Month: November 2018

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Summary

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

References:

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.!!

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scottish Home Rule

In the period 1905 -1914 ever-increasing unrest in Ireland coupled with growing unrest in Scotland concentrated the minds of politicians at Westminster.

By the Spring of 1914  a “Scottish Home Rule Bill”, passed two readings and was fully supported by the Liberal Party (which held around eighty per cent of parliamentary seats in Scotland). How times have changed.

Just as on so many instances since the sirens of Westminster protectionism screamed ever louder as the Liberals grip on power began to wane as the English working-class changed their allegiance supporting the Labour party which was promoting workers’ rights.

 So, the ascendancy of the “all for one and one for all” Labour Party and the start of WW1 put paid to the aspirations of Scots, yet again.

Click to access scottishhomerulescot.pdf

 

 

Douglas Haig

 

 

Haig – A Pen Picture

Haig was a dour, taciturn, lowland Scot from a family of wealthy whisky distillers.

He rarely gave an opinion or expressed emotion preferring to keep his own counsel, confiding his thoughts only with his loving wife Dorothy, a lady-in-waiting and confidante to the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

And she was ever keen to whisper manipulative words about the quite remarkable qualities of her husband into receptive royal ears.

There are many who conjectured that it was Haig’s skills as an intriguer and his influence in royal circles that finally brought him the top job rather than his military ability.

The events of 1914-1918 confirmed their suspicions.

 

 

 

 

Haig and his private secretary Sir Philip Sassoon:

Inset: Sir John French, who was sacked for incompetence and replaced by Haig as commander-in-chief in December 1915; Blendecques Château, where Haig was based.

There are many who are critical of the lifestyle and indifferent behaviour of the army hierarchy but a life  well to the rear was not without its privations.

During 1918’s aborted German offensives, Haig and his staff went four consecutive nights with little sleep, “Fighting the battle until the situation stabilized and the crisis passed.” Poor wee things. Such hardship!!!!

 

Wars are won on the playing fields of Eton

The Sandhurst trained elite. Spot the difference in each, if you can. Like peas in a pod with their swagger sticks, walrus moustaches, jodhpurs, and shiny knee-high boots.

 

 

 

King George v on a visit to France conferring knighthoods – in reward for maintaining the stalemate on the war front.

 

 

British army Headquarters –  Château de Bertangles  One of a number of similar buildings commandeered by the British

 

Pictorial View of the war in France 1914-18

 

The British Expeditionary Force suffered many reverses in 1914 and the appointment of Haig in 195 signalled a major change in tactics.

He introduced  “defensive offense”. Which was “dig in, hold the line,  bombard the enemy positions relentlessly then advance forward in great numbers mopping up what is left of the foe.

But the tactic brought problems. By the beginning of 1916, Haig had just about used the entire stock of British Army artillery munitions in France.

Reluctant to deploy his reserves he requested a resupply of artillery munitions but his repeated pleas fell on deaf ears as politicians began to count the cost of the war.

He was finally advised by the War Office that he would need to change his tactics and launch offensives to gain ground.

If successful subsequent requests for artillery munitions might then be approved.

 

Haigs Response was the Somme 

 

 

Commencing 24 Jun 2016 German trenches were bombarded for 7 days.

Over 1.5million shells were fired, but the shelling was worse than useless since around 40% were duds and the use of “air burst” munitions to remove extensive wire defences protecting the german positions was stupidity beyond belief.

But “HE” groundburst shells were not included in the British munitions supply since the generals had decided the war would be over in weeks and battles would be fought in the open where “air burst”  shells would be very effective.

But the Germans did not play fair. They dug trenches with all the mod cons around 50 feet below ground and relocated to safety during any bombardment.

The British Generals, who had not  foreseen the change in tactics failed to match the digging prowess of the Germans with the result that British soldiers were exposed to  the frequent German artillery bombardment and incurred many unnecessary casualties

 

 

 

 

On 1 Jul 2016, when the bombardment lifted, the Battle of the Somme began and lasted for nearly five months ending on 19 Nov 2016. 141 days of carnage.

