Wednesday 4 February 2009

Words have been very carefully chosen time and time again to PROVE that the Nation States are 'in charge' and a "we mustn't wake up the natives to what is actually taking place. Particularly so in the latest Lords debate.  I have chosen snippets from Hansard should some of you wish to write to various MP's or Lords and  Ladies to remind them what they said.  What might be said to be "true" although 'pushing it a bit', in some of the snippets, melts away completely through Lisbon, should that come into effect.   xxxxxxxxxxxxxx a
 
 
 
28th April 2008

Joint Rapid Reaction Force

Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK's military commitment to (a) the European Union Battlegroup, (b) NATO Response Force, (c) NATO Operational Reserve Force, (d) the Spearhead Land Element, (e) Small Scale Focused Intervention Force and (f) Allied Rapid Reaction Corps will be sourced from the Joint Rapid Reaction Force from July to December 2008. [201023]

Des Browne: The Joint Rapid Reaction Force (JRRF) exists to provide the UK's high readiness military contingency and to meet our international high readiness military commitments. In the period from July to December 2008 the UK may be required to provide force elements to the EU Battlegroup, the NATO Response Force and the NATO Operational Reserve Force; these commitments, should they arise, will be met from the JRRF as normal.

The Spearhead Land Element and the Small Scale Focused Intervention capability are both integral components of the JRRF. They are two elements that contribute to the JRRF capability available to Defence for contingent tasks.

The Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (HQ ARRC) is a UK led multinational HQ assigned to NATO. Between July and December 2008 the UK's military commitment to HQ ARRC will not be drawn from elements assigned to the Joint Rapid Reaction Force.

                        ****************************************

18th March 2002

European Rapid Reaction Force

26. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's participation in the European Rapid Reaction Force. [40924]

Mr. Hoon: There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. Under the Helsinki Headline Goal, however, the United Kingdom has identified a pool of relevant forces and capabilities that it might contribute to an EU-led operation. This includes a maximum of 12,500 troops plus, if required, up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft.

                      ****************************************************************

 

15th Jan 2001.

NATO (British Forces)

21. Mr. Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of British forces in NATO. [143733]

Mr. Hoon: Britain's armed forces play a leading role in NATO, contributing to the full range of Alliance roles and tasks. In particular, the UK is the framework nation for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, the ARRC, one of the great successes of the Alliance's post-Cold War adaptation.

                 **********************************************

The EU Rapid Reaction Force:
Europe Takes on a New Security Challenge

http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP37.htm

                   ********************************************************************

European Rapid Reaction Force

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army personnel will be (a) allocated to the European Rapid Reaction Force, (b) able to be deployed with the European Rapid Reaction Force at any

21 Dec 2000 : Column: 253W

given time and (c) removed from availability for home defence as a result of such allocation and deployment; and if he will make a statement. [143691]

Dr. Moonie: There is no such entity as a standing European Rapid Reaction Force. The UK has identified a pool of forces and capabilities which would enable it to make a powerful contribution to such operations in support of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. UK participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution (including any potential use of the Territorial Army), would be matters for decision by the UK Government in the light of circumstances at the time.

Our aim in restructuring the TA was to make it more integrated with regular forces and defence plans, with a shift in emphasis away from the TA's traditional home defence roles to other such as signallers, artillery, air defence, logisticians and particularly medical services. Maximum numbers deployed with regulars would depend on the nature and scale of the operation.

                ************************************************

European Rapid Reaction Force

Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 December 2000, Official Report, column 300W, what unpublished agreements there are with (a) other countries, (b) the EU and (c) NATO concerning arrangements for the European Rapid Reaction Force. [143847]

Mr. Vaz: The objective of the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy is that EU nations, co-operating together, should be able rapidly to deploy troops for crisis management operations, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. This will not involve the establishment of a standing rapid reaction force, let alone a European Army. The decisions listed in my previous answer constitute the framework for this initiative. The EU and NATO will need to reach an overall agreement, covering

21 Dec 2000 : Column: 341W

arrangements for consultation, NATO support for EU-led operations, security issues and capabilities. An interim agreement on security measures was reached between the EU Council Secretariat and NATO in July 2000, to allow for the exchange of classified information.

