Winston Churchill: the man who created Israel. From my new book.

 New book now available on Amazon. Ebook and paperback now available.

 Chew has replaced a word to describe another word.... I'm sure you can figure it out. It is not a word that Google likes to see too much of.

Among the owners of Bank of England stock was one Solomon de Medina, the first Chew to be knighted who had come to England with William of Orange as army contractor to William III. He too possessed an extensive intelligence network which was much better than the government’s. John Churchill, ancestor of Winston Churchill was said to be much in debt to Solomon’s intelligence network for his victories against the French King Louis XIV and his extensive campaigns in Europe, in addition to receiving funding for his campaigns and provisions for his troops from him. Like the Cromwell’s family ongoing relationship with international merchants and bankers the Churchill family, culminating of course in the life of Winston Churchill, effectively became servants of internationalist Zionist interests to the detriment of European and British interests.

The result of what historian David Irving calls ‘Churchill’s War’ was the loss of the British empire, the destruction of Europe and massive loss of life and the creation of the state of Israel. Hitler had sued for peace and promised he was committed to the continuance of the British Empire and would use his armies to defend it provided he would be given a free-hand in the East to deal with the international threat of Communism, but the war had been arranged by the very forces behind the creation of Communism and the timeline of revolution, the murder of Christian monarchs, the destruction of the Christian religion and the massacres of large numbers of Christian people under one pretext or the other.

William D Rubinstein in an article for the Chewish Historical Society of England describes Churchill as:

“..among the best friends the Chews ever had as a British political leader..” which is high praise since the bar of British leaders historically serving Chewish interests is pretty high indeed. He is further described as: “an absolutely consistent supporter of the Chews and of Zionism throughout his lengthy career.” Churchill’s father Lord Randolph Churchill was friends with the Rothschild banking dynasty and his son Winston was friends with James and Dorothy de Rothschild.

In his book Churchill and the Chews, Martin Gilbert quotes a popular clubland jibe of the time that Randolph Churchill only had Chewish friends and goes on to portray how closely intertwined the Churchill and Rothschild families had become: the young Churchill being classmates with the young Nathaniel Rothschild at Harrow school and it seemed that throughout his early life the Rothschild families were to be relied upon to help Winston and he wrote in a letter to his mother how he wished to work as a newspaper war-correspondent: ‘Lord Rothschild would be the person to arrange this for me’. His finances were also managed and investments made for him by another Chew, Sir Ernest Cassel at no charge. Throughout his early life Cassel continually made gifts to Churchill of money, shares and even a library for his London flat. It is clear from this relationship that Churchill even at this early stage in is life was a kept-man and totally dependent on Chews for his career and finances.

At 27 Churchill became MP for North West Manchester where he represented a constituency with a majority of Chews and campaigned vociferously and wrote a letter against a bill to prevent Chewish exiles coming from Tsarist Russia. The Sun newspaper at the time alleged that Churchill had been specifically instructed by his friend Lord Rothschild to write the letter. Major Williams Evans-Gordon, one of the Grand Committee members on the creation of the bill stated that Churchill: “was faithfully carrying out the instructions he had received for the party for which he was acting.”

Despite having a habit of losing elections, and moving from the Conservative to Liberal party and later, back again, in order to fuel his ambitions, Churchill found himself being shuffled into a safe Liberal seat and in 1910 was made home-secretary. There is something of the hidden hand moving the Winston Churchill chess-piece into ever higher positions of power despite having no qualifications or apparent aptitude for any of the roles except, and solely perhaps, his adoration and defence of the Chewish people along with his friendship with the Rothschilds.

Churchill’s conveniently positioned hand seemed to be present at every stage in the growing effort to establish a Chewish homeland in the Middle-East. For instance, he ensured that the arch-Zionist Theodor Herzl’s son Hans was naturalised a British citizen at the start of World War 1; Churchill had also signed the naturalisation papers of Chaim Weizmann, a Chewish chemist who was instrumental in the creation of the state of Israel by creating new techniques of agriculture and went on to become the first president of Israel and according to conventional history, it was he who convinced the United States to recognise the state of Israel. It is far more likely that this is just historical embroidery to add to his image since we can surmise that by this time, after world revolutions and two deliberately engineered world wars the creation of Israel was already a foregone conclusion, it only needed the tireless activity of bought and paid for agents like Churchill to make it happen.

