Exposing – Yet Another Westminster Conspiracy – Scotland in Union – Part One of Two






Scotland in Union

This is a two part article the content of which will expose the recently formed organization for what it is. A Westminster State supported attack on the right of Scots to be independent from England.

Part one provides information pertaining to events in Scotland that resulted in the annexation of Scotland by a hostile country followed with three hundred plus years of brutality and suppression of the human rights of Scots.

Readers should note instances of the “Cameron” name. It will feature greatly in part two.


The Clearances



17 Jan 1707: The Union with England

There were no doubt sound economic arguments to be made in favour of a Union between Scotland and England. There were military arguments too (The possibilities of permanent peace between the two countries was a big attraction for the English who were embroiled in continental wars.)

But these reasons did little to persuade the people of Scotland of the merits of a Union, particularly the idea of an incorporating Union (that is a single parliament).

There were riots in many parts of Scotland, particularly in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Daniel Defoe, who was a tireless worker for the English cause, in one of his letters to the English government complained of a great noise, and looking out saw ” a terrible multitude come up the High Street with a drum at the head of them shouting and swearing and crying out ‘All Scotland would stand together. No Union, No Union. English dogs’ and the like.”

Addresses against the Union poured into Parliament from all over the country.

From the town council of Perth “We, after mature deliberation are fully convinced that such a Union as is proposed is contrary to the honour, interest and fundamental laws and conditions of this Kingdom and to the Claim of Right––” That from the General Convention of Royal Burghs encompassed many of the fears of the Scottish people.

They were “not against an honourable and safe Union with England consisting with the Being of the Kingdom and Parliament thereof,” what moved them to passionate opposition was the idea of an incorporating Union “by which our Monarchy is supprest, our Parliament is extinguished and in consequence our Religion, Church, Government, Claim of Right, Laws, Liberties, Trade and all that is dear to us daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English, in a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the Interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English.”

In point of fact, the Scots with about a fifth of the population of England were allocated only 45 M.P.s against England’s 513.

These addresses were seized upon by the Duke of Atholl. “There is not one address from any part of the Kingdom in favour of this Union,” he claimed in Parliament and demanded a dissolution and the summoning of a new Parliament “to have the immediate sentiments of the Nation since these articles have been made public.”

His motion was defeated on January 7th 1707 and on January 17th the treaty was finally ratified by 110 votes to 67.

Whatever might be the advantages of a Union with England, the manner in which it was encompassed reflected little credit upon the Scottish Parliament.

Daniel Defoe. “The great men are posting to London for places and honours, every man full of his own merit and afraid of everyone near him; I never saw so much trick, sham, pride, jealousy and cutting of friend’s throats as there is among the noblemen.”

Sir Walter Scott. “It may be doubted whether the descendants of the noble lords and honourable gentlemen who accepted this gratification would be more shocked at the general fact of their ancestors being corrupted or scandalized at the paltry amount of the bribe”

Finally, from an anonymous pamphlet circulating at the time. “Can anything be more Treacherous and Mean than for men to degrade their own Country and has not the majority of the Scotch Parliament done this effectively?” (http://www.perthshirediary.com)


  The Clearances




3 Sep 1707: Protesting the Militia Act

When the posters were put up explaining the provisions of the Militia Act at Dull, the immediate and decisive reaction by the large and boisterous crowd was for the posters to be torn down and the Duke of Atholl’s men driven away.

The same thing happened at Fortingall and Kenmore and all over Atholl and Breadalbane groups of men gathered.

There was a feeling of anger and excitement but it was not until the next day that the crowd began to exhibit a common purpose. Two thousand of them marched towards Castle Menzies where Sir John Menzies, a deputy lieutenant of the county,lived. The men had now found leaders, Angus Cameron from Weem and James Menzies.

When they reached the Castle they sent in the factor with a message that if Sir John wished to preserve his Castle he would be advised to come outside and sign a declaration promising not to execute the provisions of the Act.

Wisely he obeyed the summons and wrote at Angus Cameron’s dictation. “We hereby solemnly declare that we shall use no forcible means to apprehend, confine or imprison any person assistant whatever who has appeared at Castle Menzies or elsewhere, or in any part of Perth on prior days; further that we shall petition government for an abolition nullifying of the foresaid Act from the records of British parliament; that the members of parliament of this county shall present this petition, or any annexed thereto to the two Houses of Parliament, to the Privy Council during the prorogation of parliament. This we shall do of our own free will and accord, as we shall answer to God.”

Afterwards the declaration was signed by the Stewarts of Garth and the ministers of Weem and Dull.

The people left Castle Menzies led by Cameron and close by it was said that he did “most seditiously and wickedly administer an oath to the people thus riotously assembled, to stand by one another in their illegal endeavours to resist the authority of the established law of the country.”

More and more people were joining the crowd as they made their way across the Tay to Alexander Menzies of Bolfrocks. He also signed the declaration. The crowd now divided, with Cameron taking the north bank and James Menzies (“The east Indian” ) the south.

As they made their way eastwards the lairds and gentry were all forced to sign the declaration. By the time the two factions had met up again near Ballechin it was dark and the crowd had swelled to perhaps ten thousand people.

Hope Stewart of Ballechin refused but after he was seriously manhandled he wisely changed his mind. Later he was to ride to Perth where he wrote to the Duke of Atholl “I am not at liberty to take any concern in carrying the Militia Act into execution.” It was not an attitude reflected by many of the gentlemen who had signed the declaration.

The next day there was another march upon Blair Castle. The Duke had already signed the declaration, but fearing for his safety, had raised some 400 tenants and gentry to defend the Castle.

Although the crowd outnumbered the defenders by twenty to one there was no attempt to storm the Castle.

Already there was evidence that the people were in two minds as to what to do next. Many wished to return home believing that they had achieved their objects. Others, with Cameron, had more revolutionary aims in view, but as was to appear all to soon, they were not too sure what these aims actually were and in any case they lacked the expertise and discipline necessary to carry them out.

When Cameron told them that they should assemble in small parties so that they would not be dealt with as a mob under the Riot Act, the suggestion inspired fear and dismay.

They had but sticks and clubs with which to defend themselves and it was only the security they felt in their great numbers that gave them the courage to meet the expected threat of being attacked by English dragoons sent north from Perth.

There was talk of raiding the armoury at Taymouth Castle (Lord Breadalbane was in London as usual) but nothing came of it. Though the people still gathered in large numbers and still paraded with their burning torches at night, no one quite knew what they were expected to do next.