                ********************************************

European Rapid Reaction Force

Mrs. Ann Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent to which the contribution of nuclear-powered submarines to the proposed European Rapid Reaction Force is consistent with the Government's commitment to

8 Jan 2001 : Column: 353W

ensuring a diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies under the Non-Proliferation Treaty final document. [144106]

Mr. Spellar: There is no such entity as a standing European Rapid Reaction Force. No nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines have been identified as part of our contribution to meeting the European Union headline goal. Nuclear-powered fleet submarines, which do not carry ballistic missiles, are not themselves considered to be nuclear weapons. Our contribution to the pool of forces and capabilities for EU-led crisis management tasks is fully consistent will Government policy on non-proliferation.

                    ****************************************

The proposal contained in this document provides for the creation of a European Rapid Reaction Force (RRF) by an avant-guard group of European countries, as a first step towards a European policy of security controlled by a European Federal government. It is founded on the contents of the Reform Treaty (RT) recently approved in Lisbon. The words “Rapid Reaction Force” and “security”, instead of “army” and “defence”, are used in the conviction that a European security policy will be a structural pause compared to the pure policy of power which characterised each European country up to the first half of the twentieth century [1].

I have long been a believer that the Atlantic system is out dated and even immoral. The reality is that Europeans and Americans think differently on issues of security and how to address issues, such as terrorism. I firmly believe in an independent from NATO European security and defense system that is made in Europe, in Brussels and national capitals, and not dictated from Washington.

The narrow lens of military power as the only meaningful instrument of foreign relations dominates American foreign policy and this is why Americans view terrorism (which is a police-law enforcement problem) as a military problem that is “fought” through a “war.” American foreign policy realists are comfortable with the use of military force, even when military power is inappropriate.

The European Security Strategy, the Solana Paper, addresses many solutions to security problems where the first use of military power is inappropriate. Unless we are talking about a state sponsor of terrorism, military force is inappropriate in the struggle against terrorism. Terrorism in largely a police-law enforcement problem that requires international police cooperation, such as Interpol and Europol, and here European can teach Americans about counter terrorism.

Second, when one reads the Schuman Declaration, one can get the sense that the goal is also an independent European security system that is made by and for Europeans. I am glad to see that there is now permanent structured cooperation in the area of ESDP, as in Article 27(6) of the Lisbon Treaty, now inching forward. The ultimate goal of ESDP should be to operate independently from NATO and not be dependent on American assets, such as in airlift, in order to be effective in European defense. A major step was the European defense industry and another major step is the creation of an independent European organizational structure. The decision of when and how to use European Member States’ military assets should always be voluntary on the part of Member States and decisions remain with the Council and its Political and Security Committee. In the ESS, (independent) military power is one of many other instruments that the Union can use – and it should always be of last resort.

The building of European security has nothing to do with counter-balancing the US, but is a very important part of the European project. Remember that “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan,” and fulfillment of the spirit of the Schuman Declaration requires a European security system, including military, that is by and for Europeans.