Day one of the battle was a bloody disaster.  Briefed to expect a walkover  British soldiers were cut to pieces by enfilade fire from German machine gunners, whose trenches had remained intact despite the week-long artillery bombardment. 20,000 were killed.

By the end of the Somme offensive 500,000 British soldiers were either dead or severely wounded, (including tens of thousands of young Scots), many still teenagers.

After 141 days of battle, there was over a million casualties between the British, French, and German forces.

When the Battle of the Somme was over, 420,000 British men had lost their lives.

Haig got his much-improved artillery munitions.

He was willing to make any sacrifice to achieve success including the death of 135,000 Scottish soldiers.

By the war end total Scots deaths exceeded 180,000, (including many who died from their wounds after the war ended).

A nation with eight per cent of the overall population of the British Isles sustained 15 per cent of the casualties.

 

 

 

Young men of the Royal Scots, from Prestonpans / Tranent and Haddington…before being sent up to the front.

In 1914 the Scottish population was 4.6 million (under 10 per cent of Britain’s pre-War population).

But, at the start of WW1 the standing (regular) British Army comprised 13 per cent. The professional Army was already dominated by the presence of Scots.

 

So young

 

 

Unbelievable Tosh ( the Germans equipped their battalions with a minimum of 40 and used enfilade fire against attacking Scots.)

 

 

 

Shot at Dawn: Lest We Forget WW1 Crimes and Haig: by Peardiver

 

And the pipers kept playing

 

 

 

Scottish soldiers enjoying life behind the lines, (what luxury)

 

 

The Somme offensive

 

Many drowned in the mud

 

Our finest young men dead

 

The Somme  The Royal Scots

 

The boys from Newbattle entering their rat hole

 

Gas attack sentry

 

The fog of War

 

Fallen Scots

 

living in the trenches

 

Their sacrifice will not be in vain Scotland will be free of Westminster and its corruption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opening Narrative

The Brexit endgame is not that far off and it is important to look-back to other events and the actions taken by the political and royal elite to protect their interests where the Westminster establishment was perceived to be under threat.

An event occurred in Ireland in 1882 the outcome of which shook Westminster to the core and brought about a change of government but failed to bring about change in the mindset of the English elite.

The English press and other media outlets were guilty of feeding the public false information aimed at demonizing inhabitants of parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland that had failed to accept and implement English lifestyle standards and religious beliefs.

The outcome of the event provided proof that Westminster will do anything including perverting the course of justice by arranging` a show trial of eight innocent men (the hanging of three and a near 20 year incarceration of the remaining five) all designed to ensure its survival intact and free of any unwanted change.

Queen Victoria gave voice that had the trial been held in England all eight of those falsely charged would be hung. Her lackey’s heeded her wishes and did their best to accommodate her.

The report that follows provides explanatory information in support of my assertion that little has changed. The “little Eng-lander” mentality of Westminster still drives the thinking of the establishment and Scotland is in for a rocky ride over Brexit and beyond as Westminster “circles the wagons” and denies anyone outside London/England their right, (enshrined in the UN charter) to self determination of their future governance.

 

 

 

 

17 Aug 1882: The Maamtrasna Murders

John Joyce, his mother, his second wife Bridget and two children were brutally killed in their home at Maamtrasna in Galway. The occurrence, which occurred just three months after the murders of Lord Ardilaun’s bailiffs at Pheonix Park, convinced the English authority it was part of an uprising, when it was in fact a local dispute.

The day following the murders, Anthony Joyce (a cousin of the murdered man), with his brother Johnny and his nephew Paddy, all from a nearby parish,  three miles from the murder scene, went to the police with an astonishing tale.

These Joyces, known as ‘the “Malora” Joyces  (to distinguish them from the many Joyce families in the area),  gave a sworn statement that they had followed a crowd of men that fateful night, they saw them joined by other men, and saw them approach John Joyce’s house at Maamtrasna.

Hidden behind a bush, they heard the noise at the door, and saw some of the men enter the house, while others stayed outside. Anthony heard shouting and screeching. “He could not distinguish the screams of the women from those of the men.”