There was talk of the men from Rannoch and Glenlyon joining the demonstrations and even those from further afield, but for the moment all seemed content to wait. When the stalemate was finally broken it was the army that provided the means.

Very early on the morning of Thursday September 14th Captain Colberg of the Windsor Foresters with eighteen men arrived in Weem, broke down Cameron’s door and arrested James Menzies and himself without any resistance.

They were bundled into a coach and the party made their way towards Grantully. In his report Colberg states “We observed hundreds of people with forks, fowling pieces, pikes and scythes fixed on poles, pouring from the mountains and water side and the road covered with men women and children.” The crowds followed the coach but made no attempt to rescue the prisoners.

Their lack of revolutionary expertise and secondary leadership was all too clearly demonstrated. There was indeed an attempt to prevent the coach crossing the bridge at Grantully but it was unsuccessful and before evening the prisoners were lodged at Perth.

The lack of leadership now became even more apparent. There were threats to burn Castle Menzies and other grandiose projects but nothing happened and the revolt was to all intent and purposes over. Later, a detachment of Sutherland Fencibles came to the district and more alleged ringleaders were arrested.

It was commonly believed by those in authority that the revolt had been brought about by outside causes and to some extent this might be true, but no one thought to look to reasons closer to home.

The Highlander’s hatred of compulsory military service, of schoolmasters who forbade the speaking of Gaelic, of ministers appointed by the heritors rather than by the congregation and of lairds who thought more of increasing their rents and less and less of the well-being of their tenants.

The people sullenly accepted the Militia Act but their grievances and sense of betrayal remained.

It was January 15th 1798 before Cameron and Menzies were brought before the court in Edinburgh. Both pleaded Not Guilty to the charges of sedition, mobbing and rioting. The next day,

Cameron applied for bail and incredibly this was granted. He did not appear the next day and was in fact never seen again.

Menzies also received bail and also disappeared. The minor players in the drama, the eight men arrested by the Sutherland Fencibles, were a little less lucky. They were all sentenced to a year’s imprisonment. Later they were offered a remission of their sentences upon their willingness to join the army or navy. (http://www.perthshirediary.com)



1300 -1460: The Camerons (Sons of the Hound) and the Wars of Scottish Independence

The Camerons fought for King Robert the Bruce in the Wars for Scottish Independence.

Led by Chief VII John de Cameron against the English at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 and later by Chief VIII John de Cameron at the Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333.




1746: Culloden

The Camerons supported the Jackobite cause in 1745 and fought bravely at Culloden. (Extracts):

As the Hanoverian army advanced onto Culloden Moor they were greeted by Camerons in nearly every Jacobite regiment.

Progressing down the front line, past the aforementioned right wing, one would next come upon the 300 men of Clan Fraser.

The Camerons among this battalion were mostly tenants on Lord Lovat’s lands centered just east of nearby Beauly.

To their immediate left were the 500 men of Clan Chattan, a confederation of clans made up mostly of Mackintoshes.

Among these men, who had yet to see action in the uprising, were Camerons from Nairn and other towns near the battlefield.

Their leader, lieutenant-colonel Alexander MacGillivray of Dunmaglass, seems also to have commanded the next regiment on the front line, the Farquharsons; Camerons were among them as well.

Moving ahead one would encounter the numerous MacDonald regiments, under the command of Lord James Drummond, The Duke of Perth.

Among these 1,000 angry soldiers were Cameron farmers from Glen Urquhart.

Cameron men were also dispersed among the second line of the Jacobite army, providing, when considered along with the front line, that the clan would participate in every aspect of the upcoming battle.

At about 1 p.m., with the sky darkening and rain “driving” into the Highlander’s faces, the first shot was fired.

It came from one of the 12 “ill-manned” Jacobite four and six pounder cannons which were dispersed among the right, left and center of the front line, 500 yards from the enemy. “The Rebel ball passed over Lord Bury’s indifferent head…and came down somewhere in the rear, cutting a soldier in half.

The Jacobite guns were not to improve upon that.” The numerous field pieces of Cumberland’s Royal Artillery responded. “The high moor shuddered, the Highlanders lines were at once hidden by the smoke, and the gunners could see their black shot passing smoothly into the fog.” Less than ten minutes later, whether from lack of ammunition or skilled gunners, the ineffective Jacobite cannons fell silent.

The Hanoverian barrage continued. “Above the rolling, rumbling discharge, and the screams of those who had been hit, officers of the clans shouted desperately `Close up! Close up!…’ And the clansmen closed the gaps the round-shot made, but they looked over their shoulders to the rear, or cried back at their officers, demanding the order to charge.” The Highlanders endured this attack for twenty to twenty-five minutes, during which they lost an estimated one-third of their men.

The Cameron men threw down their firearms in disgust, grasped their trusted swords and Lochaber axes tightly, pulled their tartan kilts high to the groin and with the unearthly snarl of a Highland yell coming deep from within disappeared into the black gunpowder smoke. The sons of the hound had come to get meat.

The Hanoverian Royal Artillery heard the Highland charge and immediately changed from ball to grape-shot. “No powder was ladled into the barrels this time, but a paper case rammed home and containing charge, leaden balls, nails and old iron.” The charge was halted by the first murderous discharge of grape, the balls and the iron whispering and whistling their killing way.

Father stumbled over son, brother over brother in the sudden slaughter. Then the charge came on, but now the Cameron’s swung to the right like animals shying in alarm, and they drove for the left of the Royal line.”

The Hanoverian regiments held their fire until the bobbing, yelling faces of the Highlanders were within twenty yards of them, and then there was time for one volley only from each rank.”

One Hanoverian soldier later remarked “We had some hundreds of them breathless on the ground. They rallied, and before our left could load (they) came again like lions to the charge, sword in hand…” The furious “leaping, kilted” Highlanders were then upon them.

First and foremost the nearby artillery units were taken out of action.

“Sergeant Bristow, at his guns between these battalions, fired grape from both, one discharge and then he was chopped down by a Cameron sword, as were Bombardier Paterson and Gunner Edward Hust. All three crawled beneath the wheels of their guns, with terrible wounds from which they were not to die until two months later.”

Even their new bayonet training, a technique in which thrusts were directed not at the Highlander in front of them, rather at the one to the right, did not adequately prepare the Hanoverian soldiers for such an onslaught.

