"DEAR LORD ROTHSCHIILD...": THE UNAMBIGUOUS TRUTH ABOUT THE CREATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
In which I challenge the historian Matthew Aldred to tell the whole truth.
Hey Gang,
As most of you will be aware, Nevermore is supportive of the Palestinian cause and opposed to the existence of the Israeli state.
This position is kind of a no-brainer for an anarchist collective - we are also opposed to the existence of the Canadian state, the American state, the Iranian state, the Belgium state, and so on.
We are opposed to the existence of states, period.
You name a state, and we’re against it. Not complicated.
Because we’re not afraid to voice our perspective that the Israeli state is illegitimate, we have been willing to go further than most in denouncing its campaign of ethnic cleansing, which goes back more than half a century.
Recently, I published an article called “The Gazan Holocaust”, in which I wrote:
If anyone brings up the Holocaust to garner sympathy for this massacre, please do me a favour and slap them in the face.
As the Zionists cheer on this bloodbath, we need to stop letting them playing the Holocaust card to silence their opposition.
The fact that Jews were massacred by Germans 70 years ago has nothing to do with this. We need to stop letting Jews play the victim. We need to hold them responsible for their crimes against humanity.
“If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”
After I published this piece, a commenter decided that I needed a history lesson, and referred me to a very interesting piece written by his friend, a historian named Matthew Aldred.
The piece begins with humility well-befitting of a historian:
What I will present here is not the absolute 'truth,' and it falls far short of it, especially when you consider that many smaller events and individual accounts have been lost to history. There's a saying that goes, 'If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.' Perhaps the first truth we must acknowledge is that our histories are not themselves absolute truths; often, they are deliberate distortions for political gain.
Mr. Aldred goes on to explain how the British empire at the turn of the century viewed richs Jews favourably, writing that:
Under Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, the Aliens Act 1905 was passed, keeping poor Jews and others out of Britain. Despite this, Balfour knew that wealthy Jews were an asset to British imperialism. For example, Baron Lionel de Rothschild had loaned the British government millions to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company, which was of great strategic importance in global geopolitics. The Rothschilds had also funded the British Empire’s control of South Africa through Cecil Rhodes's work in the development of the British South Africa Company and the De Beers diamond conglomerate. Balfour also knew that the Rothschild’s had influential connections with the Zionist movement. Lionel Walter Rothschild, the 2nd Baron Rothschild, was an active Zionist and a close friend of Chaim Weizmann, who would later become the First President of Israel.
In November 1914, when Britain had declared war on the Muslim Ottoman Empire, the Conservative government was seriously considering what to do with the land once conquered and how this might bolster their geopolitical sphere of influence while garnering support for the fight against Germany. Some reasoned that by allying with the Zionists and promising them the return of their ancient homeland, they could secure financial or other forms of support. This rationale led to Arthur Balfour’s famous note to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, known as The Balfour Declaration:
THE BRITISH CROWN BASICALLY GAVE PALESTINE TO THE ROTHSCHILDS
There it is in black and white, folks. The British Crown basically gave Palestine to the Rothschilds.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you could quibble with me putting it in so few words. Balfour was the British Prime Minister, not the King of England, and technically the monarch didn’t give anything to anyone. All Balfour actually said was that “His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”
But that doesn’t matter. The Zionists clearly took this as permission to take over Palestine, as evidenced by their actions over the course of the proceeding century.
Anyway, Mr. Aldred’s history lesson continues:
"To summarize a long and complicated story, over the next 25 years, Palestinian Arabs opposed the British Mandate policies, leading to growing tensions and violent outbreaks. During this period, various political attempts were made to resolve the conflicting claims of Jewish and Arab populations. The violence, international pressures, anti-colonial sentiment, and the toll of World War II made the mandate increasingly untenable for Britain. The turning point came with the King David Hotel bombing on July 22, 1946, carried out by the Zionist militant group Irgun. This attack targeted the British administrative and military headquarters, resulting in the deaths of 91 people:
Incidentally, in 2006, the current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and former members of Irgun celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bombing. They claim they gave a warning to the British to evacuate the hospital; the British government say this is a lie."
Yikes. I didn’t know that. Netanyahu celebrated a Zionist terrorist attack with members of a terrorist group that attacked a British hospital? And this is supposed to make me more sympathetic to the Israeli cause?