He named 10 men whom he alleged were out that night as follows: Anthony Philbin, Tom Casey, Martin Joyce, Myles Joyce, Patrick Joyce, Tom Joyce,  Pat Joyce, Patrick Casey, John Casey, and Michael Casey.

They were duly rounded up and brought before the magistrates at Cong, and charged.

Westminster justice prevailed. Investigations were swiftly completed and retribution was exacted. The English state actively assisted by the Press, “nipped the problem in the bud”. But the implementation of swift justice, without appeal dammed Westminster for ever when it was revealed that  a number of those put to death by hanging or jailed were innocent.

True to form, Westminster politicians refused to issue pardons and/or recompense those who served an unwarranted twenty years in jail.

 

Westminster justice

 

 

Westminster Panic- Agitating for Change – The Land League Campaign

The Maamtrasna Murders happened at a time of deep unrest in Ireland.

Three years previously, the most effective protest against the insidious landlord domination of the vast majority of the Irish people found expression in the Land League.

It was established on October 21 1879, in the Imperial Hotel, Castlebar, by a former Fenian prisoner Michael Davitt.

In a sweeping revolutionary statement, the League proclaimed the right of every tenant farmer to own the land he worked on.

Because of the abuses heaped on tenants by some landlords, it had an immediate impact. It also found a powerful voice in its president Charles Stewart Parnell, a Protestant landowner in County Wicklow.

Parnell was initially seen as an unlikely leader of a mass agrarian movement, but Davitt declared him “an Englishman of the strongest type moulded for an Irish purpose.”

Parnell’s policies were so effective that it vaulted him into the unchallenged leadership of the advanced wing of the Irish Parliamentary Party.

In its time, through a series of Land Acts, it achieved extraordinary concessions for the Irish tenant, far in excess of what was ever achieved for their contemporaries working on the land in England, Scotland, or Wales.

Parnell advocated peaceful protest, such as non payment of rent, the effective use of ‘boycott’, and solidarity and support for those who were evicted. But passions were high and violence frequently took a vicious turn.

Principle targets for murder were landlords or their agents, many of whom were soft targets.

In January of same year of the Maamtrasna murders, Joseph and John Huddy, who worked for Lord Ardilaun,(a member of the Guinness family, a generous philanthropist who lived mainly at Ashford Castle, Cong ) were murdered and their bodies dumped in Lough Mask.

John Henry Blake, an agent of the despised Lord Clanricard, was shot dead in broad daylight in Loughrea in June 1882.

A Claremorris landlord, Walter Burke and Ballinrobe landlord Lord Mountmorres, were both shot dead.

The British government was determined to stamp out these outrages by whatever means and Parnell and other leaders were arrested on the basis of allegedly seditious speeches and held, without trial, in Kilmainham Gaol.

But what brought England to near hysteria, were the stabbings in Phoenix Park, on 6 May 1882, of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the newly appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Thomas Henry Burke, the permanent under-secretary, the most senior Irish civil servant.

Draconian measures were immediately introduced giving the police much increased powers of search and arrest. New three-judge English language courts were set up and compensation for murder, injury, or damage to property was levied on the jurisdiction in which the crimes were committed.

 

A tenant evicted

 

 

 

18 Nov 1882: The “Spectator” newspaper Loads the Dice Before and During the Trial

This is what was published:

“The tragedy at Maamtrasna, almost unique as it is in the annals of the United Kingdom, brings out in strong relief two facts Which Englishmen are too apt to forget.

One is the existence in particular districts of Ireland of a class of peasants who are scarcely civilized beings whose approach is far nearer to savages than any other white men.

In remote places of Ireland, on a few of the islands and in one or two mountain areas, dwell peasants who are in knowledge, in habits, and in the discipline of life no higher than Maories or other Polynesians.

They survive for generations, without a rudimentary idea of comfort, or instruction, even in the alphabet, inaccessible to the teaching of any Church.

