Türk Siyaseti ve Türkiye Siyasi Tarihi - Video Projesi - Türk ve İslam Tarihi - Türk Dna'sı

İngiliz Hükümeti Araplar'a ve Lawrence'a İhanet Ediyor

Osmanlı Türklerine İhanet Eden İngiliz Uşağı Arapların Çöpe Atılmaları ve İsrail Kuruluşu Öncesi

Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi İngiltere'dir. İngiliz devletini yöneten unsur kraliyet hanedanlığıdır. Bilindiği gibi İngilizler, Almanlar, Hollandalılar ve Fransızlar gibi Cermen milletinin bir mensubudurlar.
Birinci Dünya Savaşından sonra Dünyayı yöneten unsurun Birinci Dünya Savaşının galibi ve baş aktörü olan ülkenin olduğunu anlamamız gerekir.
İşte bu İngiltere devleti, kendisinin bir uzantısı olan Amerikan devleti ve Almanya devletindeki bazı aile şirketlerini, şeytani tarikatları ve hükümet nezdindeki önemli kişileri kullanarak(ve ayrıca onları büyütüp, ünlü yapıp, sahneye çıkartıp ve sonrasındada besleyip), Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sistemini İkinci Dünya Savaşı öncesinde ve sırasında kurmaya çalışmak istemiştir ve başarılı olmuştur.
Nasıl başarılı olmuştur ve bu Devlet+Mafya-Tarikat-Gladyo sisteminin içinde kimler var?
Devlet: İngiltere-Amerika.
Devleti Yöneten Hanedan(İngiliz/Cermen Milletine Hizmet Ediyor): Windsor(İngiliz Cermen Kökenli) ve Rothschild(Hazar Türk Kökenli) sülalelerinin karışımı
Mafya: Rockefeller-Rothschild-JP Morgan gibi sülale şirketleri
Tarikat: İlluminati, Mason, Bilderberg gibi şeytani tarikatlar
Gladyo: İngilizlerin kontrolünde olan Faşist İktidarlar: İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Hitler ve Kukla Nazi Devleti/Hükümeti, ve İngiliz Ajanı Kukla Stalin ve Lenin'in Sovyetler Birliği'nin Yıkımını Amaçlayan Yeni Sovyet Devleti/Hükümeti.
Bu konu hakkında ayrıntılı bilgileri bu forumdaki başlıklarda bulabilirsiniz.

İngiliz Hükümeti Araplar'a ve Lawrence'a İhanet Ediyor

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 04 May 2011, 19:27

BRITISH GOVERNMENT TREACHERY BETRAYS ARABS AND LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

By a good deal of trickery involving the betrayal of Lawrence of Arabia, secret deals between the English and French (the Sykes Picot Treaty) the two governments decided to divide Arab lands between them at the end of the war. Does that sound extraordinary? Yes, it was and could only have been done with the backing of the Rothschilds. One such deception involved a letter from the Zionist leader, Sokolow, who designated another Zionist, a certain Sacher, to prepare a draft addressed to Balfour, that the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish state was one of its essential war aims.

Having second thoughts Sokolow believed this was too ambitious:

If we ask too much we will get nothing," a view evidently shared by Lord Rothschild. However, they were appalled when the Foreign Office issued its own draft, which employed such terms as 'asylum' and 'refuge' and 'sanctuary' for victims of Jewish persecution. This was, needless to say, rejected by the Zionists, who insisted that the declaration would have no value at all unless the principle of recognizing Palestine as a National Home for the Jewish people was affirmed. Eventually, on 18 July, Rothschild submitted a compromise formula to Balfour. It mentioned not a Jewish state, but a National home.

(A History of Zionism, pages 195-196 Sokolow, Geschite des Zionismus, British Museum Papers)

Unfortunately the voices of protest by religious Jewish leaders were drowned out by political Zionism, which with the backing of the Rothschilds carried the day in their favor.

Ramsey McDonald summed up his feelings about such underhanded behavior:

We encouraged the Arab revolt in Turkey by promising to create an Arab kingdom from the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine.

At the same time we were encouraging the Jews to help us by promising them that Palestine would be placed at their disposal for settlement and government; and also at the same time we were making with France the Sykes Picot agreement partitioning the territory, which we instructed our Governor General in Egypt to promise to the Arabs. The story is one of crude duplicity and we cannot escape the reprobation which is its sequel. (Emphasis added)

What exactly did McDonald mean when he said:


At the time we were encouraging the Jews to help us promising them that Palestine would be theirs. How were the Jews to help with the war? By providing men from Jewish countries to fight the Turks like the Arab did? No, it was nothing like that. The Zionists provided no manpower to help the British and the Arabs to fight the Turks. How did the Zionists help?

They persuaded the U.S. Congress to declare war on Germany against the wishes of 87% of the American people. For that, behind the backs of the Arabs and other Palestinian residents, whose antecedents had lived in Palestine for 7,000 years; the British, with U.S. complicity, promised Palestine to the Zionists although not remotely sanctioned to do so by any international law.
Only a very few voices were raised in protest over what Arnold Toynbee called "the calamity."


Several writers, Olivia Maria O'Grady among them, joined in the protest against the Sykes Picot partitioning plan that led to the so-called Balfour Declaration:

Throughout the war, England and her allies continuously proclaimed that they were fighting for world freedom. What kind of a freedom is contained in the Balfour Declaration? By what right did Britain propose to dispose of the land of another people? Upon what moral ground may one nation seek to establish a national home for alien people in the territory of another? Palestine did not belong to Britain.

Arnold Toynbee was a greatly favored British historian and public figure of note who had received universal recognition for his work, A Study of History, comprising ten volumes, constituting an exhaustive re-examination of human development in the light of the idealist philosophy of history.
Thus no one would dare call McDonald, Toynbee and Lawrence of Arabia "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic" the threat of which had kept so many others of a like mind from speaking out against the duplicity of the British Government as expressed in the illicit Balfour Declaration. Toynbee expressed his feelings of anger about the betrayal of the Arabs over Palestine in A Study of History.