“They climbed over their dead, which soon lay four deep, and they hacked at the muskets with such maniacal fury that far down the line men could hear the iron clang of sword on barrel.”

“The fight was confused and bitter and the (Hanoverian) line swayed, Barrell’s lion standard of blue dipping at the center. Lord Robert Kerr, captain of the grenadiers, received the first charging Cameron on the point of his spontoon, but then a second cut him through the head to chin. Stewarts and Camerons flooded through the gap of the guns and cut at the grenadiers of Munro’s as well as Barrell’s. Some ran to the rear where Lieutenant-Colonel Rich of Barrell’s was standing on foot. He held out his slender sword to parry the swing of a broadsword and both hand and sword were cut from his wrist.”

Based upon reported casualties of the other clans on the Jacobite right wing it is conservatively estimated that out of the 700 Camerons who were on the field that day approximately 225 were killed and 150 wounded.

Prisoner records indicate that only 17 Camerons were taken from the field alive and as prisoners. The other 133 “estimated” wounded were bayoneted or shot where they lay, or would soon die in confinement.

From this, it may be surmised that at least 358 Cameron,s, over one-half of Lochiel’s regiment, perished on Culloden Moor.

Throughout the entire Jacobite right wing’s front line, the gentility of the Highlands, hardly a man survived the charge.

The highlanders were forced back under a heavy bombardment of grape shot and it was then that Campbell’s Argyll regiment struck their treacherous blow.

From their hiding place behind a dry stane wall they stood up and fired a volley into the flank of the exhausted, staggering retreating Highlanders. Then loaded calmly and fired three more volleys, and then drew their broadswords.

Yelling `Cruachan!’ they climbed over the wall and rushed upon the Cameron,s, but they did not have it all their own way.”

Citing extremely reduced numbers among Lochiel’s regiment and severity of their preceding action the Campbell,s thought it safe enough to risk direct confrontation with one of their immortal enemies.

In regard to the physical engagement with Clan Cameron it may be said with certainty that the Highlanders exchanged even amounts of casualties, ending with the Cameron’s demoralizing the “malicious” Campbell,s by killing their Commander, Colin Campbell of Ballimore.

But, as was their fate at Culloden, they would soon find that nowhere in Scotland was there a safe haven for true Highlanders.

Read the full description of the battle here: (http://www.clan-cameron.org/battles/1746_b.html)





1746-1800: Duke of Cumberland Rapes Scotland

Conceiving that the only effectual mode of suppressing the rebellion was to march into the Highlands with the whole army, the Duke of Cumberland began, about the middle of May, to make preparations for his journey.

He had in the beginning of that month issued a proclamation, ordering the insurgent clans to deliver up their arms; but little attention was paid to this mandate, and the continuance of considerable armed parties convinced him that the Highlands could never be reduced without the presence of a considerable army stationed in a central district.

Having pitched upon Fort Augustus for his new head-quarters, the duke left Inverness, on the 23d of May, with eleven battalions of foot and Kingston’s horse, and reached Fort Augustus next day.

Charles had intended to make this place a rallying point in case of a defeat; but his plan was rejected by the chiefs, and, that it might not be serviceable to the royal troops, the buildings had been blown up.

No accommodation being therefore found for the duke’s army, a camp was formed in the neighbourhood, and a turf hut with doors and windows, and covered with green sods and boughs, was erected by Lord Loudon’s Highlanders for the use of his royal highness.

Resolving to inflict a signal chastisement upon the rebels, the duke sent, from his camp at Fort Augustus, detachments of his troops in all directions, which devastated the country with fire and sword, and committed excesses scarcely paralleled in history.

Resembling, though perhaps on a lesser scale scale, those committed by Hitler’s “Sondecommando” in the 1942 invasion of Russia.

The seats of Lochiel, Glengarry, Kinlochmoidart, Keppoch, Cluny, Glengyle, and others, were plundered and burnt to the ground, and great numbers of the houses of the common people shared the same fate.

Major Lockhart, whose name, by his cruelties on this occasion, has obtained an infamous notoriety, marched with a detachment into the country of the Macdonalds of Barisdale, and laid waste and destroyed their dwellings.

Some of these poor people had obtained written protections from Lord Loudon; but the major disregarded them, and told the people who had them, that not even a warrant from heaven should prevent him from executing his orders.

Another corps, under Lord George Sackville, ravaged the country about the glens of Moidart, while others carried fire and desolation through other districts.

Not contented with destroying the country, these bloodhounds either shot the men upon the mountains, or murdered them in cold blood.

The women, after witnessing their husbands, fathers, and brothers murdered before their eyes, were subjected to brutal violence, and then turned out naked, with their children, to starve on the barren heaths.

So alert were these ministers of vengeance, that in a few days, according to the testimony of a volunteer who served in the expedition, neither house, cottage, man, nor beast, was to be seen with the compass of fifty miles: all was ruin, silence and desolation.

Deprived of their cattle and their small stock of provisions by the rapacious soldiery, the hoary-headed matron and sire, the widowed mother and her helpless offspring, were to be seen dying of hunger, stretched upon the bare ground, and within view of the smoking ruins of their dwellings.

It may seem surprising that the Highlanders did not avenge themselves upon their oppressors, by assassinating such stragglers as fell in their way.

It cannot be supposed that men in whose bosoms the spirit of revenge must have taken deep root, would have spared their relentless adversaries from any scruple as to the mode of dispatching them; nor can it be imagined that the Highlanders could not have selected fit occasions when they might have inflicted vengeance upon individuals.

The reason of their forbearance probably was, that such a system of warfare, if adopted, would lead to acts of retaliation on the part of the military, and thus increase their calamities.

Of the immense quantity of cattle carried off by Cumberland’s troops, some idea may be formed from the fact mentioned in a journal of the period, that there were sometimes 2,000 in one drove.

Intelligence of such a vast accumulation of live stock, reaching the ears of the graziers of the south, numbers of them went to Fort Augustus well provided with money, which they laid out to great advantage.

Some of the people, impelled by starvation, repaired to the camp to solicit from the spoilers some of their flocks, to preserve an existence; but their supplications were unheeded, and they were doomed to behold their cattle sold and driven away, while famine stared them in the face.

The enormities of the lawless soldiery were not confined to the Highlands, but extended to all the adjoining lowland districts where the spirit of disaffection was known to exist.

The houses of the low country Jacobite gentry were plundered and destroyed, and the chapels of the nonjurant episcopal clergy, as well as the more humble and secluded places of worship belonging to the Catholics, were either razed or burnt to the ground.