Men, whose strain of blood is not originally Milesian or Saxon, display a dull bitterness and ferocity of temper such as Englishmen in their own island see only rarely in individuals, the temper of men out of whom circumstances have crushed every feeling, except savage resentment against their lot, against all who come athwart them, against, in fact, all men and things.

Human sympathy seems almost extinguished in them, and when provoked, they perform the most dreadful acts, with that callousness and, as it were, unconsciousness, which Europeans for the most part have lost, but which reappear in narratives from the South Sea.

The Joyces of Maamtrasna, as the papers call them, though they are not all of one name now under trial, clearly belong to this class, utterly wretched, utterly poverty-stricken, utterly without hope of better things, as little under Christian influence as the animals, but when alarmed or excited, dully ferocious and bloodthirsty.

Some of them were implicated, in some way in the murder of Lord Ardilaun’s bailiffs, and knew that the police, with whom they were always at war, suspected them.

They also either knew or suspected that some one member of a neighbouring family, also named Joyce, had given the police the clue, and could, if willing, supply still further evidence.

They did not know, however, which member of the family was the guilty party, and therefore, under the guidance of two of their number, one of whom is just convicted, resolved to remove the danger by murdering them all, those innocent, even in their eyes, as well as the guilty.

The house was remote, they could get rid of all evidence and even if suspected, the new suspicion would not hurt them more than the previous one of the murder of the bailiffs had done.

The plan had about it all the audacity and completeness of the true savage raid, the raid in which extirpation is intended, without respect for sex or age,indeed, without thought of either and it very nearly succeeded.

Ten desperadoes went at night to the house of the suspected family, and shot or bludgeoned them all, John Joyce, his mother Margaret, his wife Bridget, his son Michael, and daughter Margaret. They had intended also to murder one other son but he although sorely wounded, feigned death, and survived.

Recollection of the cruelty of the mode of murder, completely overcame the Judge when passing sentence, but murder is never gentle, and except as illustrating the callous savagery of which we speak, the method adopted is unimportant.

Having (as they thought) destroyed the entire family, of whom most were guiltless of even an imaginary offense, and four were women or children, the murderers retreated, their leaders, doubtless, congratulating themselves on a final release from fear.

There seemed no possibility of evidence, except from one of the guilty accomplices, and they could be relied on, even if they did not fear the secret society which, Mr. Justice Barry hinted, must in some way have prompted the deed.

It is more probable that the ten themselves constituted a secret society but at all events the leaders thought themselves secure, both as regards the murdered Joyces and the murdered bailiffs.

They had not reckoned, however, on two circumstances, the fact that their crime would stir the horror naturalis which in most countries makes of every man the murderer’s enemy and that their tyranny, which had lasted years, had roused the silent detestation of their neighbours.

Even fear for their own lives seems unable in Ireland to rouse the people to form Vigilance Committees, and suppress terrorism for themselves, as would happen anywhere else, but three neighbours, themselves in terror of murder, and aware that “the Boys” were in movement, had nerve enough, if not to defend the victims, at least to watch the murderers.

They did not warn the threatened or shoot down the threateners, but they stalked the ten as Maories or Red Indians might have done, noted their persons, saw them break-in the doors, heard the shouts and shrieks, and gave evidence to the police and when the leaders were arrested, one of their followers turned Queen’s evidence, and made the proof legally as well as morally complete.

The badly injured child, who could have given the account of an eye-witness, was not examined, for he had been left so devoid of the most rudimentary training that he could not comprehend the obligation of an oath, and, therefore, could give no evidence.

One leader has been sentenced to death, and if all his accomplices share the same doom, there will, even in Ireland, be no sympathy for their fate. They had gone beyond even the awful secret code of the Western peagantry, which teaches that the loss of a bit of land, or of a little profit, or the telling of plain truth in a Court of Justice, justifies execution, without trial or opportunity of defense, by the bludgeon or the revolver.

We have no intention of deepening in any way the horror of this incident in English eyes, for terribly as it has affected English imaginations it is, among the crimes which have disgraced Ireland, one of the least truly horrible.

Not only were all concerned, victims as well as murderers, of a type below civilization, but the crime was punished, and punished by the help of Irishmen, by the aid of neighbours, through their testimony, and by the verdict of an ordinary jury.