While the direct responsibility for the calamity that overtook the Palestinian Arabs in A.D., 1948 was on the heads of Zionist Jews who seized lebensroum for themselves in Palestine by force of arms in that year, a heavy load of indirect responsibility was on the heads of the people of the United Kingdom; for the Zionists would not have had in A.D. 1948 the opportunity to conquer an Arab country in which they had what amounted to no more than an inconsiderable minority in A.D. 1918 if during the intervening thirty years, the power of the United Kingdom had not been exerted continuously to make possible the entry of Jewish immigrants into Palestine, contrary to the will, in despite of the protests and without regard to the forebodings of the Arab inhabitants of the country who in A.D. 1918, were duly to become the victims of this long pursued British policy.

Lawrence of Arabia (Colonel Lawrence), who could less still be accused of anti-Jewish bias or smeared as "anti Semitic" did not remain silent over the betrayal of his commitment to the Arabs:

If we won the war, the promises to the Arabs were dead paper. Yet the Arab inspiration was our main tool in winning the Eastern War. So I assured them that England kept her word in letter and in spirit. In this comfort they performed their fine things; but, of course, instead of being proud of what we did together, I was bitterly ashamed.

Other voices added to what Lawrence had expressed as a feeling of utter betrayal, among them, O'Grady:

Colonel Lawrence had good reason to be ashamed. While the Arabs were fighting and dying for England, Britain's Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour was bartering Palestine for a Jewish pledge to bring the United States into the war on England's side. In addition to this treachery, England and France, by the terms of the Sykes Picot Treaty agreed to divide the Arab lands between them at the end of the war.

I pondered for months over the statement of Toynbee, because Toynbee's background and affiliations made it highly unlikely that he would express feelings in the least bit critical of the Zionists or of his mentors, Rockefeller and Rothschild. According to documents in the War Office files (and copies in the British Museum) Toynbee was the protege of Lord Bryce, a follower of the Philosophical Radicals. Toynbee followed in the footsteps of Bryce by writing an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Edition.

The article was entitled German Terror in France:


A Historical Record and it was an unabashed exercise in anti-German propaganda, published, significantly in New York in 1917. Obviously, it was an incitement to help President Wilson with his battle to drag America into the war in Europe. Though none of the claims of German brutality could be substantiated — nevertheless, the article was widely accepted as true.
It was just the kind of justification Wilson needed from a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, as the reason why America needed to send her sons to die in France "to make the world safe for democracy."

We next hear of Toynbee when he was appointed as a Member of the British Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, - hardly the prestigious position that he would jeopardize at the time of his planned future with the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the Foreign Policy arm of the Committee of 300.
As such, Toynbee must have been intimately familiar with the promises made to the Sheriff of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali and Colonel Lawrence, and the magnitude of the subsequent betrayal of the trust of these two men, who had made possible British victory over the Turks.


Toynbee had authored a major work, which called for an authoritarian One World Government, a copy of which was delivered to President Wilson by Colonel House and upon which many of Wilson's and the Royal Institute for International Affairs dictates were based. I found that Toynbee was supported with funding to the extent of a quarter of a million dollars, but there was no direct indication that he was also funded by the Rothschilds, although there might have been this connection, in view of the fact that it was House who delivered the instructions Wilson was to follow at The League of Nations conference.

Herein lies the seeds of disaster, the origin of the turmoil that continues to this day in Palestine, and fair-minded people, like the Jewish Orthodox Naturei Karta, knew the well hidden history of the Rothschild-Balfour sell-out of the Arabs contained in that document. The Naturei Karta Orthodox Jews do not agree with a "Jewish Homeland" conception. This noble Jewish Orthodox movement is opposed to a Zionist presence in Palestine.

As for the Christians of Europe and America, they have fallen into a state of indifference toward the fate of Palestine's "other" inhabitants.

This does not redound to their honor and the Christian ethic of fair play embodied in the words of Christ:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Throughout the ages, philosophers, historians and scholars have posed the question:

Why is it that the history of wars show, that they are always begun by the so-called "elite," the rulers of nations? One reason as enunciated by Henry Clay is when ever there is discontent among the populace, that foreign threat is used as a pretext to quell such unrest.

The second and perhaps the most important reason is that all wars are economic in origin. Since control of banking and finances are in the hands of the elite, they have been known to excite wars for economic gains. For instance, the international bankers reaped huge fortunes from the First World War. The Rothschilds gained enormous profits out of financing both sides of the American Civil War.

There is also the Bertrand Russell theory, that wars diminish populations. In the eyes of the Committee of 300, the world is filled with too many people, who are depleting the world's natural resources at an alarming rate. The solution, Russell said, is to get rid of what he referred to as "useless eaters," who should be culled at regular intervals.

Ten million dead in WWI was not enough to satisfy Russell, who promoted the idea, that plagues and pandemics should be introduced at regular intervals to wipe out "useless eaters," who had escaped the wars. The AIDS pandemic was deliberately introduced in the expectation that it would wipe out millions from the pool of "excess population."

The elite have devised ways to preserve their members from plagues as evidence by the success in warding off the Black Plague pandemic of the Middle Ages. With regard to military service of the kind faced by foot soldiers, the elite have a record of successful evasive tactics witness the record of President G.W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. These are not isolated instances, but are found in abundance in the records of all nations.

Kaynakça
Kitap: The Rothschild Dynasty
Yazar: John Coleman
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Re: İngiliz Hükümeti Araplar'a ve Lawrence'a İhanet Ediyor

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 04 May 2011, 19:32

UNDERHAND DOUBLE DEALING

William L. Langer, Coolidge Professor of History, Emeritus Harvard University, somewhat tersely stated the political situation in 1915 as follows:


Campaigns in Asiatic Turkey, 1916-1917 . . . Palestine was to be under an international administration. May 9, 1916, The Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France . . . the territories mentioned in the above agreement to be French and British administered, while the rest of Arabia was to be divided into French and British spheres of influence, though organized as an Arab state or federation of states.