“Rebel-hunting” was the term adopted by the ruffians of the British army to designate their bloody occupation.

To complete the work of extermination, the duke issued a proclamation, denouncing the punishment of death, by hanging, against every person who should harbour the insurgents, and a similar fate was declared to await such as should conceal arms, ammunition, or any other thing belonging to them, or should not immediately deliver up to persons authorized by the duke to receive the same, any property or effects in their possession belonging to the rebels.

In compliance with a requisition made by the duke, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, about the end of May, enjoined the ministers of the different parishes to read a proclamation from the pulpits, in which they themselves, and every well affected person, were ordered by his royal highness to use every exertion to discover and seize the unfortunate fugitives; and to facilitate their discovery and apprehension, the clergy were required to furnish lists of the names of all persons in their respective parishes who had had any share in the insurrection.

Many clergymen, including those of Edinburgh, with feelings of humanity and independence which did them honour, refused to head this proclamation, or to comply with the order requiring them to give in the names of such of their parishioners as had been engaged in the rebellion.

The government, equally intent with its sanguinary general upon the destruction of the unfortunate adherents of the house of Stuart, offered rewards for apprehending such of the fugitives as might land in Ireland, and instructions were sent to the British ministers at foreign courts in alliance with George II, to seize all who might seek refuge in the territories of such powers.

The guilt of all these acts of bloodshed and rapine has been laid to the charge of the Duke of Cumberland, and the single fact that he issued no orders to put an end to the enormities which were daily committed, often under his own eyes, and with his perfect knowledge, seems of itself sufficient to justify the charge.

The tyrannical Duke and his accomplices gloried in the miseries they inflicted upon the Scots and revelled amidst the ruin and desolation which they spread around; and when their occupation of “rebel-hunting” had been achieved by the destruction of their victims, they endeavored to relieve the boredom of inactivity by ludicrous and indecent diversions, including forcing young women to compete in “naked foot racing” as a betting spectacle for the English soldiers.

Vast quantities of livestock such as cattle, oxen, horses, sheep, and goats were stolen from the Scots, and sold for a pittance to farmers from Yorkshire. The money accrued was divided amongst the soldiers that brought the livestock in and many of these soldiers grew rich by their share of spoil.

When taken in connection with Cumberland’s sanguinary order not to take prisoners, the proofs of his criminality, or rather unconstitutional severity, are evident. Though the foul stain of wanton cruelty must ever attach to the British army on the present occasion, from the commander down to the private.






27 Jan 1793: Compulsory Service for the Scots

The fifty years after Culloden were not happy times in the Highlands.

The wearing of Highland dress was forbidden, the carrying of arms was proscribed and the Gaelic language was denigrated.

At the same time the population increased and this created new problems. One solution, and it was a popular one, was to enlist into the army.

In the last decade of the 18th Century nearly 40% of the British battalions of fencibles were raised in the Highlands.

This from an area with no more than 3% of the United Kingdom population.

In the beginning recruiting proved easy enough, but as time went on it became progressively more difficult to persuade young men to enlist.




18 Oct 1848: The Landowner privilege

Robert Somers was a journalist for the North British Daily Mail who, in 1848 visited Blair Atholl and in particular Glen Tilt.

He sent his observations, in the form of a series of weekly ‘letters’ to the paper.

The picture that he painted was of a land where landowners, in many cases absentee landlords, deliberately and systematically removed the indigenous population to make way for sheep farms and later sporting estates. An extract from his letter:

“An event occurred at this period which afforded a pretext to the Duke for the heartless extirpation of his people.

Highland chiefs were exhibiting their patriotism by raising regiments to serve in the American war; and the Duke of Atholl could not be indifferent to such a cause.

Great efforts were made to enlist the Glen Tilt people, who are still remembered in the district as a strong athletic race.

Perpetual possession of their lands, at the then existing rates, was promised them if they would only raise a contingent equal to a man from each family.

Some consented, but the majority with a praiseworthy resolution not to be dragged at the tail of a Chief into a war of which they knew neither the beginning nor the end, refused.

The Duke flew into a rage; and press gangs were sent up the glen to carry off the young men by force.

By impressment and violence the regiment was at last raised; and when peace was proclaimed, instead of restoring the soldiers to their friends and their homes, the Duke, as if he had been a trafficker in slaves, was only prevented from selling them to the East India Company by the rising mutiny of the regiment!

He afterwards pretended great offence at the Glen Tilt people for their obstinacy in refusing to enlist and – it may now be added – to be sold; and their conduct in this affair was given out as the reason why he cleared them from the Glen – an excuse which, in the present day, may increase our admiration of the people, but can never palliate the heartlessness of his conduct.

His ireful policy, however has taken full effect. The romantic Glen Tilt, with its fertile holms and verdant steeps is little better than a desert.

The very deer rarely visit it and the wasted grass is burned like heather at the beginning of the year to make room for new verdure.

In the meantime it serves no better purpose than the occasional playground of a Duke.”

Such criticisms of the Duke of Atholl were matched by similar censures of both the big landowners and the large tenant farmers, who having reduced the indigenous population to a state of pauperism grudged even paying the meagre poor rate   . (http://www.perthshirediary.com)


Butcher Cumberland


Gender confusion – Help for the older generation needed



Image result for equal partnerships


Etiquette used to be pretty straight forward when classifying the gender of the population.

Accepted words:

Boy: a male child.
Girl: a female child.
Man: a male adult.
Woman: an adult female.
Gentleman: a man of upper society.
Lady: a woman of upper society.
Master: a male youth.
Miss: a female youth.
Maiden: a young female.
Mr. & Mrs. titles bestowed on married couples.
Mother: a married woman who has given birth with children.
Father: a married man who has sired children.
Widow: a married woman whose husband is deceased.
Widower: a married man whose wife is deceased.
Lesbian: a woman who prefers the embrace of another woman.
Homo: a man who prefers the embrace of another man.
Unmarried mother: a female of child bearing age who gives birth to a child out of wedlock.
Bastard: a child born out of wedlock.


Image result for equal partnerships



In recent times high profile individuals in the media and politics and some minority factions are promoting changes in society designed to turn it on its head, and good luck to them. But older persons are finding the pace of change difficult to adjust to with the “in crowd” using many new forms of gender reference and classification. It is important to settle things down giving us old codgers the opportunity to catch up. e.g.