No one in Ireland has defended it, no one has threatened the witnesses, no Member of Parliament has attempted to extenuate it. It is the unpunished murders, in which the witnesses are silent, and the jurors are perjured, and the journalists talk as if Christianity had never been heard of, of the “wild justice of revenge,” and as to which a whole land seems either sympathetic or cowed, which are so truly horrible, and for which, as the Catholic Canon told his audience, the retribution of Heaven will arrive.

But we would with this case before us, ask those Irishmen who still believe it needless to make the law executive, whether they can devise or suggest any substitute for its action, whether they believe any other agency than Law, steadily enforced till it becomes part of the order of things, can awaken conscience in men like these murderers?

Would one of them have murdered, if he had known that retribution would be certain ; that every Irish- man would, as against him, be a policeman. That he would arouse the instinctive horror not only of the good, but of all, bad and good alike?

We do not believe it. We believe that the law awakens conscience as nothing else save the direct grace of God, not often given to murderers can • and it is therefore we support in England the penalty of death.

In Ireland every obstacle to the certainty of legal retribution, even if that obstacle be an institution like the jury, or a personal right like the freedom to walk about at night, should be swept away.

The apologists for agrarian crime, though not for crimes like this Joyce murder, hope one day, or say they hope, to rule Ireland for themselves.

If they do, they will be the worst pests even unhappy Ireland ever had, if they do not beforehand learn that the sanctity of Law is the safety of the people, and that there is such a crime in the divine system of the world, if not in human legislation, as “bearing the sword of the Lord in vain.”

 

Not involved but hung just the same

 

 

 

 

20 August 1882: The “Times” newspaper was not to be upstaged and commented:

“No ingenuity can exaggerate the brutal ferocity of a crime which spared neither the grey hairs of an aged woman nor the innocent child of 12 years who slept beside her. It is an outburst of unredeemed and inexplicable savagery before which one stands appalled, and oppressed with a painful sense of the failure of our vaunted civilization.”

 

 

 

 

10 Dec 1882: The Judgement

Of the ten men arrested, two (fearing for their lives) decided to become informers in order to escape punishment. Eight men were convicted, Three were hung and the other five were imprisoned.

Two of the jailed men died in jail while the other three spent 20 years in custody for a crime they did not commit.

It later transpired that they had been pressurized to plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence as opposed to hanging.

The man suspected of having been the actual ring leader of the killings – moneylender John Casey was never arrested.

 

Three Hanged

 

 

A Serious Miscarriage of Justice.

1. The defendants were were convicted on perjured evidence: Eye witnesses were paid 1,250 pounds sterling – equivalent to about €160,000 today in “compensation” for testifying for the prosecution.

2. Lord Spencer, the Lord Lieutenant, (an ancestor of Prince William and Prince Harry) said the payments were for: “courageous and praiseworthy conduct in the pursuit and prosecution of the murderers”. later recantations were never properly considered.

3. The prosecution case was a farrago of deceits and the defense lawyer was lamentable – simply went through the motions.

4. The trial was conducted entirely in English before a Dublin-based English-only speaking jury, but the defendants only spoke and understood the Irish language and translation for the defendants was ill provided.

5. Both Patsy and his older brother, Martin, (who was away in Clonbur on the night of the murders) gave statements to the investigating police but these were not submitted in evidence. They were also detained against their will, in the police station in Ballybough for the duration of the trial.

6. Facing the hangman’s noose at Galway Prison, one of the accused, Patrick Casey signed a declaration before the prison Governor, George Mason, that, of his own free will “as a prisoner under sentence of death….Myles Joyce is innocent in this case.”

7. An urgent telegram containing a plea for mercy was sent by Governor of Galway prison to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, Earl John Spencer and was returned with a scribbled note on the reverse side stating: “the law must take its course”.

8. It was also noted that there was substantial evidence that could have proved the innocence of some of the men, but it was hidden away from court and evidence given in Irish had not been translated correctly.