In a classic understatement, Professor Langer then added:

"These agreements were not entirely compatible with other agreements made with Arab chieftains, agreements, which indeed, were not compatible with each other." In other words two different mandates were made, offering two sets of objectives, the one totally unknown to the Arabs.
Is there any previous history of such actions by a U.S. president ever having been approved? Was it lawful under the U.S. Constitution for Wilson to have carried out his negotiations, essentially in privacy with private persons not officially sanctioned by their government? The answer to

these questions must be in the negative. The consequences for the U.S. Government and for the American people were far reaching, and humiliating. Moreover, there has never been an explanation for the American people why the Balfour Declaration was submitted to Lionel Rothschild for his acceptation, since he held no official position? For this reason alone, the Balfour Declaration was and is a spurious document. It is clear that already at that point the British Government had begun to double-deal the Arabs and their brilliant British leader, Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, best known as "Lawrence of Arabia."

Professor Langer then goes back two years to October 31, 1914 and gives a full account of the geographical position of the Arabs, and what Britain did to try and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in the War in the Middle East:

Lord Kitchener (Commander of the British forces) had offered Hussein, the Grand Sheriff of Mecca a conditional guaranty of independence. Negotiations between the Sheriff and the British government were embarked upon in July 1915. On January 30, 1916, the British accepted Hussein terms, leaving the exact status of Baghdad and Basra and of the sphere of French influence in Syria, undetermined.
It is worthy of note that there is no mention here of a "Jewish homeland" in Palestine being reserved for Jews.

On June 5, 1916, the beginning of the Arab revolts in the Hijaz and an attack on the Turkish garrison at Medina.

On June 7, Hussein proclaimed the independence of the Hijaz and the (Turkish) garrison at Medina surrendered.

On October 29, Hussein was proclaimed king of all Arabs. He summoned the Arabs to make war on the Turks.

On December 15, the British government recognized Hussein as king of the Hijaz, and all Arabs. It was largely in order to strengthen the Arab insurrection that Sir Archibald Murray, (commander in Egypt since March 19, 1916) decided on a cautious offensive in Sinai and Palestine. During all of these revisions and military actions, there was never once any mention whatsoever of a 'Jewish Homeland' in Palestine being a part of any of the negotiations and agreement between the British government and the Arabs. One would certainly be on safe ground to assume, that had this been mentioned, the Arabs would have baulked at it there and then, and would never taken El Arish. The majority of historians agree on this vital point.

On December 21, 1916, the British took El Arish, after building a railway and pipeline across the desert. On April 17-19 1917, the British were forced back by a combined force of Turks and Germans with heavy losses. June 28, Murray was replaced by Sir Edmund Allenby.

On July 6 began the emergence of the spectacular war hero Colonel Thomas E. Lawrence, who galvanized the Arab movement and took Aqaba, thus beginning the brilliant thrusts against the Turkish garrisons and especially against the guards of the Hijaz railway, the most important link in the Turkish communications. History confirms that all this fighting along the Hijaz rail link and Aqaba was done solely by Arab forces under the command of Lawrence. No British troops were involved in these key campaigns and there is no mention of any Jewish forces being involved. It is readily admitted by Langer and other historians that without the help of the Arabs, the British would not have been able to drive Turkey out of Arabia and Palestine. In reflection, it was the Arabs under Lawrence, who drove the Turks out of Arabia and Palestine. It is utterly illogical to believe, that the Arabs under Lawrence and under his promises did so knowing, that a 'Homeland for the Jews' was to be the reward for their fighting."

Langer then goes on to say:

On the Palestine front the new British commander, Gen Edmund Allenby, had begun his advance in October 1917. . . On December 9, Allenby took Jerusalem. The British advance was delayed by the fact that Allenby had been obliged to send large contingents of his army to France to meet the crisis on the battlefront in France where the British Army was being defeated with heavy losses, and to halt the victorious German advances. The British Army ordered all its forces fighting in Mesopotamia and Turkey back to the German and French fronts to help to stem the advances of French and German troops in Europe.

I suspect, that there were no British troops left in Palestine other than a few garrison and supply troops, the vast majority having been sent to France on March 18, 1918. Langer statement, that British forces materially assisted by the Arabs is wrong. It was Arab forces assisted by a few British troops left behind after the main British Army was shipped in France that did the bulk of the fighting. Langer added that British forces put an end to the Turkish presence in Palestine. I suggest his account is palpably wrong.

It was the Arab Forces that ended a Turkish presence in Palestine. No French or British or Jewish troops were present at major battles in Palestine. That is an undisputed fact. Toynbee and Lawrence were horrified and expressed outrage against Langer's report that appeared in the London Times declaring it false. It is obvious that stripped of his British troops, Allenby had to rely on Arab forces to press his campaign against the Turks, knowing that the battle-seasoned Arabs would push the Turks out of Palestine during their September 8, 1918 campaign.

Langer states:

The British broke the Turkish lines near the Mediterranean and began to roll up the enemy forces. The British forces, assisted materially by the Arabs under Lawrence, were now able to push northward.

Here again Langer very much tries to minimize the key role played by the Arab forces who did most of the fighting.

On page 316 of her book, historian O'Grady stated her opinion of the events in Palestine:

With the British Army marching on the Holy Land, Jewish prospects for Palestine at the hands of the Kaiser began to fade. If Great Britain would guarantee world Jewry a foothold in Palestine, world Jewry would work for Great Britain. Negotiations were opened with the British government in February 1917, with Sir Mark Sykes acting as the principal intermediary. On November 2, 1917, Lord Balfour reduced the results of the secret bargaining and extensive communications between private persons in the U.S. in a letter addressed to Lionel Rothschild, the uncrowned King of Israel.

This letter was to become known as The Balfour Declaration and read as follows:

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

His majesty's Government views with favor, the establishment in Palestine of a national homeland for the Jewish people and will use its 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 non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I shall be pleased if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

The Jews labored diligently to make the Gentile public believe that Lord Balfour, seeing the justice' of their cause wrote the declaration after 'selling' the idea to the British government.

In reporting the issuance of the letter, the Zionists said:

'The Balfour Declaration is justly so-called, not only because it fell to Sir Arthur Balfour, as Foreign Secretary, to write the historic letter, but also because he, more than any other single statesman, is responsible for the policy embodied in the Declaration'.

