'¿Ö ¼º°æ¸¸À¸·Î ¾È µÉ±î?'
'±×·¯¸é ¿ì¸®´Â ¾î¶»°Ô »ì °ÍÀΰ¡?'¸¦ °í¹ÎÇÒ ¶§~
'»îÀÇ ÀÇ¹Ì¿Í ÅëÀϼº'À» ¾Ë¾Æ¾ß ÇÒ ¶§ÀÔ´Ï´Ù~click

"[The Jews are] a people without a country; even as their own land, as subsequently to be shown, is in a great measure a country without a people." Alexander Keith, Church of Scotland clergyman, influential evangelical thinker and early advocate of the idea that Christians should work to encourage the biblical prophecy of a return of "the Jews" to the land of Israel, The Land of Israel According to the Covenant with Abraham (1843)

"[Greater Syria is] a country without a nation [ in need of ] a nation without a country ¡¦ Is there such a thing? To be sure there is: the ancient and rightful lords of the soil, the Jews!" Lord Shaftesbury, British statesman and social reformer , letter to Foreign Minister George Hamilton Gordon, Lord Palmerston, July 1853: Cited in Adam M Garfinkle, "On the Origin, Meaning, Use, and Abuse of a Phrase," Middle Eastern Studies, Oct. 1991, p. 543.

"[Greater Syria is the] vast and fertile regions [that] will soon be without a ruler, without a known and acknowledged power to claim dominion. The territory must be assigned to some one or other. There is a country without a nation; and God now in his wisdom and mercy, directs us to a nation without a country." Lord Shaftesbury diary entry: cited in Albert Hyamson, "British Projects for the Restoration of Jews to Palestine," American Jewish Historical Society Publications, 1918, no. 26, p. 140

"Surely the land without a people, and the people without a land, are intended soon to meet and mutually possess each other." Anonymous review in the United Presbyterian Magazine (1854) of C W M Van de Velde's Narrative of a Journey through Syrian and Palestine in 1851 and 1852 (1854).

"[I advocate the] repatriation of Israel [in which] we have a people without a country, as well as a country without a people." Horatius Bonar, Scottish Presbyterian, The Land of Promise: Notes of a Spring Journey from Beersheba to Sidon (1858)

"You [the Jews] are a people without a country; there is a country without a people. Be united. Fulfill the dreams of your old poets and patriarchs. Go back, go back to the land of Abraham." John L Stoddard, Lectures: Illustrated and Embellished with Views of the World's Famous Places and People, Being the Identical Discourses Delivered during the Past Eighteen Years under the Title of the Stoddard Lectures, vol. 2. (1897)

"Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country." Israel Zangwill, a Zionist intriguer, was first the Zionist to use of the phrase then in common use in both Great Britain and the United States among Christians interested in a "return" of "the Jews" to Palestine: Liberal Review (1901)

"Dear Sir, I cannot do as you wish. I am unable to overcome my aversion to burdening the public with my name, and even the present critical time does not seem to me to warrant it. Whoever wants to influence the masses must give them something rousing and inflammatory and my sober judgement of Zionism does not permit this. I certainly sympathise with its goals, am proud of our University in Jerusalem and am delighted with our settlement's prosperity. But, on the other hand, I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state, nor that the Christian and Islamic worlds would ever be prepared to have their holy places under Jewish care. It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land. But I know that such a rational viewpoint would never have gained the enthusiasm of the masses and the financial support of the wealthy. I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives. Now judge for yourself whether I, with such a critical point of view, am the right person to come forward as the solace of a people deluded by unjustified hope. Your obedient servant, Freud" In February 1930, Freud was asked by Zionist leaders, as a distinguished Jew, to contribute to a petition condemning the Arab riots of 1929, in which over a hundred Jews were killed at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. A rumour went out that "the Jews" were plotting to destroy the Dome of the Rock and the Mosque of Aqsa in order to rebuild their Temple. Freud declined to endorse the Zionist Enterprise with its "misdirected piety" towards the "historically-burdened land" of Palestine. Letter to the Keren Hajessod (Dr Chaim Koffler) from Dr Sigmund Freud Vienna: 26 February 1930

"My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

The Zionist State of Israel was conceived in iniquity and birthed through the application of organised terror that succeeded in expelling countless Palestinians from their ancestral lands. Zionist apologists, of course, strenuously deny that organised terror was used in the founding of the Zionist Sate on ancient Arab lands.