Image result for equal partnerships



Equal partnerships: A politician referred to his partner as his husband. Another politician referred to her partner as “the missus”. Is this correct?
Same sex marriage: Does the marriage certificate of males refer to Mr.and Mr. and females as Mrs and Mrs.??
Same sex marriage: which partner’surname takes priority if children are born to the marriage.?
Is a child (born to couples living together, who are not in a legal partnership or marriage) a bastard, without inheritance rights?
Is the stigma “unmarried mother” attached to a lesbian who has a child out of wedlock??
Are lesbian couples, enjoying a relationship without formal commitment of a legal partnership or marriage entitled to IVF treatment on the NHS?


Image result for equal partnerships


Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Are You Susceptible to Suggestion?













Hitler loved people




National Socialist Party banned smoking



National Socialist Party banned vivisection of animals



German Factory girls at lunch in 1935



Lengthy explanation



National Socialist Family Values



Positive benefits of national Socialism



National Socialism will rise from the ashes!! Will it?



National Socialism v New World Order



Adolf Hitler loved animals

Britain and the Zionist’s Established Israel in 1948 – Seventy Years Later the Palestinians Are Still Denied a Homeland – The Toothless UN is a True Copy of the Failed League of Nations – What next??




Related image



Only Britain Could Lose the Peace

The British Army controlled Palestine and Transjordan between 1918-1920 then passed control to the British civil authorities.

The first high commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, was Jewish, a Zionist and a close friend of Weizmann’s.

At the end of a two year fruitless debate over the creation of a Jewish homeland, involving the USA, France, Britain, Zionist and Arab representatives the British, fed up with the intransigence of unspecified negotiating teams, referred the matter to the newly formed “League of Nations” seeking a “Mandate” permitting Britain to continue to administer Palestine and Transjordan until a solution could be achieved.

The bid was approved on 24 July 1922. Britain had effectively re-colonized the area.

But with little finance available, (Britain was skint after WW1) the “mandate” required the area to be self sufficient. An near impossible condition.

The Arabs in Palestine and Transjordan continued to block change fearing that independence and unity with other Arab nations would be denied them.

Under British control, the Jewish community in Palestine flourished and with an open immigration policy in place it speedily expanded.

Kibbutzniks established more farms and a new Jewish society evolved.

The Zionists poured substantial amounts of money in, purchasing land, establishing settlements and schools.

Palestinian leaders complained to the British authority about the flood of immigrant Jews to be told that Jews were allowed to enter the country only if they had an established place of abode and wealthy Arabs facilitated this by selling more and more land to the Jews.

A senior Zionist commented that the Arabs who secretly sold land to the Jews were “patriots on the outside, traitors on the inside”. The Zionist agency, having purchased land sold it on to Jewish families, with a covenant forbidding any future sale to non-Jews.


Related image

The Zionist Vision-1919




The Mandate years of British rule were bad for the Arabs due to the policies of the British who appointed Zionist Jews to important positions within the administration.

The changes were marred by recurring Arab violence against Jews, all incidences of which were brutally suppressed by the British Army, including air strikes, where deemed necessary.

The Jewish media pressed the Zionists for arms and munitions so that they could defend themselves against Arab violence and a secret arms trail was put in place to facilitate this.

The British Army were fully aware that the Jews were arming their communities but studiously avoided any attempt to stop it.

Enter Churchill with a proposal to develop a multi-ethnic Palestine and Transjordan State with equal representation for all.

Weizmann rejected it because the Jews were still in the minority and he feared an Arab influx would deny the Zionist agenda for change.


Related image



The violence continued to escalate through 1924-1935 as “tit for tat” murders became commonplace and the British Army, (short on numbers) failed to cope.

The Army was absent from the scene at the time of a massacre by Arab militia in Hebron, in 1929 of about 70 Jews, including entire families.

A saving grace was the action of the Arab residents of Hebron, who gave shelter to 500 Jews.

The British Army later arrested 55 Arabs and 70 Jews and tried them for murder. 25 Arabs were publicly hanged.

Only 2 of the 70 Jews were convicted and sentenced to death. A sentence later commuted.

The Arabs, whilst still in the majority, continued to lose ground to increasing numbers of Jewish settlers and in 1936, they refused to recognize the Zionist supporting British administration by  staging a “General Strike.”

The British response was typical of the colonizing authority.  It cracked down hard on the Arabs and although it took 3 years to achieve, through the use of torture, execution, collective punishment, detention without trial, military courts, aerial bombardment and ‘punitive demolition’ of more than two thousand houses, it suppressed the rebellion.

In the early summer of 1939, the senior Army officer in Palestine, Major General Montgomery (Monte) reported to Churchill that he had finally crushed the rebellion. Just in time. Germany invaded Poland later that year.


Image result for zionist agenda for palestine



Occurrences of note 1936-1948

1. The British killed over 3000 Arabs in the period.

2. Zionist Night Squads, trained by and under the command of British Army, Captain, Orde-Wingate (a special branch intelligence officer) murdered many more Arabs.

3. The police commander, Sir Charles Tegart (a believer in Zionism) built the notorious Tegart police fortresses and an electrified fence along the northern border.

4. At the start of WW2, Churchill ordered the formation and deployment to Palestine, of a volunteer, professional, well trained, equipped and armed 25,000 Jewish force to Palestine to assist the British Army. The unit would go on to provide the basis for the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

5. The British Army’s war of attrition destroyed any realistic capacity for the Arabs to wage war and this was still a major factor in 1947-1948, when the Arabs were defeated in their battle for control of Palestine.

6. In 1944, in an attempt to stem the flood of Jewish immigration from war torn Europe the British government placed an embargo on Jewish immigration into Palestine.

7. Extremist Jewish militias, (the Stern Gang and Irgun) responded with bombing campaigns and attacks on British soldiers and policemen. Zionist leader, David Ben-Gurion, commented that the Irgun leader, Menachem Begin, was a Jewish “Hitler” and Zionists assisted the British authorities, identifying, locating and dismantling the Jewish groups.

6. The British Army efforts to maintain law and order in Palestine, after 1945 placed the force smack in the middle of an insurgency over which they had little control.

7. Their political masters in London showed little interest in achieving a solution and morale in the British Army deteriorated as it sustained casualties from Arabs and Jews and in 1947 Britain gave up and asked the newly formed United Nations (UN) to resolve the dispute.