Lenin was almost the only leader of the central committee to not be of explicitly Chewish origin although declassified KGB files revealed that Lenin’s maternal grandfather was Chewish. Martin Gilbert does not shy away from the prominent part the Chews had played in the rise of Bolshevism and the Russian Revolution and quotes Churchill stating ‘Bolshevism is a Chewish movement’ and Gilbert writes “he knew the significant part individual Chews had played in establishing and maintain the Bolshevik regime.” Churchill also wrote in a 1920 article for British newspaper The Illustrated Sunday Herald entitled: Zionism versus Bolshevism, a Struggle for the Soul of the Chewish People, that Chews held a prominent role in the Soviet machinery and listed the Chews who held real power and the names of those non-Chews whom they presided over and that the ‘prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution (the CHEKA) has been taken by Chews, and in some notable cases, by Chewesses.’ Although Felix Dzerkinsky, the head of the CHEKA and one of the architects of the Red Terror, was only half Chewish through his father, although like so many of the primary Soviets like Stalin, his wife Zofia was Chewish.  

Churchill also noted that Chewish businesses and places of worship had been exempted from the fury the Bolsheviks had meted out to Christian Russians and noted that there was a danger that people may begin to associate Chews with the crimes of Bolshevism. Churchill was strongly under the impression that there were ‘good Chews and bad Chews’ and indeed, this was one of the subheadings of his article; he didn’t see, or chose not to see, that all of their activities were actually part of one continuous all-encompassing world agenda. Had this not been the case then perhaps the Soviet Union would not have been the first country to officially recognise the state of Israel.

In 1922 the Liberal Party lost the general election and Churchill lost his hitherto safe Liberal seat at Dundee and was reduced to scrabbling around trying to make himself relevant again and finding a way back into the House of Commons. At this time, he had acquired the well-earned reputation that during the war he had done the bidding of rich Chews for nefarious purposes. Lord Alfred Douglas accused Churchill of being involved in a scam to misrepresent the results of the Battle of Jutland in 1916 in order to drive down the stock market and purchase stock; Churchill then delivered a second message representing the outcome of the battle in much more positive terms, driving up the price of the stocks which had lately been driven down and purchased by Churchill’s Chewish conspirators and then sold for enormous profit.

Churchill was saved from total political eclipse by his Chewish owners when vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Chews and chairman of British Shell, Robert Waley Cohen chose him to act as an intermediary with the government between the merger of two oil companies, one of which was owned by the British government (indeed it was Churchill who had ten years previously negotiated its purchase): the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

No doubt everybody got kickbacks and was happy and Churchill found himself back in favour and after losing yet another election, was gifted the safe Conservative seat of Epping and was promptly made Chancellor of the Exchequer. One can now understand what might have qualified Winston Churchill, and perhaps any Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, to this high-office: a close and intimate friendship with the Rothschilds. Former Chancellor George Osborne had a close friendship with Nat Rothschild, so too did Peter Mendelsohn, the Minister without portfolio under Tony Blair’s Labour administration who, like Churchill with his repeated failures and scandals, was somehow always placed back on the politics chessboard despite being universally unpopular and even suspected of some of the worst possible crimes against children.

There was a period during the first term of Blair’s New Labour government during which there was said to have been a paedophile minister in the Blair government but all subsequent reporting had been hit with a government D notice making it a matter of national security that the story be squashed. Incidentally Mendelsohn was also close friends with disgraced Chewish paedophile and blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein.

Norman Lamont before becoming Chancellor under John Major’s Conservative premiership had worked for NM Rothschild bank in London and became director of Rothschild Asset Management. It seems clear to me that the role of Chancellor of Exchequer is to serve as a medium between the Rothschilds and the British government and to ensure that Chewish money continues to flow into the Bank of England. Prior to this, and the earliest Chancellor I remember from my lifetime was Nigel Lawson, himself born to a wealthy Chewish family heavily involved in world finance with his father the owner of a London commodity trading firm and his mother from a family of stockbrokers. Perhaps this might be the easiest way to convince people of the Chewish domination of the British economy, have them spend a cursory couple of minutes researching the background and career of the average British Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It was Mayer Amschel Rothschild who in 1815 said:

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!” because of course he knew that if he had control of the nation’s money supply he could use this power to dictate its laws since the threat of removing the money supply from a country would lead to a complete social and economic breakdown and who knows what kind of promises and favours and agendas are even now being secretly followed in order to ensure that the Chewish bankers continue to supply the countries with the sustenance they need to effectively maintain social continuity and not lapse into chaos and anarchy.

Prime-ministers must effectively appeal to the Chancellor to approve their spending plans, and although Chancellors do tend to be financially wealthy themselves, it is not their money which they are spending, it is money which must be approved by the Bank of England which means we return to the realm of mysterious and unknown stockholders, if we recall, many of whom were Chewish at the time of the Bank’s creation.

This relationship was exposed in an investigation into David Cameron potentially illegally lobbying current Chancellor Rishi Sunak to provide loans to bail-out a failing investment company Greensill Capital which Cameron worked for as an ‘advisor’.

