Changing of the Guard or Change Agents?

This should have been posted yesterday but wrote out a draft in longhand but afterwards felt a little reluctant.

Today, Monday the 27th November 2017 is the first day ever that the Royal Navy has participated in the Changing of the Guard.

The impetus for writing this really began on Saturday night when I wanted to know what was on two memory sticks. While looking through I came across a copy of a post that I made in July 2011 to a particular forum which unexpectedly closed down without warning or explanation while I was on holiday in Germany and only found out when I decided to visit an internet cafe just a couple of days before returning back to the UK to find out how things were progressing.

It was on a different subject, amongst other posters, that things were beginning to heat up politically and was beginning to get exiting with the addition of much trolling, which I suspected was from the Civil Service, but was never able to find out the truth in the end because of the closure. However the forum did become available again at a much later date but only as an archive because a new replacement had been made, but I was never to join this new forum because of the in-courteous way that it was closed without explanation or apology. What was intended to remain as an archive was eventually deleted altogether.

My motive for much posting had been altruistic but felt that it had been violated.

My particular post in question was called Who Will Deliver Us and it centred on the general persecution of Christians around the World and it was responded to with contributions from Sovereign, another avid poster. Because the forum had closed I sought to locate this post in a cache on the web and luckily found it. It had become the one important post that I wanted to save out of 848 proper posts with content made over a 15 month period, at a rate that I will never do again, but I had been ‘In the mode’ at that time.

It so happened that this post had almost become lost again and luckily found it on the desktop of an old drive, which I had decided to recheck just before deciding to reformat it for re use, something that I have often done as a take no prisoners solution to getting rid of suspected nasties on the computer.

So of course I read through it all again Saturday night and on the Sunday morning while awaking began to reflect on certain points and One thing in particular that came to mind was that in 2012 the Royal Navy had officially recognised Satanism as a religion aboard ship, thinking that it was just one year on from my post. However I subsequently discovered that this may be incorrect because later in the day I could find nothing related to that year whatsoever on the internet.

Any way, while still in bed contemplating my thoughts it came to mind that a ship at sea is virtually its own domain and can escape the influences of the land locked World. Whether this is exactly true I do not know but this was the image in my mind. Thoughts that followed reflected how Russian sailors played a key role in the Bolshevik Revolution. So of course one thought led to another and to my great surprise, on the 09:00 news on Radio 4 it was announced that the Royal Navy would be performing the role of Changing the Guard and this news got me quickly out of bed to put pen to paper for which I did write down content and later researched the web but then became reluctant to sort it out.

The news related to a Satanist and Satanism being officially recognised aboard ship by the Royal Navy dates back to 2004. The interesting thing about this is that the person who was written about had since been promoted and later head hunted by the MOD for a post in London. So there you are, I will leave that with you.

This is what I wrote in longhand and how it was expressed. There was much more content in mind, in a convoluted way and just wanted to relax so gave it a miss because because it is also time consuming.

1). Sunday 26th November 2017

This is something which I felt compelled to write while it is fresh in my mind.

Yesterday evening while looking for some files on two particular memory sticks, I came across a copy of something which I had written to a forum in 2011. It was entitled ‘Who Will Deliver Us’ and its main theme was about the inherent on Christianity at home as well as World wide. This is the only one of 800 + which I had felt was important to rescue from the forum that year.

2). Sunday 26th November 2017

This morning in particular, as I lay in contemplation of this article (content), it came to mind that the following year (2012) of writing the article, Satanism was introduced into the Royal Navy as an official religion.

So on reflecting on this point this morning and that, the fact that a vessel at sea is in effect its own kingdom, separated from the influences of those on land. That anyway was the concept (and image) that came to mind.

Quite interestingly the 9:00 news on Radio 4 had a short item announcing that the Royal Navy will be performing the Changing of the Guard for the first time and that training had been given over a period of time.

What also came to mind too, as a natural train of thought was how Naval Seamen played an important part in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.

Extrication from a Supranational Vice

Without taking into account the fact that the seed of the EU, the Council of Europe, was Nazi in origin with influential Nazi’s taking prominent positions within it’s structure after the second world War, what the UK joined in 1973 was the European Economic Community which by its name was centred solely on trade and that we joined a trading block. A referendum in 1975 ensured that we remained. However what was to follow by stealth and deception was the mutation into a political union.

Political agreements were foisted on the 12 existing members with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 for political integration. This spelled the move from a social democratic model which was more concerned with the well being of populations to a neoliberal model which embodies all of the social problems that we see today, the result of private profits being moved offshore instead of being reinvested which was once the case. The introduction of Private Financial Initiative which New Labour used to build schools and hospitals, and which have since proved to become the main burden in running these programs was introduced by Tory John Major as a result of lobbying from the City of London, but Maastricht Treaty policy enabled this to take place.

Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 but agreed the following year. Ireland also rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the Nice Treaty in 2001 and also the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 but was made to vote again until a yes result was secured which was in 2009. There were 27 members by this time and the rule was that all member states had to agree.

When we look at the negotiations with the EU regarding Brexit, the foremost demand from the EU negotiators is that the UK pay a substantial sum first without having any idea of what the final outcome for trade will be. It seems that the political aspect comes first and they want their bung as a priority.

With such an attitude, the attempted ousting of Mugabe comes to mind as one who served his own political ambitions over those of his people and who had no concern for the extreme ruination of a once prosperous country and even at a very old age is still determined to hang on to self serving power.

The same goes for political leaders who are willing to lead their nation into war for gain rather than defence, even if it means a disastrous outcome as was the case in WW1 and 2, not to forget many wars since despite the mantra of the EU that it exists so that such carnage never takes place again within Europe.

The UK only wants to extricate itself from the supranational dictatorship and to resume trading on an equal basis as before when a member of the EEC but this seems to be a no no as far as the main political proponents for the negotiations are concerned, but this should also be of concern for the trading partners of the 27 because it will be they who will also be feeling the reciprocal pinch and not the political bodies who exist, as ever throughout the World, like a parasite on the population.

Behind the Balfour Declaration, Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild.

Here are some excerpts from the work of Robert John which provides additional information via his work titled Behind the Balfour Declaration, Britain’s Great Pledge To Lord Rothschild posted on the Institute for Historical Review web site. This may be regarded as a confirmation and validation of Vadimir Moss’s article titled Bolshevism and the Jews, posted in the previous article.

Normally I would just make comment and then add the hyperlink for the body of work to be viewed directly from the web site but in this case there is so much reading required which precedes the paragraphs of particular interest that I thought it necessary to lift them out and place them directly on this page. Of course anybody wishing to read the whole content of Robert John’s work may do so from the hyperlink  and in fact it is the best way to read it because the way that paragraphs are separated and indented in the original do not copy well.

Here is a most pertinent quote from Robert John’s work considering this day of Remembrance for the fallen of the Great War of 1914-18, which was promised to be the war to end all wars, and those which have followed since:

Quote: ”Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

In this context it is well to read the section on The Great War.

Behind the Balfour Declaration
Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild
By Robert John

According to Lloyd George’s Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned many years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,

”There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D., [HH] 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 fulfillment.”
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 Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment 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 upon 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 purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.[189]”

As for getting the support of Russian Jewry, Trotsky’s aims were to overthrow the Provisional Government and turn the imperialist war into a war of international revolution. In November 1917 the first aim was accomplished. Military factors primarily influenced Lenin to sign the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

The Zionist sympathizers Churchill and George seemed never to lose an opportunity to tell the British people that they had an obligation to support the Zionists.

But what had the Zionists done for Britain?

Where was the documentation?

“Measured by British interests alone,” wrote the Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe in 1963, the Balfour Declaration “was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history!”
The Zionists had the Herzlian tradition — shall we call it — of Promises, “promises.” Considerable credit for the diplomacy which brought into existence the Jewish national home must go to Weizmann. A British official who came into contact with him summarized his diplomatic method in the following words:

”When (the First World War) began, his cause was hardly known to the principal statesman of the victors. It had many enemies, and some of the most formidable were amongst the most highly placed of his own people … He once told me that 2,000 interviews had gone into the making of the Balfour Declaration. With unerring skill he adapted his arguments to the special circumstances of each statesman. To the British and Americans he could use biblical language and awake a deep emotional undertone; to other nationalities he more often talked in terms of interest. Mr. Lloyd George was told that Palestine was a little mountainous country not unlike Wales; with Lord Balfour the philosophical background of Zionism could be surveyed; for Lord Cecil the problem was placed in the setting of a new world organization; while to Lord Milner the extension of imperial power could be vividly portrayed. To me, who dealt with these matters as a junior officer of the General Staff, he brought from many sources all the evidences that could be obtained of the importance of a Jewish national home to the strategical position of the British Empire, but he always indicated by a hundred shades and inflections of the voice that he believed that I could also appreciate better than my superiors other more subtle and recondite arguments.[190]”…………..