In fairness to the Jewish people, I searched, but could not find any reference to Lawrence of Arabia or Sheriff Hussein nor any of the leaders of the people living in Palestine having been consulted by Balfour or Sykes although a diligent search was made to see if such had perhaps been recorded and had escaped the notice of researchers, but such was not be the case.

Continuing with O'Grady:

And of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The original draft was written by the Jews themselves. Who was the Justice Brandeis who edited it? Brandeis was a far left Socialist of the American Democrat Party, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and a member of several Zionist organizations. All through the negotiations of Arthur Balfour and Lord Rothschild, none of which ever included Sheriff Hussein or Lawrence of Arabia; Brandeis acted as a United States citizen and was never authorized by the Congress, the State Department to act as a U.S. government spokesman.

It is stated by historian O'Grady that "President Wilson approved it."

That raises important issues:

When Wilson became involved in the "discussions" between Brandeis, Lionel Rothschild, Lord Balfour and the American Zionist Party, was he acting in a capacity other than the President?

* If in the negative, was Wilson acting officially in his role of U.S. President?
* Had the Congress approved Wilson's acts and were they funded by the Congress?
* If in the affirmative had Wilson been authorized by a U.S. Congressional Resolution to act in any capacity whatsoever?

President Wilson approved it, and it was then submitted to Balfour for his signature. No event in the history of the United States is more humiliating. There is no explanation as to why the Declaration was written by Brandeis, who held no government office and then submitted to Lionel Rothschild, who held no official position in the British government. (Maria O'Grady)

The behind-the-scenes activities that went on are explained by Dr. Jacob de Haas, in his Biography of Justice Brandeis:

A considerable number of drafts [of the Balfour Declaration] were made in London and transmitted to the United States through War Office channels for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. The American ascendancy in the war councils led the British to ask for President Wilson's consent and approval of the terminology of the declaration before its issuance.

The draft that was cabled from government to government was handed to the Brandeis regime for its approval. After a most necessary revision, President Wilson acting through Colonel House, who was in full sympathy with Zionist aims, authorized cabling to the British government the version that was published, and which all the allied governments in turn gave their approval.

The 'Brandeis regime' refers to the Provisional Committee of the General Zionist Affairs of which Brandeis was chairman. Can you the reader, imagine that! Cabled drafts, the United States, the British War Office, all working to the benefit of the Zionists! What immense power do they wield!

Again, there is no mention of Hussein, Lawrence, the Arab leaders or the people of Palestine being consulted in any way, nor does it appear that the United States Congress knew anything about the secret negotiations between the non-American Government Brandeis committee and Lord Rothschild, Wilson and Balfour. Only the Zionists were consulted.

Most students of Jewish intrigue suspected both the British and Jewish schemes and purpose behind the Balfour Declaration. Although the United States had been in the war for nearly seven months when the Declaration was made public, its significance as the factor that involved the United States was not unnoticed.

There was considerable evidence available from which accurate inferences might be drawn. Government negotiations for deals of this nature however, are always secret, and it is usually very difficult to obtain conclusive evidence at the time of the transaction.

When the event is beyond repair and lost in the mists of the past, men are apt to write their memoirs and to boast of secret exploits that one time rocked the world. So it was with Mr. Landman. He was honorary Secretary of the Second Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom, editor of the Zionist and Secretary and Solicitor for the Zionist Organization. Later he was legal adviser to the New Zionist Organization.

Under the title, Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, published in the London Jewish Chronicle of February 7, 1936, Mr. Landman writes in part as follows:

During the critical days of the war, in 1916, when the defection of Russia was imminent and Jewish opinion was generally anti-Russian, and hopes that Germany if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine, several attempts were made by the Allies to bring America into the War on their side. These attempts were unsuccessful.

Mr. George Picot, of the French Embassy in London and Gout of the Quai d'Orsay Eastern Section, who was at that time in close touch with the late Sir Mark Sykes, Cabinet Secretariat, took the opportunity of convincing the representatives of the British and French governments that the best and perhaps the only way to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jewry by promising them Palestine.

By so doing, the Allies would enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspected powerful force of Zionist Jewry in America, and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo basis. At that time, President Wilson attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of Mr. Justice Brandeis.

Sir Mark obtained permission of the War Cabinet to authorize Mr. Malcolm to approach the Zionists on that basis, neither Mark Sykes nor Mr. Malcolm knew who the Zionists leaders were, and it was Mr. L.J. Greenberg to whom Mr. Malcolm applied for information to whom he should address himself... The Zionists carried out their part and helped to bring America in, and the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 was but the public conformation of the verbal agreement of 1916.

This verbal agreement was made with the previous acquiescence and approval of not only the British, French, American and other Allied Governments, but also of the Arab leaders. . . As already explained elsewhere in detail Dr. Weitzman and Mr. Sokolow knew that Mr. James Malcolm came to them as the emissary of the British War Cabinet, which authorized him to say in their name that England would give Palestine to the Jews in return for Zionist assistance, through Justice Brandeis in inducing the United States to come to the help of the Allies. Both Sir Mark Sykes and Mr. Malcolm informed the Arab representatives in London and Paris that without the assistance of the United States the prospects of any Arab State arising after the war were problematical, and that they must therefore agree that Palestine should go to the Jews as a regard for their assistance in bringing in the United States.