8. The UN voted for a partition of Palestine into Arab and Palestine States but both halves of the new States carried Arab majorities. The Zionists corrected the anomaly by encouraging and funding large scale immigration of Jewish settlers into the coastal part of one of the newly formed States, (present day Israel).

9. The British Army and Civil Authority departed Palestine, under fire from both sides. An Ignominious end to British colonial rule.

11. In 1948 the Arabs and the fledgling Jewish State went to war. The Arabs lost. Faced with Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang retribution many thousands of Palestinians fled to Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon in which,  supported by the UN, in tented refugee camps for many years.

10. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion, a leading Zionist and first Prime Minister declared the establishment of the State of Israel and also gave warning that the Arabs, having learned lessons, would return to the fight for control of Palestine.

11. Ben-Gurion refused to allow the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland creating many problems for their Arab neighbours.

12. The Zionists, having achieved their objective further strengthened links with the British, including equipping  and arming,the expanding Israeli Defense Force.

13. In 1956, the British invaded Egypt, in response to President Nasser closing the Suez Canal, which the British regarded as an international waterway. The Israeli government supported Britain and invaded the Sinai peninsula heading for the Suez Canal. Nearing completion of their mission the Israeli’s were flabbergasted and humiliated when Britain, faced with a lack of support from the US and condemnation from the UN withdrew from Egypt leaving them exposed to Arab attack.

14. In consequence the Zionists and the Israeli government transferred their loyalty away from Britain gaining the protection of the US and its Zionist dominated political establishment.


Image result for zionist agenda for palestine




The introduction, in 1948, of the of the new State of Israel ensured that Britain kept its 1917 “Balfour Declaration” promise to the Zionists: “to favour the establishment in Palestine of a

national home for the Jewish people”. But, in doing so Britain failed to observe the final clause of the declaration: “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious

rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.

Britain, in its haste to extract its forces and return to the UK, handed control of Palestine to the Zionists who then abandoned any commitment to the Arabs and implemented an agenda of ethnic cleansing.

By its actions Britain lost the right to the claim of honest broker since it had zealously protected Jewish immigration, encouraged Jewish settlement and subsidised Jewish defence. Without Britain, there would not be an Israeli State


One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate by Tom Segev.

Ploughing Sand: British Rule in Palestine 1917-48 by Naomi Shepherd.


Related image


Are These Guy For Real?? Surely Not!!!!









The Weapon of Mass Migration – The US War on Europe – Open Gates: Coerced collective suicide of European nations

Artificial mass migration as imperial policy has a long history, and the current mass migration into Europe is the brain child of US military grand strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett.

He was a strategic advisor to former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and currently works with the Israeli military consultancy firm Wikistrat, a close collaborator of the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) in Stuttgart, Germany.

Barnett’s books ‘The Pentagon’s New Map’ and ‘Blueprint for Action’ (2004, 2005) have had a major influence on US and Israeli global military geostrategies.

Today Wikistrat is heavily involved in the development of ‘crowd sourcing’ and ‘crowd leveraging’ technologies, and most of the Twitter entries encouraging migrants in the Middle East and Africa to travel to Austria, Germany and Sweden come from the UK, US and Australia (Ayn Rand Institute, The Escape Institute, etc.).

Barnett came up with the theory of the ‘Five Flows of Globalisation’ — five flows which must come about if US imperialism wants to prevail in the world of the 21st century.

These involve the free flow of money, security, food, energy and people.

The ‘Five Flows’ theory means breaking down nation-state structures and freeing up resources for pillage by US multinational corporations and hyenas of high finance.

The inundation of Europe with migrants is a key feature of Barnett’s geostrategic thinking: “1.5 million immigrants from third world countries to Europe every year.

The result will be a mixed new population with an average IQ of 90 – too dumb to grasp anything, but intelligent enough to work.”




The Zionist Agenda and the Creation of Modern Israel 2




Related image




A Jewish Homeland – Churchill – Weizmann and the Balfour Declaration

The content of the previous post outlined events from the start of the twentieth century up to 1922.

On the surface things evolved in a logical sequence meeting reasonable demands of the Zionists for the formation of a homeland for the Jews, in Palestine.

But all was not at it appeared. There was a deal of intrigue, abuse of power and authority using financial gifts to ensure the Zionist lobbying would be well advantaged.

To understand the consideration of the Zionist cause as reasonable requires a look-back to Russia in the late nineteenth century and the expansionist activities of Czar Alexander III who annexed large areas of (present day Poland).

The places annexed were heavily populated by industrious Jews who had lived there for many centuries.

Under pressure from Russian power-brokers the Czar introduced the anti-Semitic Laws of 1882 which severely restricted the activities of Jewish communities resulting in a forced emigration of over 2 million Jews, mainly to the United States.

A small group of Jews, fed up with the recurring oppression decided to return to Palestine and establish communities in their former homeland.

Not an easy task since the Turkish government was not keen to encourage a return of Jews to lands they had been banished from so many centuries before.

The aspirations of the as yet leaderless group, (later titled, “Lovers of Zion” “Hovevei Zion”) attracted the attention of Isaac Goldberg, a rich Jewish philanthropist who arranged a purchase of land near Rishon, in Palestine. Rishon Lezion, the first Zionist settlement was established.

The settlers worked hard, irrigating and cultivating land, which had yielded nothing for many years and their efforts brought about the purchase of new land greatly extending the settlement, encouraging ever more more Russian Jews to join the initiative.

In Russia, “Hovevei Zion” had gained legal recognition from the Russian authorities and, dedicated to the practical aspects of establishing agricultural settlements it was registered as “The Society for the Support of Jewish Farmers and Artisans in Syria and Eretz Israel.”

Its activities were classified charitable and strictly non-political.

Later known as the “Odessa Committee” it successfully lobbied Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, Kalonimus Wolf Wissotzky, who founded Wissotzky Tea, the largest tea company in Russia and other philanthropists to provide financial aid to Jewish settlements.

The First Zionist Congress, in Warsaw, in 1897, was organized by the “Odessa Committee” whose numbers had increased to over 4,000 members.

“Hovevei Zion” was absorbed by the Zionist Organization after the conference.


File:1904 Russian Tsar-Stop your cruel oppression of the Jews-LOC hh0145s.jpg



Theodor Herzl, accepted father of modern Zionism, was aware of an ever increasing need for new money, to be used for the purchase of land for settlement, but at the beginning of the twentieth century the Zionist movement operated in Eastern Europe and Russia and was only a fringe organization in Western Europe and the US. This weakness had to be addressed.