The casuistic argument used by Zionist apologists is that Greater Syria at the time of the Zionist colonisation was virtually an empty land, a deserted land. That, in the words of the Zionist intriguer Israel Zangwill, "Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country."

Thus, "the Jews" migrated to their "Promised Land" which at the time say the Zionist apologists was an empty, unproductive piece of Earth. But, there was an oversight. There were indeed people in the "Promised Land" of "the Jews," lots of them, nearly a million of them! However, these Arabs proved themselves perfidious to to the Zionist State. That in the time of "Israel's" greatest need they all fled!

Thus, the 800,000 indigenous Palestinians who fled from their villages and farms during the 1948 Arab-Israel War deserved to lose their ancient possessions since they were disloyal to the emerging Zionist State of Israel. That these traitorous Arabs defected to Israel's Arab enemies at a crucial time; at a vulnerable moment in the Zionist State's struggle for nationhood. Moreover, that these traitorous Arabs willingly obeyed the Arab generals who urged the Palestinians to leave Palestine so that "the Jews" could be more easily identified, slaughtered and driven into the sea.

And moreover, that these Arab refugees were so confident the conquering Arab Armies would succeed in driving "the Jews" into the sea and that they would return to their land and property once the Zionist experiment in Palestine was destroyed. Thus, conclude the Zionist apologists, no property of refugees who fled in 1948 will be returned to them or to their descendants. Thus endeth the Zionist Myth concerning the wondrous gift to the Bolshevik Zionist Jews of the newly established Zionist State of Israel of ancient Arab lands, properties and possession.

Now, let us look to the Reality of the situation.

At the beginning of the 20th century, about a 750,000 Arabs lived in Palestine and about 50,000 Jews; most of the Jews were recent migrants from Europe who had succumbed to the blandishments of Zionism. Palestine at the time was also part of the Ottoman Empire created by the Ottoman Turks in the 13th century that lasted until the end of World War I. However, Palestine was not under direct political control of the Ottoman Turk since in 1831 Muhammad Ali Pasha, the ruler of Egypt, had wrested control of Greater Syria from direct Ottoman control. A political change which caused the British to send a foreign consul to Jerusalem.

During the tumultuous first decade of the 20th century discontent within the Ottoman Empire provided ancient Arab nationalism and the new Zionist Movement with the first real chance to advance their respective ambitions. Hence, the question: should they both work together against the Turks in the upcoming revolt or should they go separate ways? Moreover, should the Zionist Jews seek an international charter for a Jewish homeland rather than link their destiny with the Arabs?
The corollary was that the Arab leaders also faced a dilemma of their own. Should they work with the new Zionist Jewish settlers or oppose them? Arab nationalism was effectively a simple idea; the search for and restoration of long lost Arab identities. For, the Arabs had been under occupation by the Turkish sultanate of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Thus, in the early part of the 20th century, there was a distinct possibility for these two national aspirations to coexist. However, the Hidden Agenda of the Zionist intriguers never countenanced such co-operation.
The early Zionist strategy was to lull the Arab into thinking that the early Zionist Jewish settlers were not a major threat by speaking of a common Semitic heritage. However, the Zionist War Leaders had a long range plan to create the Zionist State of Israel without any significant Arab help or, indeed, without any future Arab presence within its artificial borders.

Thus, getting along with the Arabs was secondary to the Zionist War Leaders as they went about plotting the establishing of their Zionist State of Israel. Consequently, the realpolitik of the Zionist Agenda called for securing the help of a European state to help them establish the "international charter" that gave dubious legitimacy to their claim to ancient Arab lands. Hence, the Zionists sided with the Turks, biding their time, awaiting the end of the Great War when they knew that a powerful European power -Great Britain and her empire- would gift them their "international charter," which they would use to establish the Jewish homeland on the ashes of the Ottoman Empire and Palestinian nationalist hopes.