ESLaPorte


From the Origin of German Wealth
2009/02/02
HERZOGENAURACH/KIETRZ
(Own report) - A controversy has surfaced in southern Poland over the early 1940s wartime business dealings of the German entrepreneur family Schaeffler, which is currently seeking a government bailout worth billions. Contrary to official data, the company's founders had not begun their business activities in 1946. Soon after the war started, they appropriated a Jewish factory in Kietrz, in the vicinity of the Polish-Czech border, using its know-how and machinery and quickly renamed the factory to "Schaeffler AG", producing textiles and spare parts for the Wehrmacht's tanks until 1944. In early 1945, the machines and technical staff were transferred to the west, enabling the rapid rise of the Schaeffler enterprise group. Historians point to evidence of business relations between the company's founders and the "human recycling" section of the Auschwitz death camp.
Since last summer, the story of the German Schaeffler group has been the source of controversy in southern Poland, where the family business had been located until the end of the war. In July 2008, Schaeffler made the headlines in the international press with initiatives to take over the prominent automobile subcontractor, Continental. Lacking solvency, it is currently seeking a government bailout in the billions. According to observers from the Polish-Czech border region, the rapid rise of the company in the post-war period is based on its wartime business in Kietrz, in southern Poland which, at the time was called Katscher, and was part of the German Reich's Prussian province of Upper Silesia. German-foreign-policy.com's research shows that the owners profited in the Nazi period from the criminal schemes of German expansionist and racist policies.
Aryanized
The Schaeffler Company group alleges that the history of its company began in the post-war period, in 1946, when the brothers Wilhelm and Georg Schaeffler founded the nucleus of today's family enterprise, the INA KG in the Franconian town of Herzogenaurach. But the Schaeffler brothers, in fact, had appropriated the textile company, "Davistan Krümmer-, Plüsch und Teppichfabriken Inc. in Katscher. This had once been an important Jewish owned factory, employing, in its best times, more than 1,500 people. Soon after Hitler was given power in 1933, the Jewish owner lost his property.[1] In the course of his professional activities - making "efficiency assessments" throughout the German Reich for the Dresdner Bank - Wilhelm Schaeffler spotted the textile company, which, at the time, was under the supervision of a banking consortium and initiated the take-over. Quickly renamed "Schaeffler AG" - according to reports also for the Wehrmacht - the enterprise was soon producing not only textiles but had expanded its production during the war to include that of needle roller bearings.
For Tank Tracks
Soon the Schaeffler AG had focused its production on needle roller bearings. In a text in commemoration of William Schaeffler, published by the official register of the town of Herzogenaurach, one reads that the enterprise furnished "mass-produced needle roller bearings for tank tracks". Herzogenaurach is today the seat of the family enterprise.[2] Katscher seemed well-suited for the arms industry, because the Silesian town was out of range of allied bombers. With the approach of the Red Army in early 1945, the enterprise ceased production - and transferred part of its machinery, raw materials and several hundred employees to the west.
Beginnings in Kietrz
Machines and know-how from Katscher (today's Kietrz) formed the basis for the Schaeffler's rapid post war success. With the reestablishment of the company in 1946 under the name of INA, production returned to needle roller bearings, before long, supplying, alongside the US Army, the German auto industry. Schaeffler employs approx. 66,000 (2007) in more than 180 locations around the world and enjoys a sales volume of nearly a billion Euros.[3] Basically, the Schaeffler group owes its status today to the needle and roller bearings production and its beginnings in Kietrz. This also applies to the legendary family wealth, ranking 104th among the world's wealthiest. Unlike the roller bearing production, Schaeffler's textile branch, which also had its beginnings during the war, ranking, in the 1950s, among the largest German companies in the trade, was shut down in the 1980s.
Human Hair
Polish historians, who are researching possible business relations between the Schaeffler AG and the Auschwitz death camp, are interested in the textile branch. There is evidence of German enterprises in the textile industry using human hair. As the historian Andrzei Strzelecki, who works at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (Państwowe Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau), writes, large amounts of human hair were found in one of the town's factories after the Germans retreated from Kietrz in 1945. According to Strzelecki, it was the "G. Schoffler AG rug factory."[4] The same information appears in a publication of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, where the "rug factory of the G. Schoeffler AG" is mentioned.[5] In the long inventory lists of displaced Germans, neither the name "Schoffler" nor "Schoeffler" appears among those having fled Katscher or having been resettled since 1945.[6] But the name "Schaeffler" appears several times.
Industrial Recycling
As stated in the publication of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, scientists found traces of hydrogen cyanide on the human hair discovered in Kietrz. Hydrogen cyanide was an element of the "Zyklon B" poisoned gas, used by the Nazis to murder their victims in the gas chambers. In Kietrz several bolts of human hair cloth was also seized,[7] as proof of industrial recycling of human hair. Based on archive material in Poland, including production for the Wehrmacht, Adrezej Strzelecki reports that similar recycling was carried out in various German enterprises in the textile industry.[8] Strzelecki reports that the human hair found in Kietrz weighed 1,950 kg. According to historians, this would correspond to the hair of about 40,000 people.
Unresolved
According to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, the textile factory in which the human hair from Auschwitz was found, was nationalized after the war.[9] How the hair came to be in the factory, is unknown. Sources in the Polish state archives in Opole allege that the nationalized factory had been Schaeffler's textile factory. The question is yet to be resolved.
top print




"We're in trouble with this joker and no mistake" - Ensign Keith in Herman Wouk's "The Caine Mutiny."


Regular members of Joshua's Army will recall that I warned a number of times during the recent presidential campaign that Barack Obama's isolationist ideas along with his naivete, inexperience and ignorance of foreign policy would lead to the world challenging him relentlessly as soon as he got his hands on the reins of power.

It hasn't taken long.