After a good deal of diligent research, I could not find the names of the "Arab representatives in Paris and London" allegedly informed of the plot to go behind the promises given to Hussein bin Ali, Sheriff of Mecca and Medina and to Colonel Lawrence, nor does Mr. Landman name these mysterious "Arab representatives." That raises the question "why not?" As he mentions everyone else by name, why are the "Arab representatives" kept anonymous?
What is abundantly clear is, that neither Lawrence or Hussein bin Ali were informed of what was going on, while they were risking their lives and the lives of their men in the war against Turkey, nor could any record be found that these two men knew anything about the secret negotiations with the Zionists nor that they were asked to send their representatives in London and Paris. The Zionists were informed, but not the American people on whose backs the War was to be fought.
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Re: İngiliz Hükümeti Araplar'a ve Lawrence'a İhanet Ediyor

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 04 May 2011, 19:35

"PERFIDIOUS ALBION" LIVES UP TO ITS REPUTATION

In any event, like the ordinary American people, Lawrence and Hussein bin Ali knew nothing about what Ramsey McDonald called "a triple deal" going on behind their backs. And when the time came for Wilson to drag America into the European conflict against the will of the vast majority, his enfeebled excuse was the war was a war "to make the world safe for democracy." The treason committed by Wilson lives on. Dr. Bella Dodd wrote in 1930 that so bad was the situation under Wilson, that he felt "modern history is largely a conspiracy against the truth. (The Conspiracy Against God and Man, page 9)

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

Hubert Herring in his book And So To War sums up the price the U.S. had to pay to so that the Zionists might have Palestine:

We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of 126,000 dead, of 234,300 mutilated and wounded. We paid with the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful world. We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashings of war hysteria. We paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war reached the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned.

And what was the quid pro-quo from the Zionists side? As far as I could ascertain it amounted to absolutely nothing.

An interesting aside was the failure of Herzl to obtain the blessing of Pope Pius X for Jewish immigration to Palestine:

We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it.

According to A History of Zionism, pages 129-130, the exchange took place at a meeting with the Pope in 1903, meaning that Lord Arthur Balfour knew that there was strong opposition from the Catholic Church against Zionist immigration to Palestine, long before he signed on to the declaration, but about which he informed no one. So the pattern of double-dealing was already apparent in 1903.

Catholic opposition to Israel may have contributed to the Rothschilds violent hatred of Russia with its large Christian population.
Herzl, the father of Zionism died when he was 44 years old. According to A History of Zionism, he never got on very well with the Rothschilds or with Orthodox Jewry whose leading rabbis did not like his autocratic style. Herzl always wanted to have the final say on everything.

There was, as Herzl's critics pointed out, very little specifically Jewish in Herzl. This emerges perhaps more clearly in his vision of the Jewish state...

Herzl envisaged a modern, technologically advanced and enlightened state, enlightened by the Jews, but not specifically a Jewish state. (A History of Zionism, pages 132-133)

It can hardly be argued that Herzl was interested in Palestine as a religious "homeland" for the Jews, particularly in light of the fact, that the bulk of the new settlers came from Russia and had no previous connection to Palestine and there was no history of Russian Jews ever having lived there, nor were they particularly religious.

Lacquer makes this abundantly plain. Lord Chamberlain came forward with an offer to provide a "homeland" for the Jews in Uganda, even though Uganda was not the British Government's land to give.

Chamberlain told Herzl that he had been on a tour of Uganda and thought:

Here is a land for Dr. Herzl, but of course he only wants Palestine or its neighborhood. He was right. Herzl brushed aside the idea. His fixation was with Palestine and nothing else would do.

On May 30, 1903 he wrote Rothschild:

I am not discouraged. I already have a very powerful man to help me. (A History of Zionism, Walter Laqueur, pages 122,123)

This was the true autocratic style of Herzl in action. Although I was not able to uncover any direct links between the Rothschilds and Sir Halford Mackinder, such as correspondence that passed between intermediaries hinting that the two did consult on a number of matters, especially in writing the blue print for the coming One World Government-New World Order which had been assigned to Mackinder to complete. A protege of the London School of Economics which was a hotbed for Communist ideals, Mackinder nevertheless put up a good conservative front and is believed to have influenced President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference as to what steps were to be implemented to usher in a New World Order through a League of Nations mandate. It is certain that the Rothschilds provided a great deal of input for the World Socialist dream. One month after Wilson arrived at the Paris Peace Conference, Mackinder's new book Democratic Ideals and Reality was published. The timing of the release of the book was no accident. In his book Mackinder called for a New World Order (NWO) to be established in a One World Government, ostensibly The League of Nations. If this goal could not be achieved by peaceful, voluntary means, then force was to be resorted to.

Mackinder admitted that while the New World Order would be ideally a democratic institution, it could never be expected that at times it would not be a dictatorship.

The Zionists claimed that The League of Nations was their concept and this is referred to by Maria O'Grady in her book where she stated:

President Wilson was surrounded by Jewish financial fraternity pushed hither and yon by the sinister Colonel House and counseled by the Zionist Brandeis. (Page 342)

The Zionists greatly favored the concept of a League of Nations and claimed it as their creation:

The League is a Jewish idea, said Nahum Sokolow at the Carlsbad Conference. We created it after a fight of 25 years.

Ultimate World Government dominated by Socialists is the long-held goal of Socialism, and it is well known that the concept was favored by the Rothschilds. As one of their own family, Jacob Schiff worked hard to establish a League of Nations. It received a donation of 3,000 pounds from N.M. Rothschild of the London branch of the family. As we shall see there may have been an ulterior motive to this, as the League was to play a decisive role in granting a mandate for Palestine to the British Government, a decisive step along the road to granting "a Homeland" for the Jews in Palestine. With that in mind I return to Lord Balfour and his so-called "Balfour Declaration," based on double-dealing, deception and secret deals behind the backs of Colonel Lawrence and the Arabs.
Balfour made haste to explain that a "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine did not mean the imposition of a Jewish state upon the inhabitants of Palestine, but in the light of subsequent events, this emerged as the goal of the Zionists.

As Balfour put it:

. . . but the further development of the existing Jewish community, in order that they may become a center in which the Jewish people, as a whole, might take, on grounds of religion and race, interest and pride.

What Balfour left out was that nothing the British did or said could obscure the fact that Palestine was not theirs to give, nor did the British Government have the slightest right to secure a mandate for Palestine. But Balfour, backed by Lord Nathan Rothschild, pressed ahead anyway, as if the two men had an inherent right to act in the arbitrary manner which they saw fit. The right of the Arab and other population groups, including Christians that extended back for more than 7,000 years was totally disregarded by Lord Balfour. No less an authority than Walter Laqueur, one of the foremost experts on Zionism confirmed that the bulk of the Jews who were to inhabit Palestine under the Balfour Declaration came from Russia. They had no previous connection to Palestine.