Fostering the myth of expanding Jewish power his remedy was to seek out powerful sympathetic allies among influential British gentiles. He wrote, “we will ensure the anti-Semites will become our most loyal friends, they will become our allies.”

In 1905, Balfour, who succeeded his uncle, Lord Salisbury, as Prime Minister, in 1902, was convinced by the Herzl rhetoric that the growth of Jews could determine policy in Germany, Russia and the United States and introduced the “aliens” bill, the first piece of modern immigration legislation, in order to prevent east European Jews from finding refuge in Britain.

He warned parliament that the Jews “remained a people apart, who held a religion differing from the vast majority of their fellow countrymen, and only inter-married among themselves”.

His argument, pernicious in its effects, did not offend the Zionist leadership in Britain.

On the contrary, Chaim Weizmann, the Russian-born Jewish immigrant who succeeded Herzl after his death in 1904, appeared to sympathize with Balfour’s position.


Related image




But Weizmann had previously met with Balfour, Churchill and Zionist activists in Birmingham in 1902 and discussed remedial measures including an “Aliens” bill required to bring an end to the crisis created by the influx of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe.

It was agreed that the Zionist’s would bring forward to the British government, any proposals for change and Herzl asked Joseph Chamberlain, to permit Jewish colonization in Egypt near El Arish, with a view to a northward expansion into Ottoman Palestine.

The British viceroy in Egypt, Lord Cromer, rejected Herzl’s proposal as likely to antagonize Egyptians, and Chamberlain responded with an offer to the Zionists of a national home in Uganda.

After debating the issue at the sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, they turned the British offer down.

Balfour and Weizmann met again in Manchester in 1906. Balfour confessed that he had discussed the Jews with Cosima Wagner (widow of Richard Wagner) and shared “many of her anti-Semitic prejudices”.

Weizmann replied that “Germans of Mosaic persuasion were an undesirable and demoralizing phenomenon.” and proposed a new “diagnosis and prognosis” of the “Jewish Problem”.

Balfour and Weizmann were as one in agreement that the problem of the Jews was attributed to their forced “exile” from Israel, a curse that could only be eliminated by the return of the Jews to their homeland.

Achieving this would attract Jews back to Israel ensuring the settlement of Europe’s people’s apart.

Balfour, as Foreign Secretary, made the Zionist prescription British policy in 1917.

Weizmann had succeeded in persuading the British government that Zionist interests were the same, just as the British Army under the command of General Sir Edmund Allenby were overrunning Palestine in November 1917.


Image result for balfour declaration



Jewish Voices of Dissent

The Zionist cause was not universally supported by all British Jews. Indeed a solid majority were firmly against all that the Zionists stood for insisting that they had as much right as any citizen to live and prosper in Britain, and they did not want Weizmann, however Anglophile his tastes, telling them they needed to settle in the Judean desert or to till the orange groves of Jaffa.

Edwin Samuel Montagu, Secretary of State for India, argued against issuing the Declaration, his belief being that Zionism was “a mischievous political creed” and in favouring it, “the policy of His Majesty’s Government was anti-Semitic.”

David Alexander, President of the Board of British Jews, Claude Montefiore, President of the Anglo-Jewish Association, and most Orthodox rabbis also opposed the Zionist cause.

Other opponents of a British protectorate for the Zionists in Palestine were George Curzon, leader of the Lords and a member of the war cabinet, and the two senior British military commanders in the Middle East.

The generals contended that it was unnecessary to use Palestine as a route to Iraq’s oil and thought that the establishment of the protectorate would waste imperial resources better deployed elsewhere. They were overruled.

The senior British Army officer, General Clayton, was removed from his post and replaced, at Weizmann’s urging, with Richard Meinertzhagen, an ardent Zionist and an anti-Semitic Christian.

A couple of years later the other officer, General Congreve was also removed from office, at the request of Weizmann to Churchill and replaced with an Zionist supporting person. Obstacles removed.!!


Related image





Political Fallout

The increasing political influence of the Zionist’s at Westminster came under attack from all fronts as MP’s, ministers, high commissioners and senior military officers became angry that Weizmann and his supporters were granted open access to government ministers.

A disillusioned Sir Arthur Wauchope, High Commissioner in Palestine from 1931 to 1938, complained that whilst Weizmann made many trips to Downing Street, he had never met with a higher ranking British official, from the time he was ordered to co-ordinate his strategy with the local Zionist leader, David Ben Gurion. The Arabs no longer took up any business time between them.

Zionist officials focused on developing political relationships with British anti-Semites, with influence over government policy without regard to Jewish interests in Britain or Palestine where, by the end of 1917 many Jews and Arabs were starving due to the impact of the on-going war with Turkey and Germany.


Image result for balfour declaration



United States of America Gets Involved

The US did not declare war on Turkey in April 1917 preferring to commit its limited resources to the campaign against Germany, in Europe.

This provided the US with an opportunity to establish a dialogue with Turkish officials through which it was able to send humanitarian aid and physical resources to the Middle East to ease the suffering of Arabs and Jews.

President Woodrow Wilson, (in response to pleas from ardent anti Zionist, Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador to Turkey) by-passed Britain and France and extended the peace dialogue with the Turks to include a peace treaty. An early meeting, in Switzerland was arranged.

But the powerful American Zionist, US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis got wind of President Wilson’s plans and and informed Weizmann, who alerted Balfour, who contacted President Wilson and brought the initiative to an end.

Balfour and Wilson subsequently agreed a better course of action would be to allow Britain to finish off Turkey, after which a Jewish homeland could be created without delay meeting the Zionist wishes.


Related image




Zionism-Churchill and Israel History Revisited 1



Image result for winston churchill



Winston Churchill and Zionism

Churchill fervently believed in markets free of restrictive practices. However,his beliefs were at odds with the Tory Party and increasingly disillusioned he offered his support to the Liberals, on condition he would be selected to stand for a seat in Manchester, at that time the centre of free trade in Britain.

His overtures to the powerful Jewish community in Manchester were eagerly embraced and he was willingly indoctrinated in the Zionist philosophy, many years before the movement expanded into positions of political power and influence.

Nathan Laski a cotton merchant, a Manchester magistrate, and a leader of the Liberal Party was also the most prominent Jewish leader in England.