During Barack Obama's first 2 weeks in office,he's made the following foreign policy moves:

*An apologetic, fawning and waffling interview on al-Arabiya that including an 'outreach' message to Iran, and a reiteration of the Obama administration's intent to negotiate directly with Iran on it's nuclear program.

*The retention of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, the appointments of George Mitchell as a special Mideast envoy, General James Jones as NSC and Susan Powers to a high level post in the NSC.

*The appointment of former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to South Asia and statements on resolving the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir.

*Clear signals that he was abrogating the Bush Administration's missile defense agreements with Poland and Czechoslovakia.

* A call for a major reduction in America's defense budget and theslashing of America's nuclear arsenal by 80%.

The results have been quick in coming.

Obama's overture to Iran was greeted by derision from Ahmadinejad, who announced that it was 'proof that America's policies of domination had not worked.'

And to launch Iran's first domestically built satellite, the Omid (Hope). The long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into orbit is exactly the same as the technology used launching weapons...which proves Iran is capable of hitting Europe...something Joshua's Army members have long been aware of.

Obama's call for slashing America's nuclear arsenal and abrogating our agreements for missile defense with our allies Poland and Czechoslovakia had the result of the Polish prime Minister Donald Tusk going hat in hand to Russian PM Vladimir Putin..who's in Warsaw right now as the Poles attempt to make a deal with the Russians now that the Obama Administration has greased out from under them. Look for the Czechs to be forced to do the same, cementing Russia's stranglehold on Europe.

The Russians have responded in other ways to Obama's perceived weakness... activating military bases not used since the Cold War, cementing relations with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Raul Castro in the western hemisphere, and increasing the Russian naval presence in the Middle East.

They're also doing their best to shut down America's efforts in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country, and 75% of NATO's supplies to its forces there are landed at the Pakistani port of Karachi and shipped overland to Afghanistan through the Torkam border crossing. Because of the unstable nature of Pakistan, the US has been anxious to open up an alternative route to supply our troops there.

The only alternate routes would be through Georgia and Azerbaijan across the Caspian and through Turkmenistan ( assuming they let us) and then over rocky desert terrain into Afghanistan from the northwest, a hard slog. The other route is from north , through Russian territory into Kazakhstan and then through Uzbekistan or through Khrghzstan and Tajikstan.

The Bush Administration had apparently negotiated deals allowing access to bases in Central Asia to support the Afghan campaign.

But now that they're dealing with Obama, things have changed, and it seems the Russians have used their influence to close both of those northern routes off:

Russian news agencies are reporting that the government of Kyrgyzstan will close Manas Air Base, a vital conduit for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

RIA-Novosti quotes Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev as saying that his government "has made the decision to end the term for the American base on the territory of Kyrgyzstan." (The RIA-Novosti news report, which followed a press conference in Moscow, has not been translated into English; the Associated Press has a summary.)

If true, it would be a major setback for U.S. operations. In 2005, Air Force Col. Randy Kee, the commander of the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing at Manas, told me the Kyrgyz base had become the "primary logistics hub" for Operation Enduring Freedom after neighboring Uzbekistan closed Karshi Khanabad airbase (better known as "K2") to U.S. forces. The United States has been working to open a northern supply line to Afghanistan in the face of ongoing insurgent attacks along the Khyber Pass route through Pakistan; Manas is a key link in the air bridge resupplying Afghanistan.


Afghanistan/Pakistan is going to a problem for the new administration, especially if resupply gets problematic. The Taliban just blew up a bridge on the land route from Pakistan in Jamrud and cut off NATO supplies to Afghanistan overland completely, if temporarily. Those European NATO allies Obama was so sure he could sweet talk into sending more troops to Afghanistan aren't giving the One the time of day,and President Obama could soon face the same calls from the AmericanLeft for a pull out that his predecessor had to put up with on Iraq. Except since that's Obama's political base, he's likely to comply.

In related news,Obama's attempt to court the Muslim world by making noises about 'settling the Kashmir question' and appointing a special envoy to work on it has already ticked off another of our major allies, India. They were quite plain about telling Obama literally that he was barking up the wrong tree' and to keep his nose out of their affairs when it came to Kashmir.