Laqueur also pointed out that Russian Jews were not overly happy about being uprooted from Russia and sent to Palestine:

Russian Jewry was divided in its attitude toward Zionism and a Jewish national home (a religious homeland) and would not have in any case have been able to keep Russia in the war. The Allies on the other hand, to put it somewhat crudely, would have won the war even if no promise to the Zionists had been made.

What Laqueur was explaining, if somewhat obliquely, was the "deal" the Zionists had struck with Balfour, namely, that if the Zionists could bring the United States into the war on the side of the allies, the British would establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine in return.

At a private meeting soon after the passage of the Balfour Declaration, when asked whether it had been his intention to make a bid for Jewish support in the war, Balfour snapped 'certainly not' and went on to explain that he felt that he was instrumental in righting a wrong of world historical dimensions. In 1922 Balfour made a speech in which he said that the whole culture of Europe had been guilty of great crimes against the Jews, and Britain had taken the initiative in giving them the opportunity of developing in peace, the great gifts which they had, in the past been able to apply in countries of the Diaspora. (A History of Zionism, page 203)

Balfour did not explain why it was considered legal to give Palestine to the Jews when it belonged to a people who had been there for 7,000 years, especially as a big tract of land in Madagascar, as well as land in Uganda, had been offered and rejected without discussion. Nor did Balfour explain that his magnanimous gesture in favor of the Jews would be at the expense of the Arab and other non-Jewish populations of Palestine. He never explained what connections the bulk of the new settlers, coming as they did from Russia had with Palestine.
According to Dr. Jacob de Haas, Balfour's altruistic protestations must be very much doubted because the real motive behind the Declaration was to get the United States to enter the war on the side of the Allies.

Confirmation of the true motives behind the Balfour Declaration came from another well-founded source, Congressional Record, April 25, 1939, pages 6597-6604, which reflects a speech made in the U.S. Senate by Senator Nye:

There has been published in a series of works under the title "The Next War." One of the volumes in this series is entitled "Propaganda in the Next War." This particular volume was written by one Sydney Rogerson.

I have been unable to obtain any trace of his background; but the editor in chief of all of these works, including the one entitled "Propaganda in the Next War" is by a man whose name is recognized the world over as a authority in Great Britain. He is none other than Captain Liddell Hart, associated with the London Times, a writer and military authority in Europe.

I understand that this particular volume "Propaganda in the Next War," published last fall and placed in circulation, instead of having the circulation enlarged, now is suffering at the hands of those who desire to retire it from circulation. A few days ago I came on the floor of the Senate with the volume itself. I am sorry that I do not have it with me today. I am told that it is the only copy of "Propaganda in the Next War" available in the United States. It can be had, I can borrow it against if there is any occasion for me to need it in the Senate, but it is no longer easy to obtain. I wish I had the entire work and that it could be read by every member of the Senate.

The following are quotations from Propaganda in the Next War:

From time to time the issue of which side the United States would take hung in the balance and the final result was a credit to our profaned machine. There remain the Jews. It has been estimated that of the world's population of 15,000,000 no fewer than 5,000,000 are in the United States; 25 percent of the population of New York are Jews. During the Great War we bought off this huge Jewish public by the promise of a National Home in Palestine, held by Ludendorf to be a masterstroke of propaganda, as it enabled us not only to appeal to the Jews in America, but to the Jews in Germany as well.

George Armstrong in his work The Rothschild Money Trust explains how this came about:

There can be no doubt about the fact that prior to President Wilson's second election in 1916 he kept us out of the war. There can likewise be no doubt about the fact that he was elected on that slogan. Why did he change his mind soon after the election ? Why did he make an arrangement with the British Government to help the Allies? That has been until now, an unexplained mystery. (Page 62)
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Re: İngiliz Hükümeti Araplar'a ve Lawrence'a İhanet Ediyor

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 04 May 2011, 19:38

"TRIPLE CROSS" DECIDES FATE OF PALESTINE

Ramsey McDonald characterized the Balfour Declaration as "a triple cross," yet The League of Nations made its first mistake in a series of many by granting a British mandate on September 23, 1923, proving so early in the game that it was not an impartial body by any definition. Reciting the Balfour Declaration in the preamble of the Mandate Commission, it dealt with the problems of immigration and how it proposed they were to be dealt with by a number of Articles, of which Article 22 was the most compelling.

Nowhere did it deal with the question of Britain giving away land that it did not own:

Whereas the League of Nations declares: 'Where populations are not yet able to stand alone, the machinery of government should be set up for them in keeping with the accepted beliefs that the well being of and developments of such peoples forms a scared trust of civilization'.

To the inexperienced the subtlety of the way in which the Wilson guarantees were short-circuited may not be immediately apparent, but what Article 23 did was to negate Wilson's guarantees of "self determination and independence" and replace them with the imagined right of The League of Nations to interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations and states, in effect soiling its own charter. Thus it must become obvious to the fair-minded that from its very inception, the League intended to play fast and loose with the internal affairs of sovereign nations and states. This immorality and underhanded political gerrymandering was continued even more shamelessly when the League gave birth to its bastard child, the United Nations, which awarded Palestine to the Zionists in 1948 thereby doing violence to the "sacred of civilizations" embodied in Article 22 of the deceased parent League, long since forgotten.

Lawrence of Arabia and the Sheriff of Mecca were appalled by the betrayal of the British promise to Emir Hussein, who had fought the Turkish Army to a standstill, believing in the promises of Lawrence that Britain always kept her word.

At the Peace Conference, the Arabs were represented by Emir Feizal, son of Sheriff Hussein. He had commanded the Arab troops under the direction of Colonel Lawrence, and was a signatory to the McMahon-Hussein Treaty, which gave the written assurance that Britain would keep her commitment and promise to the Arabs over Palestine.

Unable to fully understand English and French and not being a man accustomed to dark intrigues and betrayals of one's word, Feizal did not comprehend what was happening, so much so that he appealed to Wilson, who sent an American Commission, the King-Crane Commission to Palestine to investigate.