The power vacuum caused by the demise of the ancient Turkish sultanate was filled by European imperial power namely British and French. Most of the east coast of the Mediterranean including Palestine fell under the British Mandate, which was given legal basis by a "Covenant" of the League of Nations. An international agreement largely written by the Zionist agent, the South African genera and politician Jan Smuts (1870-1950). However, the actual drafting of the legal language of the Mandate was written by Jewish-American Zionist intriguer and Harvard Law Professor Felix Frankfurter at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

One of the main reasons for the establishment of the British Mandate was to protect the incoming Zionist Jewish settlers from the rightful and righteous indignation of the native Arabs. A reality one of the most fervent Zionists invader Vladimir Jabotinsky makes this clear:

"Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power independent of the native population -an iron wall, which will be in a position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs ... A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. ... If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some 'rich man' or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not "difficult', not 'dangerous', but IMPOSSIBLE! ... Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important ... to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot -or else I am through with playing at colonizing." The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs) (1923)

Crucial to the Zionist Myth and to the success of the Zionist colonisation project to establish the modern Zionist State of Israel was the cynical lie that Greater Syria, especially Palestine, was an empty and virtually a deserted land. That Palestine "was a land without people for a people without land." Moreover, it was, and still is, an imperative that the Zionists maintain the myth, especially in the United States, that Palestine was largely uninhabited before the arrival of the Zionists. In retrospect it is astonishing that such a myth could endure never mind take hold. However, it stands as testament to both the power of mass persuasion, of modern propaganda techniques and to the power of the Zionist Propaganda Machine. The words of the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon written on October 26, 1917 before the demise of the Ottoman Empire quickly refutes the myth:

"Now what is the capacity as regards population of Palestine within any reasonable period of time? What is to become of the people of this country, assuming the Turk to be expelled, and the inhabitants not to have been exterminated by the war? There are over a half a million of these, Syrian Arabs- a mixed community with Arab, Hebrew, Canaaite, Greek, Egyptian, and possibly Crusaders' blood. They own the soil, which belongs either to individual landowners or to village communities. They profess the Mohammedan faith. They will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter."

Nineteen Zionist Jewish colonies had been established in Palestine before 1900 and all of them were in regular, continuous communication with Zionist leaders and activists throughout Europe and America. Thus, in innumerable ways and in numerous personal vignettes and anecdotes the conditions prevailing in Palestine, the existence of the Arabs, their varying reactions to existing Zionist colonies and their attitude to the prospect of more Zionist Jewish colonisation must have all been known to the Zionist leaders and activists.

That the Arab was not a factor in the Zionist Enterprise; that the indigenous Arab population in Greater Syria was not considered as future partners but future enemies is discerned by the treatment of the situation by the Zionist Leaders and its supposed founders. Thus, even when Theador Herzl had spoken of an "International Charter" from the Sultanate he never contemplated any eviction of the Arabs in favour of "the Jews." Nor did he even acknowledge in his Zionist Congress addresses that Palestine had settled inhabitants. In other words, Herzl the supposed "father of Zionism" had wholly omitted the Arabs from his calculations.

Zionist apologists suggest that it was an honest oversight and that Herzl genuinely went about his plans ignorant of the significant Arab presence on lands he eagerly eyed. They also argue that none of his fellow conspirators likewise knew; and moreover, even suggested that the Zionist Movement take the essential first step of surveying the land they purposed to colonise with millions of fellow Zionist Jews.

It was apparent that Herzl and his fellow Jewish conspirators dealt with the Arab problem as if it did not exist. As they looked through the dark prism of Zionism they saw no impediment to large scale colonisation of Palestine; certainly no significant indigenous Arab population. Thus, year after year as Zionist congresses were summoned not a single day's session of any one of them was devoted to the discussion of the understanding that should in all justice be reached with the indigenous people of Palestine.

The wilful neglect of the question of an indigenous Arab population, of its equitable treatment and of coming to an understanding with it, is testament to a primary aim of the Zionist strategists. That if Zionism was unaware of the Arab it was because most Zionists perceived him as an obstacle and did not want to be aware to him; especially in large numbers; especially as rightful possessors of ancient ancestral Arab lands.

