a “known terrorist” who has been “thrown out” by the Saudi government and given him SAFE HAVEN in the UK.

So according to this idea of Saudi giving safe haven to terrorists, just as the Saudi government are evil because they give safe haven to what you describe as terrorist organisations and people, can’t we now say the same for OUR government?

Does that make the UK and its people (who have no say) a terrorist nation?

Think through the logic!!

So, basically, what I’m telling you is this: the entire terrorism threat is being orchestrated by the Zionists within Israel/Mossad, the USA/CIA and Britain itself along with help from Saudi Arabia in the form of the house of Saud (Saudi Royal family) who wish to retain their positions as Kings of the Middle East while collaborating with the Western Zionist machine.

There is a long time established and very respected organisation by the name of the CATO Institute based in Washington D.C. I happen to have come across a document of theirs dated 1992 which is a Policy Analysis of the US Government and the title of the document is “The “Green Peril’: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist threat”.

Again, I repeat, this is 1992.

Here are excerpts which, I hope, when you make a comparison of what I have just discussed you may well then appreciate the reality of it.

You may also clearly recognise that, if you were also to read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defences”, you would have no shadow of a doubt about the con which is being played out in manipulating YOUR belief that we have a TRUE Muslim threat. For we never have.

Excerpts: (oh, by the way, it’s written by Leon T Hadar, a former bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post).

Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America’s foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. Possible new villains include “instability” in Europe –ranging from German resurgence to new Russian imperialism– the “vanishing” ozone layer, nuclear proliferation, and narcoterrorism. Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating from East Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). That peril is symbolized by the Middle Eastern Moslem fundamentalist–the “Fundie,” to use a term coined by The Economist–a Khomeini-like creature, armed with a radical ideology, equipped with nuclear weapons, and intent on launching a violent jihad against Western civilization.

“Islamic fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist, and Nazi movements of the past,” according to Amos Perlmutter. It is “authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-secular,” and cannot be reconciled with the “Christian-secular universe” and its goal is the establishment of a “totalitarian Islamic state” in the Middle East, he argued, suggesting that the United States should make sure the movement is “stifled at birth.”
The Islam vs. West paradigm, reflected in such observations, is beginning to infect Washington. That development recalls the efforts by some of Washington’s iron triangles as well as by foreign players during the months leading up to the 1990-91 Persian Gulf crisis. Their use of the media succeeded in building up Saddam Hussein as the “most dangerous man in the world” and as one of America’s first new post-Cold War bogeymen. Those efforts, including allegations that Iraq had plans to dominate the Middle East, helped to condition the American public and elites for the U.S. intervention in the gulf.

There are dangerous signs that the process of creating a monolithic threat out of isolated events and trends in the Moslem world is already beginning. The Green Peril thesis is now being used to explain diverse and unrelated events in that region, with Tehran replacing Moscow as the center of ideological subversion and military expansionism and Islam substituting for the spiritual energy of communism.
Islam does seem to fit the bill as the ideal post-Cold War villain. “It’s big; it’s scary; it’s anti-Western; it feeds on poverty and discontent,” wrote David Ignatius, adding that Islam “spreads across vast swaths of the globe that can be colored green on the television maps in the same way that communist countries used to be colored red.”

NOW THIS NEXT PART IS AN AMAZING PIECE OF HONESTY (and REMEMBER, this was 1992 only MONTHS before the first WTC bombing which the brought the “threat” of “Islamic Militism” to light. Completely and utterly constructed.


The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious “sources” and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media’s spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.

The Israeli government and its supporters in Washington are also trying to play the Islamic card. The specter of Central Asian republics and Iran equipped with nuclear weapons helps Israel to reduce any potential international pressure on it to place its own nuclear capabilities and strategy on the negotiating table. More important, perhaps, the Green Peril could revive, in the long run, Israel’s role as America’s strategic asset, which was eroded as a result of the end of the Cold War and was seriously questioned during the Gulf War.