Another strong ally of the US, Israel, may also end up distanced from the US. During the campaign,Obama made a point of saying that 'pro-Israel doesn't necessarily mean pro-Likud'. As it turns out, it's Bibi Netanyahu and Likud who are likely to win the upcoming Israeli elections and form a center right coalition that's unlikely to take kindly to pressure from the White house to deliver further territory and strategic concessions to the Palestinians when they will likely end up in the hands of Hamas. The Administration has clearly signalled this by endorsing the Saudi peace plan and by appointing people like George Mitchell and Susan Powers to influential positions dealing with the region, a clear signal that they intend to pressure Israel.

That undoubtedly would have worked with the Olmert/Livni/Barak government but it's unlikely to work with a government with Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman.It remains to be seen if the Obama administration is going to pursue this course. If so, it's doubtful that Israel's public response would be akin to India's, but a mutual downgrading of the relationship similar to the Carter years could result.

There's always a price to be paid in the world of foreign affairs when you appear weak and vacillating to your enemies,even with the best of intentions. The Obama Administration has provided proof of this truism in a mere two weeks in the saddle...quite an accomplishment!


AddThis

JoshuaPundit's Headlines, 2/04/09


All the links you need and nothing you don't... make sure to check back for updates.

Obama backs down on 'Buy American' after EU trade war threat...President wuss...I gues those Europeans don't like him so much after all.

Obama economic plan now tops $900 billion... Turn on the printing presses...

Stimulus Is More Debt We Don't Need - Senator Tom Coburn, Wall St. Journal

5,000 rejected Minnesota Senate ballots maybe admitted... Minnesota, the election that will not end.

AP: ' The new president, seen by some as arrogant'... awww...lover's quarrel?

NY TIMES to charge online access fees? Pravda-on-the Hudson's death squirms. I hope they go through with it...it will just speed things up.

Vatican: Holocaust denier must recant... Now they're claiming His Holiness didn't know about these people's views? Che lastima. Or in Benedict's case, das is sehr aber schade. ( A real pity. And unbelievable). The Pope would do far better to simply admit he made an error if that's how he feels, revoke the lifting of the excommunication and move on. I truly feel for him, as he's caught in the middle between powers that be in the Vatican and the voices of concerned Catholics.

Obama's Charm Offensive & the Global Jihad - Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe

Cheney Warns of New Attacks - a prognosis and analysis by someone who definitely knows what he's talking about.

Get Out of Afghanistan, Too - A Leftard from the US State Department begins what's sure to be a chorus of calls for us to leave...so we can cut the defense budget to pay for the trillion dollar Obama stimulus.

Afghanistan: A Dream That Will Not Come True.- Michael Yon agrees withhim, for very different reasons.


The Stasi tactics of the BBC - Melanie Phillip's latest ( the Stasi, BTW, were East Germany's Secret Police)

Israel's surge to the Right - Carl In Jerusalem looks at the numbers...

AddThis

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

A culture of denial

One of the most perplexing and disturbing characteristics of what passes for our government these days is its complete retreat from reality. This morning's example was bad enough, but how do you deal with this?

Yesterday, in the House of Lords, Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked in oral questions, "how many British troops are currently serving with the European Rapid Reaction Force?"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, Baroness Taylor of Bolton – there's posh for you – answered "none ... There is no European rapid reaction force."

The Baroness Knight returned with the rejoinder that the Minister on 27 October last had made the same "assurance". Yet, two days later, she had met five soldiers who had told her that they were currently assigned to and working with the rapid reaction force. Was this rapid reaction force the same rapid reaction force as the one that is said to be part of the European army?

Baroness Taylor thus repeated her "assurance". There is no European rapid reaction force. Of course we have troops on standby, who have embarked on a variety of missions, some with NATO and some, indeed, with the EU … but there is no European rapid reaction force.

Then we got to the heart of the matter. "We have only one set of forces," said the Baroness. "We in Britain decide how to deploy them. There is no permanent standing army waiting for Europe to instruct it, and there is no European rapid reaction force."

Later, after some badinage between their noble Lordships, Taylor then explained that, "the EU's battle groups are domestic groups which on occasion come together to deal with a specific policy. We have a battle group which we could use if we so chose, but the choice would be ours; it would not be made under instruction from the EU or anyone else."

She then goes on to say that "there has been is a great deal of misrepresentation about what co-operation with Europe is all about." She adds: "There is no European army, there is no permanent standing army, and we in this country will make decisions about how, where and when our Armed Forces are deployed."