In May 1901 and August 1902 Herzl had audiences with Sultan Abdul Hamid hoping to inveigle land to establish a Zionist State in Greater Syria he received a letter in return:

"Advise Dr. Herzl not to take any further steps in his project. I can not give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Nation. The Islamic Nation that fought Jihad for the sake of this land and they have watered it with their blood. The Jews may keep their money and millions. If the Islamic Khalifah State is one day destroyed then they will be able to take Palestine without a price! But while I am alive, I would rather push a sword into my body than see the land of Palestine cut and given away from the Islamic State. This is something that will not be, I will not start cutting our bodies while we are alive."

"The districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, hama, homs, and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the proposed limits and boundaries. With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept these limits and boundaries ... Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories included in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Shereef of Mecca." Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt letter to Shereef Hussein of Mecca. October 25,1915

"His [Arthur J Balfour] most important action occurred on Nov. 2, 1917, when, prompted by the Zionist emigres Chaim Weizmann and Sakan Nokolow, he wrote a letter to the 2nd Baron Rothschild, head of the English branch of the famous Jewish banking family. The Balfour Declaration, pledging British aid for Zionist efforts to establish a home for world Jewry in Palestine, gave great impetus to the movement that eventually resulted in the establishment of the state of Israel." Encyclopaedia Britannica: Micropaedia Vol. I

During World War One the Arabs fought as Great Britain's ally against Imperial Germany's ally, Ottoman Turkey. For this, the British guaranteed the Arabs independence in an unified state once the war was won. The British pledge of Arab independence was contained in a letter sent by Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt to Shereef Hussein of Mecca. This pledge was confirmed by a secret Political Intelligence Department Memorandum on British Commitments to King Hussein, which on page 9 read:

"With regard to Palestine, His Majesty's Government are committed by Sir H. McMahon's letter to the Sherif on the 24th October, 1915 to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence."

However, one of the most important claims of the Zionist Movement to Palestine is the "international charter" they received from the British; or more correctly from a promissory letter supposedly written and sent by English statesman Arthur James Balfour (1848-1930), the 1st Earl of Balfour, who at the time was the British foreign secretary.

In short, the Zionist claim to Palestine has always rested upon Balfour's letter of November 2, 1917 promising British support for a "National home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. A letter issued nearly two years after Sir Henry McMahon's pledge of October 25, 1915.
The Rothschild family was crucial to the Zionist Enterprise; without its support, Zionism would not have the support of World Jewry and thus of the Evil Jewish Leadership. Initially, Rothschilds opposed Zionism on the grounds that it would be dangerous for their status as "respected citizens" of the various nations they had set up operations. Thus in 1845, for instance, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of the patriarch Amschel Mayer, refused to have anything to do with Zionism. Even Edmund Rothschild opposed Political Zionism, although the Jewish colonies in Palestine before the First World War owed their existence to his significant donations. However, on 25th January, 1915 he approached Lord Bertie of Thame about a "National Home" in Palestine for "the Jews." Nathaniel "Natty" Rothschild was also an opponent of Zionism until 1902 when he met Theodor Herzl, the Zionist propagandist, and afterwards endorsed the project for making a "National Home for the Jews" in East Africa.
Gradually the Rothschild clan warmed to the idea of Zionism. Thus the first Zionist political committee meeting on 7th Feb. 1917, had been attended by Lionel Walter and by James Rothschild, son of Edmond. Then as the resistance of other Rothschilds to the Zionist Enterprise was worn down, Balfour made his notorious "Declaration" as an address to Lionel Walter Rothschild.

The infamous Balfour "Declaration" said:

"Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothchild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the cabinet. 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 shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

This brief letter was the "international charter," the grant deed that the Zionist intriguers had always sought from a European major power, which give them a mandate to plant Zionism in the Near East.

History has shown that the execrable document was not written by Balfour but by those to whom it was addressed. That the Zionists intriguers themselves authored it! How can this be? How could Zionist leaders, especially "Dear Lord Rothschild" get the British Government to go along with such deceit? The normal conspiracy theory has it that it was the payoff for a shameless political manipulation. That the British government had not abandon its pledge to the Arabs because of altruistic concern for a "National home for the Jewish people" but rather because of the demands of realpolitiks.