Mr. Aldred goes on:
"In February 1947, Britain announced its intention to terminate the mandate and referred the issue of Palestine to the United Nations, essentially seeking an external solution to a conflict they could no longer manage. Consequently, the UN proposed the partition plan in November 1947, which was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab side. The tragic events of the Holocaust made the international community more receptive to the idea of a Jewish state. In the broader public consciousness, outside the Arab world, the Holocaust became a fundamental justification for the establishment of Israel, intertwining the tragedy with the rationale for a Jewish homeland."
You can see how monstrously unfair this is if you take a single minute to think about this from an Arab perspective.
Were the Arabs responsible for the Holocaust? No, they were not.
Does the Holocaust justify the theft of Palestinian land by Jews? No, it doe not.
This historian’s account fails to mention a single atrocity committed by Jews against Arabs, which renders his account pretty useless in explaining the present conflict.
He is clearly aware that he is writing a sanitized history, explaining:
If you were hoping for me to create another history of the Holy Land, I will have disappointed you that I left our story in 1947 (and really didn’t cover anything beyond 1922, and only touched on a few elements pre-1922). Given my penchant for intellectual exploration, and abhorence for lies, it's quite tempting to add to the library of thousands of books purporting to explain the conflict. You see, my book would be ‘the truthful version’ of what really happened, right?
Seriously, though, even if I were tempted to synthesize what I perceive to be the best historical evidence supporting the case of each opposing side, it would be impossible to present a purely unbiased, objective, and neutral modern history of this conflict. There are many reasons for this, not least the fact that I have friends and family who are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist, Arab, and Israeli, and I am human, with feelings too. I have no idea exactly how this would affect my reasoning and selection of historical sources, but it would undoubtedly have an influence.
Don't let anyone claim they possess 'the truth' about the Holy Land conflict (or any war, for that matter). Additionally, while it may be a cliché, it holds true: 'History is written by the victors.' The poorest and most vulnerable individuals and groups often lack the documentation to 'win' any legal or historical arguments. Take a moment to contemplate this and consider where power lies in this world and the nature of the 'evidence' that historians rely on.
No, I will not write a history of the conflict that can become ammunition for more conflict.
Translation: “I'm too scared to tell the truth because the truth reflects badly on the Zionists, who committed tons of atrocities against Arabs. I have Jewish friends, and I don’t want to upset them.”
Mr. Aldred clearly knows the truth, but feels it would be imprudent to share it with a general audience, who might get the wrong idea. The seemingly widespread attitude seems to be that the truth is dangerous. But dangerous to whom?
Presumably, the truth must be protected by experts to protect Jewish interests because if the public knew the truth, they would be unsympathetic to those interests. Historians seem afraid that if the uncensored truth came out it would lead to a rise in anti-semitism. What else could it be?
But I have news for Matthew Aldred: you’re either for the truth or you’re not. You’re either or the right side of history or you’re not. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Aldred.
I do appreciate, however, that Mr. Aldred does get one thing right - the Rothschild banking dynasty is at the centre of the story of how Zionists took over Palestine.
Let’s have another look at that Balfour declaration, shall we?
There you have it. The letter that led directly to the creation of the state of Israel begins with three words - Dear Lord Rothschild. The truth seems quite unambiguous, does it not?
Most intellectuals seem to think that the public is too stupid to be entrusted with the truth, and I think this is fucking bullshit.
Most intellectuals seem to be more interested in protecting the guilty than in telling the truth. So I’m blowing the whistle on this bullshit.
The world needs historians that are willing to tell the truth.
That said, I’m not accusing of Mr. Aldred of lying. He is simply offering a very limited hangout of the truth. Unfortunately, that’s not much better than saying nothing at all.
He knows the truth, he just thinks it would be unwise to spell it out too explicitly. Perhaps he has his loyalties, perhaps he has a career to think of, or perhaps he just doesn’t want to rock the boat.
Luckily, Mr. Aldred seems quite willing to take reader’s requests. In fact, he positively welcomes it, telling his paid subscribers that he will write “an article on any subject of your choice” in exchange for their subscription.
Check this out:
This article was requested by a reader to provide historical context for the Balfour Declaration. I hope it proves useful for others in navigating the current conflict and the broader information war. Incidentally, I've just added a 'Founder Member' subscription option. Aside from my heartfelt thanks, as a token of my appreciation, I'm offering to write an article on any subject of your choice during your 12-month subscription period. Furthermore, if you're not entirely satisfied with the results, I will write you another one.
So, would someone do me a favour please? Would someone please become a paid subscriber and ask Mr. Aldred to write a history of the Rothschild Dynasty please?