What the King-Crane Commission members reported to Wilson was startling:

Ninety percent of the population of Palestine opposed any Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Quoting from the Commission's report:

To subject a people so minded to unlimited immigration and a steady financial and social pressure to surrender land would be in gross violation of the principles just quoted, and of the people's rights, although it kept within the forms of law, with the best possible intentions, it may be doubted whether the Jews could possibly seem to either Christians and Moslems proper guardians of the Holy Places, or custodians of the Holy Land as a whole.

The Zionists were determined to bury the report. Wilson, bowing to the Zionists who surrounded him, compromised his principles and a bogus "mandate system" replaced the "self determination" clause.

Under the supervision of The League of Nations, a bogus "mandate" for Palestine was awarded to the British. Wilson's belief in the "backward" nature of non-European populations convinced him that they would accept the mandate system. The King-Crane Commission report was shelved, leaving Imperialism and Zionism triumphant in the guise of mandates. The Commission's report simply disappeared from view.
It was not published in the London Times or the New York Times, nor was it put into the business of the House and Senate. To repeat, it simply vanished! But fortunately for "the sacred trust of civilization" the report was published in a minor publication called the Editor and Publisher. How and why did it "vanish?" The reader can draw his or her own conclusions, which are rather self-evident.

When Justice Brandeis heard that the British officials administering the Mandate were not favoring Jews, he immediately set out for Palestine accompanied by his biographer, Dr. de Haas. Upon their arrival in the Holy Land they found the reports to be only too true. Dr. de Haas wrote that the British Commander in Chief and military and civil aids regarded the Balfour Declaration as a forgotten episode of the war. The American Supreme Court Justice went straight to Balfour.

An added note:

I emphasize the fact, that an American Supreme Justice journeyed to Palestine to admonish a British official, a Foreign Minister no less, and demanded that the Palestine Administration be reprimanded! Who had given the American non-official, non-representative of the U.S. Government such authority? By this arrogant display of power, Brandeis intimidated all who opposed Zionist policy for Palestine.

A few hours later the British Foreign Office was reminding the military authorities in Egypt and Palestine, not only of the verbal content of the Balfour Declaration, but that the matter was 'chose-jugee,' or very much current.

A number of Palestinian officials sought desirable exchanges and Colonel Meinertzhagen; a pronounced Zionist was dispatched to Palestine. There had been no protests, no stirring of troubled political waters. The Brandeis direct action diplomacy had achieved results. (Dr. Jacob de Haas, biographer of Justice Brandeis)

How in the world could a person with no official government standing, no official position, go to Palestine and Britain and start making demands that the Zionist be obeyed? Perhaps I should retrace my steps and connect some of the threads.
It is a fact that when Brandeis went to see Balfour, the latter immediately contacted Lord Nathan Rothschild, whom it would appear, gave the green light for what steps Balfour told him he wanted to take. Thus, in my opinion, there was a definite connection between the progress of Zionist plans for Palestine and Lord Rothschild, leading back directly to Balfour and then to Brandeis.

* The resentment of the Arabs flared into violence in 1929;
* Jewish-Arab controversy over rights to the Wailing Wall of the Herodian Temple developed into open conflict;
* The Christian Arabs joining with the Mohammedans against the Jews.

A British Commission reported that the disturbances were caused by rising Arab fears of a rising Jewish majority and the systematic acquisition of land by the invaders. The Commission recommended that restriction be placed on immigration and the purchase of land. In spite of the cries of the Zionists, the recommendations were accepted. The British Government published the findings in what is known as the White Book, October 20, 1930. . . In November 1938, the British Government announced that it would drop the partition proposal and attempt to promote an understanding between the Arabs and the Zionists. The Arabs took the understandable position that their country was being stolen from them, and that the negotiations were in a category of bargaining with a thief for the return of some portion of your property.

When the Arabs and the Jews were unable to reach an agreement the British announced that it would have to find a solution of its own. In its White Paper of May 17, 1939, it rejected its former interpretations of the Balfour Declaration as contrary to British obligations to the Arabs. The statesmen of Britain undoubtedly realized the unfairness of the Balfour Declaration to the Arabs after it was too late to do much about it. The so-called MacDonald White Paper of 1939 was an apparently sincere desire to correct the wrong of 1917. The White Paper in attempting to rationalize Balfour's policy, insisted that the Jewish Homeland in Palestine had already existed.

So that there would be no doubt as to Britain's future stand, the White Paper declared:

'His Majesty's Government therefore now declares unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arab people under the Mandate as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will. The wrath of the Jews knew no bounds. The new British policy on the subject meant the defeat of their carefully laid plans and they had no intentions of permitting the controversy to end with the White Paper. They unleashed a world-wide campaign of abuse against the British Government supplemented by propaganda material thoroughly distorting the facts.' Concluding at last that Great Britain as the Mandatory would never permit them to set up a Jewish States in Palestine, the Jews embarked on a campaign of violence to drive the British to either repudiate its White Paper or surrender the Mandate to the United Nations.

Hagana organized by the Zionists on the pattern of a regular army was mobilized and held ready to strike. Two terrorist groups, the Irgun Zvei Leumi and the Stern Gang were unleashed against the British Mandate authorities and the people of Palestine. The terrorists, following the traditions of their Khazar brethren of Poland and Russia, assassinated bombed and plundered. (Olivia Maria O'Grady)
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26

Re: İngiliz Hükümeti Araplar'a ve Lawrence'a İhanet Ediyor

Mesajgönderen TurkmenCopur » 04 May 2011, 19:45

ZIONISTS SEIZE PALESTINE

Without going any further we now have the history of the incursion of the Zionists into Palestine, which was the basis of three wars, countless acts of terrorism and unrest, a total absence of peace which has plagued Palestine and the Middle East and will continue to do so until the rights of all parties are recognized with justice for all. Unfortunately, the fallacy of The League of Nations was perpetuated by an equally bastard creation, the United Nations.
On July 8, 1919, President Wilson having acted out his orders from Colonel House who had received them from the Rothschilds returned home.

If Wilson expected to be received like a conquering hero, he was sadly mistaken. An indication of the fact that Wilson was under the control of foreign personalities may be deduced from the fact that he had not taken one single member of the legislature with him to Paris or even a member of his own Democrat Party.