The gist of the argument was stated by David Lloyd George (1863-1945), Britain's wartime Prime Minister, in his Memoirs:

"There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military [device] more than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavour to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D. was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfilment" ... Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the [Bolshevik] Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the entente ... It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence open world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchase. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry." David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference

Lloyd George's opinion is confirmed by many other sources, both Jew and Gentile. Winston Churchill, for instance, who later that "the Balfour Declaration was made to political Zionists in order that they would use their enormous influence on the side of the Western Allies at a time when the military situation was desperate."

One of the most persuasive is given by the English Jew Samuel Landman who was a very well known Zionist intriguer. Landman was honorary secretary of the Zionist Council of the United Kingdom (1912), editor of The Zionist, (1913-14), solicitor and secretary of the Zionist Organization (1917-22), and author of several Zionist agitprop pamphlets during World War One. When Landman speaks it is with the authority of World Jewry. Thus his opinion is the official Zionist one, moreover, one which is completely consistent with that of Lloyd George and Winston Churchill.

"Mr. James A. Malcolm ... spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards M. Georges-Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and M. Gout of the Quai d'Orsay [Eastern Section], that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis ... The Balfour Declaration, in the words of Prof. H.M.V. Temperley, was a 'definite contract between the British Government and Jewry' [History of the Peace Conference in Paris, vol 6, p.173]. The main consideration given by the Jewish people [represented at the time by the leaders of the Zionist Organization] was their help in bringing President Wilson to the aid of the Allies." Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine

Thus, according to the official line of both parties (British Gentile Government and Zionist Jews) the British betrayed their war time ally, the Arabs, for practical wartime politics: that the Arabs were betrayed as payoff to the Zionists who had promised and manipulated the the United States of America into the war on Britain's side. Thus, the "Jewish homeland" in Palestine was the price of America's entry into the First World War, even though the president who led it into the Great War, President Wilson, had been elected on the solemn pledge of keeping America out of war.

Although there is certain truth to this theory it ignores, deliberately, the ultimate reason for the collusion between Britain and the Zionist Movement and the betrayal of the Arabs. The certain truth in the theory is briefly this. Soon after World War One broke out the Germans got the upper hand and in 1916 they sued for peace and offered Britain a genuine Peace Treaty. However, although millions, of young men were dying on the battlefields of France the British Government declined. What made them do this? What made the British Government continue the slaughter of an entire generation of young men?

When the German offer was made, the Zionists in Britain went to the British War Cabinet and (as detailed in their own records now archived in the British Museum) made a counter offer. The Zionist intriguers offered the prospect of victory to the British Government: they argued that Britain did not have to agree to a humiliating peace treaty but actually win the war. This, the Zionist Jews said could be done by them manoeuvring America into the war on Britain's side provided they -Zionist Jews- got a Palestine in return. The Zionist War Leaders had promised the beleaguered British Government the Power of the Jewish Purse and Jewish Political Power in their support, but especially a promise to get America into the war. Hence, the appearance of the infamous "Balfour Declaration" in 1917. Prince Michel Sturdza, former Rumanian Foreign Minister, described it thus:

"The opening by the British Foreign Office of its confidential pre-1918 files showed how the Zionist ideas had developed from the cherished imperial dream of a few individuals to the point of execution. In 1916 the military situation of Great Britain and France on the battlefields and the ocean routes was at its lowest ebb. That was the year when Chaim Weizmann and Samuel Landman, two influential British Zionists, finally succeeded in convincing the responsible British and French authorities that the best way, perhaps the only way, to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews, and then to mobilise their surprisingly powerful forces in America and elsewhere in favor of the allies on a quid quo pro basis ... The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the result of the secret agreement of 1916. It stated that the British government would provide for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jews, 'without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities existing there.' The last obstacle to Zionism's full cooperation with the allied cause was removed with the fall of the Tsarist regime. And finally, in response to repercussions from the carefully prepared Lusitania incident, President Wilson consented to abandon his 'too-proud-to-fight' posture and threw the United States' might on land and sea into the war on the side of Germany's enemies." Betrayal By Rulers (1976)

Another, more ludicrous theory has it that the "Balfour Declaration" was pay-back by the grateful British to Chaim Weizmann who had invented a chemical process (acetone from maize) that saved Britain's munitions supply. Notwithstanding the fact that his process was never put into full use or produced acetone in any great volume the idea that Britain would give a private individual an entire nation in thanks for him making production of artillery shells easier is ridiculous. Yet, it is a theory bandied about.