Specious this is, but how do you deal with it? The whole point of the ERRF is that it is a composite force comprised of different national elements which come together for specific tasks. That is what the ERRF actually is – it is acapability, the only permanent part of which is its headquarters and its "planning cell". There is not and never has been any immediate intention to have a standing army – that is not the way the concept works.

And that is indeed what the ERRF is. It is a a concept, an expression of political will, held together by a raft of agreements in much the same way as NATO, which it aims to supplant. It finds its form in the requirement to earmark certain forces as available for the a task when called upon – such as our aircraft carriers when or if they are ever built, and the slow, insidious process of military harmonisation, to ensure inter-operability when these forces do assemble.

All this is explained in a raft of different documents, for instance, herehereand here. The ERRF exists, it is real and it is an ongoing project. But when you get ministers arguing black is white, and denying the very existence of the construct they helped to set up and sustain, where do you go?

Rothschilds And Geography

Angirfan
Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Rothschilds And Geography 0+DaveDavid

A. The de Rothschilds seem like a typical upper class British family.

Geography-loving David de Rothschild is to embark on “Plastiki Voyage”, a 7,500-mile journey from San Francisco to Sydney in a boat made of plastic bottles. (David de Rothschild: Voyage of the Plastiki Message in a Bottle—Reconsidering Plastic )

He has spent time in the Ecuadorian rainforest documenting the damage international oil companies have created by drilling the vast oil reserves, and in turn disturbing the natural and social order.

David is a son of Evelyn de Rothschild.

In 1966 Evelyn de Rothschild married Jeannette Bishop (1940-1981), a niece of Sir Stanley Hooker, the jet-engine engineer. The marriage ended in divorce in 1971.

He married a second time in 1973 to Victoria Lou Schott (b. 1949), whom he divorced in 2000. They have three children:
Jessica (b. 1974)
Anthony James (b. 1977)
David Mayer (b. 1978)


On November 30, 2000, Sir Evelyn married the American lawyer and entrepreneur Lynn Forester.

Charming Anthony James de Rothschild (born January 30, 1977) is Co-managing Director of Brighton based A7 music.

He is married to Danish model and UK TV presenter Tania Strecker.[1]

B. The Rothschilds have taken an interest in Israel.

In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote:

Dear Lord Rothschild,

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.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Reportedly the Rothschilds acquired a lot of land in Israel and paid the expenses of the early settlers.

Rothschilds And Geography 0+Alois_HitlerAlois (1837-1903) was the son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber (1795–1847)

C. The Rothschilds have a controversial past.

On 31 January 2009, at just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/, we read Understanding Hitler’s Secret Relationship to the House of Rothschild

Among the points made:

1. Historian Niall Ferguson, in “The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker 1849-1999 “, wrote about the Rothschilds:

“Theirs remained the biggest bank in the world up until the First World War, its interests extending far beyond the realm of finance.

“They controlled a pan-European railway network;

“they also ran a worldwide mining empire based on Spanish mercury, African gold and diamonds, Burmese rubies and Russian oil.

“And as the richest family of modern times, they acquired the greatest art collections and built the most sumptuous palaces of the age.

“Their economic might gave them a unique political leverage. Disraeli and Churchill were their friends…”

2. Reportedly, the Rothschilds financed both sides in numerous wars.

Could it be that the Rothschilds financed both sides in the First and Second World War?

Was Hitler a secret agent of the Rothschilds?

3. Reportedly, some members of the Warburg banking family were given a Nazi escort out of Holland in a sealed train.

Reportedly, when the Gestapo went to the Rothschild mansion to arrest the head of the Vienna branch they were told by the butler to come back the following day.

4. Reportedly, J P Morgan helped finance World War I.

According to Gary Allen’s best-selling book “None Dare Call It CONSPIRACY”:

“Morgan is referred to by many, including Congressman Louis McFadden, (a banker who for ten years headed the House Banking and Currency Committee), as the top American agent of the English Rothschilds.”[Page 44]

5. According to Walter C Langer’s “The Mind of Hitler: The Secret War Report” (1972), Langer, a psychoanalyst, was approached by Col. William “Wild Bill” Donovan, of the OSS, to conduct a psychological investigation of Hitler.

Langer mentions that Hitler had been linked to the Rothschilds in a book written by an ex-Gestapo officer.