His advisors consisted in the main of Wall Street bankers and International Socialists. One of the strangest aspects of his trip to Paris was that he and his entourage accepted gifts of jewelry worth more than one million dollars from a number of non-government well-wishers.

The political storm that broke over the president when he introduced his One World Government blueprint to the United States Senate was unlike anything ever experienced before. Most probably influenced by the domineering "attitude" toward Germany that governed the proceedings in Paris, Wilson demanded that the Senate ratify the treaty exactly as it was presented, with no material changes and no debate being permitted.

This was an astonishing development in American politics, which had never been attempted before. It was all or nothing based solely on the secret closed sessions held in Paris. (The German delegation was kept in their hotel for a week while this was going on and took no part in it). Wilson was not without support for his dictatorial attitude which came from an American member of the Fabian Society, Professor Shotwell, who more or less told the Senate to hurry up and ratify the Treaty.

Shotwell was a prominent member of the upper-level parallel secret government of the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Senator Robert Owen, who had been appointed Chairman of the especially created Federal Reserve Act in 1919, now chaired the commission on The League of Nations Treaty Report to the Senate.

Others who backed Wilson's treaty were Eugene Delano, Thomas J. Lamont and Jacob Schiff. Lamont had been a longtime Fabian Socialist-Communist sympathizer, and Schiff later helped to bankroll the 1904-1905 Russo-Japan War, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. All were related to or affiliated with the Rothschilds.

Most notably, Schiff was a Wall Street banker, who began his career in banking with the financial backing of the Rothschilds, whose creation he was.
On March 19, 1920, the Treaty of Versailles came before the Senate for ratification, but strong objections developed at the very outset. Wilson's demands that the treaty be passed "as is" angered many Senators who offered a number of amendments and reservations, which Wilson refused to accept on the advice of Colonel House acting for the Rothschilds. On November 19, the Senate defeated the Treaty of Versailles with and without reservations, seeing in it great dangers to the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution and as attempt at usurping of its powers. The vote was 49-35.

For once, Colonel House and the Rothschilds were on the losing side. Wilson then did an extraordinary thing; he vetoed the joint resolution of Congress declaring the war with Germany at an end!

At this point, it is necessary to retrace our footsteps:

In the run-up to World War I and Wilson's attempt to embroil America in it, angry voices were raised against Wilson and his administration.

In fact, 87 percent of the American people were opposed to war, but could not prevail over the International Socialists and their international bankers. The Chicago Tribune was adamant and scathingly opposed to America's entry and declared that "Brandeis ruled the White House by secret telephone."

Cyrus D. Eaton stated:

America dishonored itself by entering the World War, while in later years (1925) Captain H. Spencer, in his book, "Democracy or Shylockcracy," quoted a telegram in which Sir William Wisemen, President Wilson's British MI6 controller said: "Brandeis called Rothschild." Justice Dembitz Brandeis was undoubtedly under the control of the Rothschilds. Long after the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, loud voices of anti-Americanism were still being heard.

For instance Paul Hymens an ex Minister of Belgian Foreign Affairs said: "America refused to ratify the treaty and considered void the man who went to Europe to act in her name." (The New York Evening Post, July 16, 1925)

This was nothing new in so far as the character of President Wilson was concerned. While he was moving every political force he knew to get the United States into WWI under intense pressure from the Rothschilds via Colonel House, Wilson had grossly and violently assaulted the United States Constitution by ramming a law through the U.S. Congress, drafting the Militia of the States to be sent to fight in France.

This remains, in my opinion, one of the worst violations of the U.S. Constitution in American history; because Wilson did it against the Constitution, knowing precisely what a gross wrong he was doing in disregard of his oath of office.

But, before providing details of Wilson's horrendous crime against the American people, leaving aside the crimes against the Arabs and Palestinians, I would like to give some hitherto unknown facts about the man who was Wilson's controller and alter ego Colonel Mandel House, simply because this mysterious and sinister man played such a huge background shadowy role in the history of he United States, plus the fact that he was an intimate friend of the Rothschilds.
Edward Mandel House was the son of Thomas William and Elizabeth (nee Shearn). House had immigrated to the United States in 1837 and gone to live in Texas where he became involved in the cotton industry and entered into banking for and on behalf of the Rothschilds.

House, the elder, always acted as the trusted agent for the Rothschilds. Edward was educated at Cornell and became an adviser to the Governor of Texas although holding no official position, a career that was duplicated in the Wilson administration.

The State of Texas made the younger House an honorary Colonel, a title to which he clung all through his extraordinary career. There is no indication why the State of Texas bestowed favors on Edward House.

In the first part of 1900, the Rothschilds sent House to Europe to learn the business of how bankers control politics and politicians. When he returned to America, House became the guiding light in Democrat politics and it was he who selected Woodrow Wilson as the Democrat Party nominee for the Presidency.
House was largely responsible for Wilson's success in winning the election, and then developed his policies, especially foreign policy. It is believed by some real authorities on the subject that House was the conduit for the Rothschilds orders for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Banks, although the United States Constitution prohibited a Central Bank.

Thus it may be safely stated that House presided over twenty-five fateful years that changed the face of the United States forever, and led to a lawless Federal Government that destroyed in a few years what the Founding Fathers and the generation that followed had taken almost two hundred years to build.
Wilson was the first President of the United States to assume the de facto status of an Emperor of what was to become the Empire of the United States of America, the driving force and leader of a New World Order inside an International Socialist One World Government.
Kullanıcı avatarı
TurkmenCopur
Genelkurmay Başkanı
Genelkurmay Başkanı
 
Mesajlar: 13983
Kayıt: 29 Eki 2010, 17:26


Dön İngiltere ve Amerika Birliği Faaliyetleri: 2. Dünya Savaşı ve Türk Soyumuzun Baş Düşmanı olan Cermen Menfaat Merkezi'nin Kuruluşu

Kimler çevrimiçi

Bu forumu gezen kullanıcılar: Hiç bir kayıtlı kullanıcı yok ve 1 misafir