In the U.S., in July 1917, a special mission consisting of Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and Justice Brandeis’s nephew, Felix Frankfurter, was charged by President Wilson to proceed to Turkey, against which the United States did not declare war, to sound out the possibility of peace negotiations between Turkey and the Allies. In this, Wilson may have been particularly motivated by his passion to stop the massacres of Armenian and Greek Christians which were then taking place in Turkey and for whom he expressed immense solicitude On many occasions. Weizmann, however, accompanied by the French Zionist M. Weyl, forewarned, proceeded to intercept them at Gibraltar and persuaded them to return home.[147] During 1917 and 1918 more Christians were massacred in Turkey. Had Morgenthau and Frankfurter carried out their mission successfully, maybe this would have been avoided.
This account appears in William Yale’s book The Near East: A Modern History. He was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. When I had dinner with him on 12 May 1970 at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, I asked him if Weizmann had told him how the special mission had been aborted. He replied that Weizmann said that the Governor of Gibraltar had held a special banquet in their honor, but at the end all the British officials withdrew discretely, leaving the four Jews alone. “Then,” said Weizmann, “we fixed it.”
The same evening, he told me something which he said he had never told anyone else, and which was in his secret papers which were only to be opened after his death. He later wrote to me, after he had read The Palestine Diary, saying that he would like me to deal with those papers.
One of Yale’s assignments was to follow Wilson’s preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

Brandeis was in Washington during the summer of 1917 and conferred with Secretary of State Robert S. Lansing from time to time on Turkish-American relations and the treatment of Jews in Palestine.[148] He busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them.[149] A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.

On 18 July, such a statement, approved in the United States, was forwarded by Lord Rothschild to Lord Balfour. It read as follows:

”His Majesty’s Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home [CC] of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protectorate to be established at the conclusion of peace following the successful issue of war.
His Majesty’s Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish national colonization corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.

The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish national colonizing corporation should, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, be elaborated in detail, and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization.[150]”

It seems possible that Balfour would have issued this declaration but strong representatives against it were made directly to the Cabinet by Lucien Wolf, Claude Montefiore Sir Mathew Nathan, Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, [DD] and other non-Zionist Jews. It was significant they believed that “anti-semites are always very sympathetic to Zionism,” and though they would welcome the establishment in Palestine of a center of Jewish culture, some — like Philip Magnes — feared that a political declaration would antagonize other sections of the population in Palestine, and might result in the Turks dealing with the Jews as they had dealt with the Armenians.[154] The Jewish opposition was too important to ignore, and the preparation of a new draft was commenced. At about this time, Northcliffe and Reading [EE] visited Washington and had a discussion with Brandeis at which they undoubtedly discussed Zionism.[155]
Multiple pressures at key points led Lord Robert Cecil to telegraph to Col. E.M. House on 3 September 1917: “We are being pressed here for a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement and I should be very grateful if you felt able to ascertain unofficially if the President favours such a declaration. ” [156] House, who had performed services relating to Federal Reserve and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, [157] and was Wilson’s closest adviser, relayed the message, but a week later Cecil was still without a reply.
On 11 September the Foreign Office had ready for dispatch the following message for Sir William Wiseman, [FF] head of the British Military Intelligence Service in the United States: “Has Colonel House been able to ascertain whether the President favours sympathy with Zionist aspirations as asked in my telegram of September 3rd? We should be most grateful for an early reply as September 17th is the Jewish New Year and announcement of sympathy by or on that date would have excellent effect.” But before it was sent, a telegram from Colonel House dated 11 September reached the Foreign Office.
Wilson had been approached as requested and had expressed the opinion that “the time was not opportune for any definite statement further, perhaps, than one of sympathy, provided it can be made without conveying any real commitment.” Presumably, a formal declaration would presuppose the expulsion of the Turks from Palestine, but the United States was not at war with Turkey, and a declaration implying annexation would exclude an early and separate peace with that country.[158]
In a widely publicized speech in Cincinnati on 21 May 1916, after temporarily relinquishing his appointment as Ambassador to Turkey in favor of a Jewish colleague, Henry Morgenthau had announced that he had recently suggested to the Turkish Government that Turkey should sell Palestine to the Zionists after the war. The proposal, he said, had been well received, but its publication caused anger in Turkey.[159]
Weizmann was “greatly astonished” at this news, especially as he had “wired to Brandeis requesting him to use his influence in our favour … But up to now I have heard nothing from Brandeis.” [161]
On 19 September Weizmann cabled to Brandeis:

”Following text declaration has been approved by Foreign Office and Prime Minister and submitted to War Cabinet:
1. H.M. Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.
2. H.M. Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of the object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.[162]”