The story was that Hitler’s father’s mother Maria Schicklgruber had slept with a Baron Rothschild in Vienna. (This Rothschild may have been Salomon Mayer).

Langer notes: “we can leave it as a possibility that requires further verification.”

Donovan was J.P.Morgan’s lawyer.

Reportedly, J.P.Morgan was the American agent for the English Rothschilds.

Reportedly, Donovan had at least one secret meeting with Hitler in the 1920’s.

6. “This researcher did manage to find Inside The Gestapo, the above-mentioned book written by Hansjurgen Koehler.” Koehler was Hitler’s bodyguard at Bergestgaden.

More here:

Understanding Hitler’s Secret Relationship to the House of Rothschild

Research related articles:

  1. Hillary Clinton’s rich friend Lady de Rothschild ambushes Barack Obama
  2. Baron David de Rothschild: Economic Crisis Will Bring New World Order, Global Governance
  3. Vatican stalling on secret files which could prove wartime Pope ignored Holocaust
  4. Insiders will stay in control
  5. Time To Tell The Truth About Israel …Without Fear Of The Mind Police
  6. Obama’s New Running Mate: ‘I’m a Zionist’
  7. Israel hopes to colonize parts of Iraq as ‘Greater Israel’
  8. In 100 Years, the Neocons Will Be Recognized as the Tyrants They Are
  9. “Human Rights” - A Higher Form of Discrimination

Are We Experiencing Depression-Level Unemployment?
The government bandies around scary figures concerning rising unemployment. But those figures are still well below those suffered during the Great Depression.

• UBS Boosts '09 Gold Forecast to $1,000
• Obama's Stimulus Plan Will Screw You Over!


Brown says world in ‘depression,’ in latest slip
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday that the world is in a full-blown 
economic “depression,” but his office quickly scrambled to say it been a slip of the tongue.

Another Prominent Economist Forecasts Depression, Says Gold To Hit $2000
Yet another renowned economist and investor has declared that the U.S. is entering a full scale depression that will see gold prices more than double.


Watching Our Rulers Destroy Our World 
Our rulers are destroying the economy. Not little by little, as they usually do, but in huge swaths. Each great assault on the free market, whether it be denominated a bailout, a stimulus, or some other species of purported salvation, brings us visibly closer to the complete ruin of an economic order that required centuries to build.



Brown says world in ‘depression,’ in latest slip
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Wednesday that the world is in a full-blown

economic “depression,” but his office quickly scrambled to say it been a slip of the tongue.

As British Jews come under attack, the liberal left must not remain silent

It should be perfectly possible to condemn Israel's brutal action in Gaza while taking a stand against antisemitism

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 2001 and July 7 2005, a noble impulse seized the British liberal left. Politicians, commentators and activists united to say to their fellow citizens that, no matter how outraged they felt at the loss of civilian life they had just witnessed, they should under no circumstances take out that anger on the Muslim community. Progressive voices insisted that Muslims were not to be branded as guilty by association, just because the killers of 9/11 and 7/7 had been Muslims and had claimed to act in the name of all Muslims.

They urged Britons to be careful in their language, not to generalise from a few individuals to an entire community, to make clear to Britain's Muslims that they were a welcome part of the national life. One week after the 7/7 London attacks, a vast crowd gathered in Trafalgar Square to hear a call for unity led by then mayor Ken Livingstone, who said Londoners should not start looking for "who to blame and who to hate".

It was the right reaction and I am glad that, writing on these pages, I shared it, denouncing the surge in Islamophobia that greeted either a terrorist attack or the revelation of a terror plot. Yet there's been a curious silence in the last few weeks. Once again many are outraged by the loss of civilian life they have witnessed - this time in Gaza. Yet there has been no chorus of liberal voices insisting that, no matter how intense their fury, people must not take out that anger on Britain's Jewish community.

It's worth stating the obvious - that Operation Cast Lead is not 9/11 or 7/7, that Israel is not al-Qaida - and noting that the silence has not been absolute. In a very welcome move, a group of leading Muslims wrote an open letter condemning apparent Gaza-related attacks on Jews. Meanwhile, Labour's Denis MacShane, in a passionate article for Progress magazine, urged those on the left not "to turn criticism of Israel into a condemnation of Jews".

Otherwise, it has been eerily quiet. Those who in 2001 or 2005 rapidly spoke out against guilt by association have been mute this time. Yet this is no abstract concern. For British Jews have indeed come under attack.