Here, I’ll even offer a suggestion for a jumping-off point - Paul Cudenec wrote a history of the Rothschild dynasty called Enemies of the People, which I have linked to below.
Could someone please ask Mr. Aldred to fact-check this history? I have previously offered a $100 reward to anyone who can find a single error in it, and no one has claimed that prize yet.
Perhaps Mr. Aldred will be capable of finding an error in Cudenec’s book, or will at least be capable of expanding upon it by offering useful historical context.
Historians, like reporters, have a responsibility towards the public. That responsibility is to tell the truth.
I call on Matthew Aldred, as well as all historians, to tell the truth about the influence of the Rothschild dynasty in the history of the creation of the state of Israel.
It is your moral duty, Mr. Aldred. After all, you’re the one who said:
“If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE
by Paul Cudenec
The last three gruelling years have forced many of us to look a lot harder at who exactly is pulling the strings in this increasingly unpleasant world.
One name that has cropped up time and time again in my own research (see here and here for instance) is that of the Rothschilds.
Having taking a closer look at their history and activities, I realised I had to share my findings with others and so I wrote an in-depth article which is now available here as a 100-page pdf booklet.
There is something of a taboo around criticising this powerful ultra-rich family and those who do so tend to find themselves labelled “anti-semitic”.
However, as I explain in the booklet, I am not singling out the Rothschilds because they are Jewish, but rather in spite of that fact.
It would have been a thousand times easier to have written about them if they had been one of Europe’s many historical Roman Catholic or Protestant banking families: nobody would have imagined for a moment that my criticisms applied to all or even most Catholics or Protestants.
But these other dynasties have not played the same central role in creating all that is worst in our contemporary world and so it was on the many sins of the Rothschilds that I was nevertheless obliged to focus, under the following headings:
Preface [AUDIO]
I. Amassing great wealth [AUDIO]
II. Putting themselves before others [AUDIO]
III. Profiteering from war after war [AUDIO]
IV. Grabbing the infrastructure [AUDIO]
V. Exploiting humanity, destroying nature [AUDIO]
VI. Corrupting political life [AUDIO]
VII. Using royalty [AUDIO]
VIII. Privatising power [AUDIO]
IX. Imposing global control [AUDIO]
X. Keeping it all secret [AUDIO]
XI. Switching to authoritarian mode [AUDIO]
XII. Dictating the future [AUDIO]
XIII. Enough is enough! [AUDIO]
Funny, I was just writing about this and I though you were going to tell me how it was Lord Rothschild himself the wrote the letter and then sent it to someone else who sent it to Balfour who eventualy signed and sent it back to Rothschild. I was in the middle of trying to find the details again since I read that a while back (long before the current madnes).
Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild was the "unoffical leader of the Jews" in Britian, so having such a letter sent to him was a token of British support for Zionist aspirations.
"Beginning in 1916, the British hoped that in exchange for their support of Zionism, “the Jews” would help to finance the growing expenses of the First World War, which was becoming increasingly burdensome. More importantly, policy-makers in the Foreign Office believed that Jews could be prevailed upon to persuade the United States to join the War. At this time, there were very strong pro-Zionist feelings by many of the political elite and establishment. Many of Britain’s leaders, including Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and Balfour himself, felt for the Jews and their history. These men were deeply religious Christian Zionists."
—The Rotshchild Archive
https://www.rothschildarchive.org/collections/rothschild_faqs/walter_rothschild_and_the_balfour_declaration
Well, I have too much to say about the above to say here.
Not many people know about the Balfour Declaration despite it being in every history book. Most history teachers gloss over it as part of World War Two. In my opinion, if the Allies had wanted to punish Germany, they would have taken part of Germany or their conquered lands and given them to the Jews. Instead, they pushed the Rothschilds into an area of the world where they weren't wanted and created a Jewish state. They should have left alone, but when you owe debts, you have to pay them, even if they have to displace people to do it.
Teachers don't go over how many times Arab countries attacked Israel and how they were sent on the run. Nor do they go over how the Palestinians were treated in their own land.
I have no particular love for Israel, considering that they could have invited the Palestinians into Israel and given them a place but didn't.
History should show that the Ashkenazi Jews in charge of Israel treated the Palestinians like trash and trapped them in a place where they couldn't even grow food.
I have very little sympathy for the Palestinians, considering that they resort to terrorism instead of outright warfare to achieve their freedom.
I found it odd that they broke the security wall and made a run into Israel but didn't go for the Knesset or Netanyahu himself. If I were fighting for my freedom, I'd go after the political class and stalk them to the ends of the earth.