Weizmann suggested that non-Zionist opposition should be forestalled, and in this it would “greatly help if President Wilson and yourself support the text. Matter most urgent.” [163] He followed this up with a telegram to two leading New York Zionists, asking them to “see Brandeis and Frankfurter to immediately discuss my last two telegrams with them,” adding that it might be necessary for him to come to the United States himself.[164]
Brandeis saw House on 23 September and drafted a message, sent the following day through the British War Office. It advised that presidential support would be facilitated if the French and Italians made inquiry about the White House attitude, but he followed this the same day with another cable stating that from previous talks with the President and in the opinion of his close advisers, he could safely say that Wilson would be in complete sympathy.[165]
Thus Brandeis had either persuaded Wilson that there was nothing in the draft (Rothschild) declaration of 19 September which could be interpreted as “conveying any real commitment,” which is difficult to believe, or he had induced the President to change his mind about the kind of declaration he could approve or was sure he and House could do so.[166]
On 7 February 1917, Stephen Wise had written to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes, ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [167] In October, after seeing House together with Wise, de Haas reported to Brandeis: ”He has told us that he was as interested in our success as ourselves.” To Wilson, House stated that “The Jews from every tribe descended in force, and they seem determined to break in with a jimmy, if they are not let in.” [168] A new draft declaration had been prepared; Wilson had to support it.
On 9 October 1917, Weizmann cabled again to Brandeis from London of difficulties from the “assimilants” Opposition: “They have found an excellent champion … in Mr. Edwin Montagu who is a member of the Government and has certainly made use of his position to injure the Zionist cause. ” [169]

Weizmann also telegraphed to Brandeis a new (Milner-Amery) formula. The same draft was cabled by Balfour to House in Washington on 14 October:

”His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish race and will use its best endeavours to facilitate achievement of this object; it being clearly understood 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 in any other country by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship.[170]”

It was reinforced by a telegram from the U.S. Embassy in London direct to President Wilson (by-passing the State Department), stating that the “question of a message of sympathy with the (Zionist) movement” was being reconsidered by the British Cabinet “in view of reports that (the) German Government are making great efforts to capture (the) Zionist movement.” [171]
Brandeis and his associates found the draft unsatisfactory in two particulars. They disliked that part of the draft’s second safeguard clause which read, “by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship,” …………

Comment on the 100th Anniversary of both the Bolshevik and the Balfour Declaration.

That October 2017 happens to be the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution is timely, because it also throws into focus the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration which also took place in 1917. In fact it would seem not to be out of place to suggest that it could have been by design that these two events almost run in parallel from beginning to end. Not only that but could the instigation of the October Revolution be an event which was to function in much the same way that we see when an event in modern times is stated to be a good time to bury bad news, media wise.

The first Russian Revolution took place more organically in February of 1917 and a second Revolution which was to become a violent revolution in October of the same year was to set the mould of what was to become the ideology/methodology of brutal Communism at home in Russia and throughout conquered parts of the World.

This was the opening paragraph that I had written this morning in an effort to express my thoughts about this particular time regarding seeming parallels of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Balfour Declaration. This thought had been seeded in my mind a week or two ago and which has now been especially kicked into relevance with the breaking news that Prity Patel had held secret meetings in Israel without the knowledge of the Foreign Office. Could this in fact be a second parallel or even homage to the events of 100 years ago?

Looking at the timeline from various sources there was much detail of the ramifications of the running conflict between the Bolsheviks and Menshevik’s plus the other permutations in between, Kerensky and coalition government but there was no mention about the journey of Lenin to Russia, who was trapped in Switzerland because of raging WW1 in surrounding Countries, in a sealed train, with the agreement of the German government and $10 million in gold provided by German Banker Max Warburg. (Given a mention in None Dare Call it Conspiracy).

An excerpt from a book The Sealed Train states:
”In London that Week, Lenin’s proposed journey was brought to the notice of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary. On April 5, in fact, two telegrams that had reached the Foreign Office were causing anxiety. From Berne, British Ambassador Sir Horace Rumbold reported that negotiations were in progress with the German government to obtain “safe conducts through Germany to Russia of Russian socialists and anarchists resident in Switzerland.” Since they were in favor of immediate peace with Germany, they would be commissioned to “make violent propaganda among the working classes in Russia and among troops at the front.”…..
The other telegram that arrived in London that day was received at the Admiralty. Six socialists had been removed by British naval authorities from the SS Christiania Fiord, which had called in at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on her way to Russia from New York. It had been reported that one of them, Trotsky, was “the leader of a movement to start a revolution against the present Russian Government, the funds being subscribed by socialists and Germans.”

Here is an excellent expose’:
Written by Vladimir Moss