According to the Community Security Trust, the body that monitors anti-Jewish racism, the four weeks after Cast Lead began saw an eightfold increase in antisemitic incidents in Britain compared with the same period a year earlier. It reports 250 incidents - nearly 10 a day - the highest number since it began its work 25 years ago. Among them are attacks on synagogues, including arson, and physical assaults on Jews. One man was set upon in Golders Green, north London, by two men who shouted, "This is for Gaza", as they punched and kicked him to the ground.

Blood-curding graffiti has appeared in Jewish areas across the country, slogans ranging from "Slay the Jewish pigs", and "Kill the Jews", to "Jewish bastardz." Jewish schools have been advised to be on high alert against attack. Most now have security guards on the door; some have a police presence.

The threat is real, and yet barely a word has been heard from those who pride themselves on their vigilance against racism. But there is more than a sin of omission here.

Take last month's demonstrations against Israel. Riazat Butt, the Guardian's religious affairs correspondent, describes in a joint edition of the Guardian's Islamophonic and Sounds Jewish podcasts how at one demo she heard the cry not only of "Down with Israel" but "Kill Jews". An anti-war protest in Amsterdam witnessed chants of: "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."

At the London events, there were multiple placards deploying what has now become a commonplace image: the Jewish Star of David equated with the swastika. From the podium George Galloway declared: "Today, the Palestinian people in Gaza are the new Warsaw ghetto, and those who are murdering them are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1943."

Now what, do you imagine, is the effect of repeating, again and again, that Israel is a Nazi state? Even those with the scantest historical knowledge know that the Nazis are the embodiment of evil to which the only appropriate response is hate. How surprising is it if a young man, already appalled by events in Gaza, walks home from a demo and glimpses the Star of David - which he now sees as a latter-day swastika - outside a synagogue and decides to torch the building, or at least desecrate it? Yet Galloway, along with Livingstone, who was so careful in July 2005, did not hesitate to make the comparison (joined by a clutch of Jewish anti-Israel activists who should know better).

The counter-arguments here are predictable. Some will say they take pains to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. Intellectually, that's fine; in the seminar room, it holds water. The trouble is, it doesn't mean much on the street - at least not to the man who saw a group of Manchester Jews leaving synagogue on January 17 and shouted "Free Palestine, you motherfuckers," before giving them the Nazi salute.

The liberal left should know this already. After all, when Jack Straw wrote his notorious piece about the hijab, full of qualifications, progressives understood that none of that would matter: it would be read as an attack on all Muslims. And so it was. For all Straw's careful phrasing, Muslim women whose heads were covered were attacked. Liberals warned Straw that he was playing with fire. Today's anti-Israel activists need to realise they are doing the same.

Besides, this business of distinguishing between good and bad Jews has a long history. Anthony Julius, author of a definitive study of English antisemitism, says that, with the exception of the Nazis, Jew-haters have always made distinctions. Christian antisemites accepted Jews who were ready to convert and rejected those who refused. A century ago, Winston Churchill drew a line between homegrown British Jews and those spreading Bolshevism. Now the dividing line is affinity for Israel.

But the logical corollary of this is that, if Jews refuse to dissociate themselves from Israel, then they are fair game for abuse and attack until they publicly recant. Liberals rightly recoil from the constant pressure on Muslims to explain themselves and denounce jihadism or even islamism. Yet they make the same implicit demand when they suggest Jews are OK, unless they are Zionists. The effect is to make Jews' place in British society contingent on their distance from their fellow Jews, in this case, Israelis.

Nor is it good enough to say that most Jews support Israel. Yes, most have a strong affinity and family ties to the Jewish state. But that doesn't mean they support every policy, including the one that led to such mayhem in Gaza. And do we think that those who kicked the man in Golders Green first stopped to ask his opinion of the merits of Cast Lead?

I know that some will say that even raising this is an attempt to divert attention from the real and larger issue, Israel's brutality in Gaza and the colossal number of civilian deaths that entailed. I won't accept that. Regular readers know that I denounced Cast Lead from the beginning. But I shouldn't have to say that. These two matters are separate. It is perfectly possible to condemn Israel's current conduct and to stand firmly against anti-Jewish prejudice. And it's about time liberals and the left said so.

freedland@guardian.co.uk