In 1904 he pledged his support for the bid of Churchill (then a Liberal) to become MP for North West Manchester where the electorate was one third Jewish. Churchill won the election, and Laski became a life-long friend. It was at one of Laski’s dinners that Churchill and Chaim Weizmann first met.

In parliament, appalled by the persecution of Jews in Tsarist Russia, Churchill battled against legislation designed to curtail Jewish immigration to Britain.

Shortly after, he wrote in a letter: “I recognize the supreme attraction to a scattered and persecuted people of a safe and settled home under the flag of tolerance and freedom.”



Chaim Weizmann third left



Chaim Weizmann – Zionist World leader and First President of Israel

Weizmann was born in Belarus, then part of the Russian Empire, in 1874 and studied chemistry in Germany and Switzerland before lecturing in chemistry at the University of Geneva.

He emigrated to England in 1904, and six years later became a naturalized British citizen.  Churchill signed his papers.

He was a reader in biochemistry at the University of Manchester, UK, when the first world war broke out in 1914.

His discovery, in 1912, of a way of making acetone from the starch in cereal grains may well have saved his adopted country from defeat in the War against Germany.

In the early years of world war one, Britain faced a severe shortage of acetone, a solvent traditionally obtained by treating acetic acid obtained by the destructive distillation of wood.

It took about 100 tons of wood to produce just one ton of acetone.

The solvent was required in increasing quantities during the war for the manufacture of cordite, the propellant used by the British Army and Royal Navy to fire its artillery shells.

It also had other uses, not least for the manufacture of fire-resistant lacquers that were used to waterproof and stiffen the canvas wings of military and naval aircraft.

This placed an increased demand on wood, but there was a greater problem: before the war, Britain imported most of the acetone it needed from Germany and Austria, both of whom were on the opposing side.

The Weizmann process changed everything. Instead, it relied on the use of the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum (known as the Weizmann organism), to ferment maize, rice and other cereals.

The process yielded acetone, butanol and ethanol, and became known as ABE fermentation.

In 1915, Weizmann began work on the process for the British Admiralty and showed that it could potentially produce 12 tons of acetone from 100 tons of maize. (Chemistry World)


Image result for zionist




The Growth of Zionism and the Balfour Declaration

At the beginning of 1917 the War against Germany had reached a stalemate. The war in the Middle East, against the Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany was being won and it was expected

Britain and France would be then be able to dismantle the regime and return democracy to a number of former States.

Enter: Chaim Weizmann, (President of the World Zionist Organization, later the first President of Israel).

In Manchester he had formed a friendship with ardent Zionist supporters Simon Marks and Israel Sieff who were in the process of turning Marks & Spencer from a family business into a nationwide retail giant. Once asked to describe their growing movement they said:

“It is a fellowship of friends brought together by a common cause and sharing a common approach”, giving themselves the rather grandiose title of the “Manchester School of Zionism.”

Weizmann’s single purpose, as a Zionist, was the lobbying of influential Westminster politicians (including Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour, Winston Churchill, and Herbert Samuel) to recognize and support the aims and aspirations of the Jewish Zionists in return for their assistance.

His requests were well received by a British government badly in need of Jewish finance and US military support and he was asked to submit his proposals in writing, to the Foreign Office.

Weizmann, together with with Leopold Amery, British Zionist and Colonial Secretary of State for India and Louis Brandeis, US Zionist Leader and Supreme Court Justice compiled and tabled a draft declaration.

“His majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this

object, it being clearly understood that nothing will 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.”

Foreign Secretary Balfour gained Cabinet approval and the declaration, as writ was circulated to eminent British Zionists formalizing British support for the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine.

The following supported the declaration (with slight amendments):

1. The Rt. Hon. Herbert Samuel, M.P.
2. The Chief Rabbi.
3. Lord Rothschild.
4. Sir Stuart Samuel, Chairman of the British Board of Deputies.
5. Dr Weizmann.
6. Mr Nahura Sokolov.

The following did not support the draft and submitted major changes, some of which were included in the final declaration:

1. Sir Philip Magus, M.P.
2. C.G. Montifiore, President of the Anglo Jewish Association.
3 L.L. Cohen, Esq, Jewish Board of Guardians.


Related image




1918 King Hussein Expresses Concern

Emir Hussein was perplexed by the declaration and in 1918 the British government sent Commander Hogarth of the Arab Bureau to Cairo to assure him that the Jewish settlement of Palestine would be allowed only if it was compatible with the freedom of the existing population. He implored Hussein to accept the Zionists because, “the friendship of world Jewry to the Arab cause is equivalent to support in all states where Jews have political influence”. A joint Anglo-French proclamation promising Arab’s a government, “freely chosen by the population, gave Hussein the assurances he desired.


Related image

What was envisaged by King Faisal and Chaim Weizmann



1918-1919: Arab Leader King Faisal Approves Balfour Declaration

Jerusalem was liberated from Turkish rule by General Allenby’s army on December 11 1917, when the last German troops left the city.

Accompanied by “Lawrence of Arabia”, Allenby walked through Jaffa Gate in a ceremony watched by rabbis, muftis, patriarchs, consuls and the Mayor of Jerusalem.

Lawrence called it “the supreme moment of the war, the one which for historical reasons made a greater appeal than anything on earth.”

The Zionists were seen by Britain as an engine for the revival of the Middle East. Western Palestine, in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence of 1915, had specifically been excluded from the Ottoman territories promised to the Hashemite Arabs.

In 1918, the Zionist Commission came to Palestine and Chaim Weizmann travelled over the desert with Lawrence to meet Emir Faisal, the Hashemite leader who started the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire, near Aqaba.

Weizmann told Faisal that the Jews would develop the country under British protection.

Lawrence saw the Jews as “natural importers of Western leaven so necessary for countries in the Near East.”

Faisal “accepted the possibility of future Jewish claims to territory in Palestine.”

When the three men met later in London, Faisal agreed that Palestine could absorb “four to five million Jews without encroaching on the rights of the Arab peasantry.”

He approved a Jewish majority in Palestine provided he received the crown of Syria.

There followed a written document in Paris in January 1919, signed by Faisal and Weizmann, in which the Emir agreed to “the fullest guarantee for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November 1917″ and enforcing all necessary measures to “encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale.”

In a letter to the Zionists, Faisal wrote, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement” and that, “we will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.”

Faisal felt that “there exists room in Syria for us both and that neither can be a success without the other.”


Israel/Palestine State borders Agreed with King Faisal.


Jewish/ Palestine State at  1922 (population fully integrated