Although there are certain truths to the official line the ultimate Truth is found elsewhere: it is found in the murky world of the secret society, but especially the very dark world of Judaeo-Freemasonry. This hiden agenda is alluded to in a letter written by a Zionist intriguer, the odious Louis Marshall (shyster lawyer for the Invisible Money Power in New York and President of the Jewish delegation at the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference) to Max Senior, an anti-Zionist associated with Rabbi David Philipson:

"The Balfour Declaration with its acceptance by the powers, is an act of the highest diplomacy. It means both more and less than appears on the surface. Zionism is but an incident of a far-reaching plan: it is merely a convenient peg on which to hang a powerful weapon ... All the protests they [non-Zionists] may make would be futile. It would subject them individually to hateful and concrete examples of a most impressive nature. Even if I were disposed to combat Zionism, I would shrink from the possibilities which might result." emphasis added.

Those who know the way of the world understand that nothing in history happens by accident, moreover, that Hidden Hands mould events according to an Ancient Agenda, which make up much of what is called "history."

Proper Students of History, those who know the way of the world, understand that a Evil Power of Great Dark Majesty has amplified its presence and power in human history. It has slowly, inexorably, over many centuries, garnered for itself such power it now represents the single most powerful organisation on Earth. This is the Dark Empire of the Secret Societies and its leaders, the Occult Hierarchy, are truly the Lords of Power on Earth.

Proper Students of History who know the way of the world are not conspiracy theorist but Conspiracy Realists. They do not deal with fantasy but fact; they consider conspiracy fact not conspiracy theory: for, they describe an agenda not a theory. This agenda manifests in myriad ways in all levels of society and in most every important event in human history. It is, of course, the Ancient Evil Agenda for World Empire, the five thousand year old Luciferian Conspiracy for World Government.

The Ancient Evil Agenda was once a Closed Conspiracy but now, because the Evil Architects of it believe they are near the finishing line and cannot but fail to win, they begin to boast of their deeds. Thus in the past hundred years the Secret Masters of the Dark Empire of the Secret Societies have allowed certain of its minions to reveal parts of the Ancient Evil Agenda for World Government without fear of death or retribution. One of the most significant was Professor Carroll Quigley, an Establishment insider, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and professor at Georgetown University. He was also one of the two men William "Bill" Clinton thanked in his Presidential inauguration speech for inspiring him to enter politics; the other was John F Kennedy. Quigley's seminal book was Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time (1966) in which he revealed much of the hidden history of the tumultuous decades of the early 20th Century. Professor Quigley's most important contribution to proper understanding of History was his research into the origins of the front organisations of the Dark Empire of the Secret Societies that rule the world today. Yet it is a strange fact of life that most people reject out of hand the suggestion that Secret Societies and their Conspiracies influence the course of human events: it is testament to the success of the Masters of Illusion have conditioned the modern mass mind. But, gentle reader, Secret Societies have existed since the dawn of civilisation and often intervened in human affairs to alter the course of history.

Quigley tells of the secret society that had shaped much of modern history and to which he belonged:

"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments ¡¦ I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known ... The Council on Foreign Relations ... the American Branch of a society which originated in England [by diamond king, Cecil Rhodes] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established ... The two ends of this English-speaking axis have sometimes been called ... the English and American Establishments. There is, however, a considerable degree of truth behind the joke, a truth which reflects a very real power structure. It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists." Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966)

Here, Quigley identifies the secret society -"Round Table Groups"- that has had a immense influence upon world history. He calls its exoteric expression the Anglo-American Establishment, the Power Elite, the Liberal Establishment that rules today what is the Corrupt Liberal Order, which was once Western Christian Civilisation. Quigley also alludes to the ultimate aim of this secret society.

"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank ... sought to dominate its government by its