NOW on the specific point of the House of Saud:


As has that of Egypt and Israel, Saudi Arabia’s use of the Green Peril to mobilize U.S. support has been characterized by confusion, ironies, and paradoxes, the most dramatic of which has been the kingdom’s own commitment to Islamic fundamentalism. With the elimination of Iraq as a regional military power, the Saudi royal family, worried about the rise of Tehran as a hegemonic player in the gulf, has been fanning the anti-fundamentalist and anti-Iranian mood in Washington. The Saudis have indicated that they are interested in countering Iranian influence in Central Asia. Ironically, they are doing what they accuse Tehran of– spending lavishly to establish political and religious influence. Riyadh has spent more than $1 billion to promote the Saudi brand of Islam. Along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia has also been supporting the Somali president against a faction, supported by Iran, that is trying to overthrow him.

A series of reports about resurgent militant Islamic forces in Saudi Arabia (which also portrayed the royal family as a politically reformist regime and active supporter of the U.S.-led peace process) has been used to try to mobilize American support for the Saudis as a “moderate pillar” and anti-fundamentalist force in the gulf, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
The problem with that campaign is that the legitimacy of the Saudi regime is based on its own Islamic fundamentalist principles. The Saudi government is actually more rigid in its application of Islamic law and more repressive in many respects than the one in Tehran. For example, Saudi Arabia has no form of popular representation, and political rights are totally denied women and non-Moslems. The Saudi regime has been able to stay in power largely because it has had both direct and indirect American military support, most recently during the Gulf War. To paraphrase President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Saudis are Islamic fundamentalists–but they are our Islamic fundamentalists.

Just read that last line again! “but they are our Islamic fundamentalists”.

Full paper here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html

House of Saud: On America’s side. On Britain’s side. On the Israeli side. The WESTERN DEMOCRACY BASED IMF SIDE.
So they will supply the Wahhabi sect of “Muslim Fundamentalism” which is, in fact at the core, Zionist in nature to support the Western democratic aim to undermine the Muslim world. And how better to do that than to demonise the Muslim world by presenting them as the terrorists. THEY ARE NOT.

Just like the Irgun before them, the Mossad and their collaborators within the CIA and MI6 etc etc are doing the terrorism job on behalf of the west and the media, ignorantly mostly, supports that agenda because the people who own the media are also?….. Zionist…. and all for supporting the Western democratic agenda.

You might think “Well that suits me because I’m western and I don’t want Islam” but you are completely missing the point. The only REASON Islam is affecting you is because our own elites are creating it to ensure they get the reaction from you that they need to justify the further control of you. You are supporting your own oppression!

ADDENDUM:

Why do you think we get headlines such as this?

us-embassy-cables-saudis-iran

Sorry but “DUH!” comes to mind!

Now let’s get a further idea about the Saudis (from Wikileaks/Assange) and then we’ll take a look at Assange!

So, again, Saudis, wanted to (and want) to attack Iran – yes I understand full well the issues between shi’ite and Sunni Muslims but pardon me for making this analogy: I also understand the difference between Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Rangers but when it’s Scotland V England or anyone else, both these “tribes” will work together to eliminate the common opposition. Simple but effective analogy I would say. You might not but I do.

Note also the fact that the Saudi Royals do not obey “their” own laws. What a surprise! Do you for one moment believe OUR political and establishment class obey ours? What do you think “Crown Immunity” is all about? Smell the coffee!

Now back to Assange. His Layer, MARK STEPHENS “believes in him and believes what he is doing is right”. Well he would wouldn’t he? Because Mark, Assange and someone else are VERY closely connected. That someone else having more power in his left pinky than an entire Army! In fact NATO and friends ARE to some degree, his left pinky!

And Stephens also says there are thousands who can release the documents? Ever given that a moment’s thought as to why? and WHO these thousands would consist of?

Assange is simply a new construct of the mainstream media because the powers that be recognise noone trust the mainstream media any longer. We KNOW they are controlled. So bring out into the spotlight a “hero” of the people who “leaks” things BUT ONLY THOSE THINGS YOU WISH TO BE LEAKED.

And when you want the destruction of governments and national sovereignty’s anyhow, what better way than to “sell” the world a leak merchant who’s “on your side”. 🙂

Oh we are SO gullible!

 

 

 

 

I MEAN TELL ME? ISN’T IT OBVIOUS TO YOU WHY ALL OF THESE “MUSLIM FUNDAMENTALISTS” GENERALLY ALL KEEP THEIR FACES WELL COVERED? DO YOU REALLY FALL FOR IT ALL?

HAS THE QUESTION NEVER EVEN OCCURRED TO YOU?