9. The accused men’s solicitor, a 24-year old novice from Tuam, Co. Galway, had graduated from Trinity College Dublin only two years previously and, as a non-Irish speaker, was unable to communicate in any meaningful way with most his clients.

10. An inquiry was refused soon after the trial and for a long time thereafter despite clear evidence showing that justice had not been done.

 

Charles Stewart Parnell

 

 

 

12 Mar 2018: The Irish to Have the Final Say on the Matter

Irish President, Michael D. Higgins revealed that the Government has appointed an expert to examine the case for granting posthumous pardons to the innocent men convicted of the historic murders.

In an interview he said he is looking forward to hearing that expert’s opinion and the Government’s advice on one of the most famous miscarriages of justice in British and Irish legal history.

“At that stage, I will be returning to this issue to see what I can do. If it were up to me, the formalities aside, I would be happy to accept that the injustice which occurred should be recognized.

My view is that the moral issue is clear. Everything that happened at the level of the State was horrendous. There was bribery involved. The accused didn’t get a proper chance to defend themselves. There wasn’t an atmosphere of equality and there was no equality as regards legal processes.”

The President also said that the British authorities, did not treat citizens outwith England as equals: “They viewed them as a race apart who were not on equal footing with ordinary civilized people.”

Comment: The last comment from the President of Ireland is an accurate reflection of the mindset of the British elite, at Westminster, with one word change: Delete “were” Insert “are”.

 

 

 

 

The man that would have inspired Machiavelli is dead and politicians sleep  more soundly. If only it were possible to delve into his diaries.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, civil servant and permanent secretary to Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron and May and confidant to the rich and powerful elite of British politics and their hangers on died from cancer this week.

His death will bring about significant change.  But it is doubtful his replacement will enjoy the same privileges and political clout as  Jeremy who, armed with all of the secrets and knowledge of misdeeds of a huge range of politicians had all of the Prime Ministers and their cohorts in his employ, at his mercy. And boy did he wield his sword with murderous efficiency.

His hatred of free thinking Scots was without parallel, as his actions proved and Scotland can only benefit from Westminster’s loss.

I wrote many articles exposing his unfettered control of the civil service and I am publishing them again so that those who failed to pick up on his power can get to know the man who was king.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/31/yes-campaign-faced-the-might-of-the-abbotsford-team-actively-backed-by-the-entire-uk-political-system-the-civil-service-media-barons-commercial-and-financial-institutions-the-city-of/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/29/sir-jeremy-heywood-edward-snowden-whistleblower-nsa-gchq-data-collection-surveillance-of-individuals-worldwide/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-the-iraq-inquiry-other-controversies-are-his-hands-clean/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-a-perfect-manifestation-of-everything-that-has-gone-so-very-wrong-with-the-british-civil-service/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-adored-by-blair-brown-and-cameron-he-knows-just-where-the-bodies-are-buried/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-chinese-whispers-is-this-anyway-to-run-a-country/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/03/sir-jeremy-heywood-new-civil-service-chief-executive-appointed-track-record-failure/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/02/sir-jeremy-heywood-the-referendum-the-dirty-tricks-department-run-by-civil-servants/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/03/07/top-civil-servant-sir-jeremy-heywood-and-david-cameron-in-battle-for-downing-street-supremacy/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/sir-jeremy-heywood-sell-off-of-bae-the-last-of-britains-great-british-defence-manufacturers/

https://caltonjock.com/2015/01/22/chilcott-inquiry-delays-the-cover-up-the-machiavellian-influence-of-sir-jeremy-heywood/

 

 

 

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/03/politics-scandals-cuts-destruction-and-chaos-yet-he-seems-to-thrive-on-it/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/03/sir-jeremy-heywood-warns-cuts-you-aint-seen-nuthin-yet/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/heywood-the-big-society-debacle-allegations-of-a-misuse-of-government-and-charitable-funds/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/sir-jeremy-heywood-pfizer-astrazeneca-takeover-bid-hang-on-david-ill-ask-the-wife/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/30/sir-jeremy-heywood-european-surveillance-drone-technology-introduction/