The text message revealed the workings of the UK economy and how indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an agent for the Bank of England and presumably can only make spending and loan requests to them for approval:

Mr Sunak’s second reply to David Cameron dated 23 April:

"Hi David, apologies for the delay. I think the proposals in the end did require a change to the Market Notice but I have pushed the team to explore an alternative with the Bank that might work. No guarantees, but the Bank are currently looking at it and Charles should be in touch. Best, Rishi."

In 1929 the Conservatives lost the election to Labour and Churchill was out on his ear again but he devoted the next three months to a propaganda tour of America and Canada trying to drum up support for a Chewish national home in Palestine, through speeches, lunch engagements, newspaper and magazine articles.

Churchill worked tirelessly for the creation of the state of Israel and appealed to the House of Commons to reverse a decision by the House of Lords not to pursue the Balfour declaration as a matter of government policy: the Balfour Declaration had been enshrined in a white paper which Churchill himself had drawn up and submitted to the League of Nations. Martin Gilbert summarises the importance of Churchill’s central role in the creation of the state of Israel:

“With Churchill’s active and persistent support, the establishment of a Chewish national home in Palestine had become a reality.”

 

Cults of the Kabbalah. From coming new book.

 

 

The ROAD TO ELEUSIS

                                                         The journey into mystery.

But the overt repeated sexual imagery used in the Zohar leads me to the strong suspicion that this is the origin of the Satanic themed sex cults which occasionally make the news or more frequently, are exposed by former insiders and victims of the cult, communicating through the alternative media.  

Groups such as Crowley’s Order of the Oriental Temple were a surface resurgence of this ancient current which had previously surfaced in the form of the Duke of Wharton’s and later Sir Frances Dashwood’s Hellfire Club of the 18^th Century. The Duke of Wharton was hugely indebted to banking interests as a result of the collapse in the share price of the South Sea company in which he had heavily invested. In 1723 after the dissolution of the Hellfire Club he became the Grand Master of the first Freemasonic Grand Lodge of England. 

One wonders, like so many other pawns of the manipulators whether Wharton’s debts forced him to act for that financial power which sought to use him to exercise its covert social agenda which we have seen either hinted at or historically emerge from cover and unleash its furious agenda usually ending in the destruction of Christian institutions and mass bloodshed and butchery.

Intriguingly Sir Frances Dashwood served, for a short time at least, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite, like Winston Churchill, being dubiously qualified:

"Of financial knowledge he did not possess the rudiments, and his ignorance was all the more conspicuous from the great financial ability of his predecessor Legge. His budget speech was so confused and incapable that it was received with shouts of laughter.” Pollard, (1901) 'Dashwood, Francis’.

From the Lesser Holy Assembly, a book of the Zohah, we find references which recall the lexicon and iconography of the Rosicrucian ‘Alchemical’ process: the talk of ‘brides’ and the union of Kings and Queen, not to mention references which are markedly less guarded and ambiguous than the ostensibly Christian Rosicrucian literature:

“The second association of Yesod with the genitals arises from the union of the Microprosopus and his Bride…When the male is joined with the female, they both constitute one complete body, and all the universe is in a state of happiness because all things receive blessings from their perfect body. And this is an arcanum (secret).”

And a strangely profane, almost sacrilegious reference to the Bride:

“And she is mitigated, and receiveth blessing in that place which is called the holy of holies below.”  Referring to the female genitals in terms of the holy sanctuary of the great Temple of Jerusalem would certainly not meet with approval with what one conceives as the Torah studying conservative mind and one cannot help but feel that such sexual rites and imagery was the very thing the Levite priests were so critical of in Leviticus.

So too the masculine sexual energies are unambiguously referred to and put in spiritual terms and given a specific Sefira in the Tree of Life and the male member too as Yesod is referred to as ‘most holy’. One can just imagine what kind of excesses and perversions of spirituality could emerge from a cult which reveres sexuality and specifically the sex organs as holy objects worthy of reverence:

“And that which floweth down into that place where it is congregated, and which is emitted through that most holy Yesod, foundation is entirely white, and therefore is it called Chesed.”

And how “Chesed entereth into the Holy of Holies”.   

Yesod is mirrored on the Tree of Death by the Qlippoth Gamaliel, or the ‘obscene one’, this is when the sexual energy is repressed and builds up in the conscious mind leading to more and more obscene sexual visions and the demon Lilith is the ruler of this domain. The problem is if a mythology is created then invariably cults and worshippers will arise who will choose to follow this ‘path’. So by creating the mythos of a ‘Tree of Death’ ruled over by various evil spirits and entities, they also invariably unleash these forces into the world as a kind of contrary ‘spiritual’ tradition, it is all the more tragic that such followers commit real evil acts and atrocities which daily degrade life on Earth and whatever forces of chaos are unleashed by wanton evil, are all based on nothing but the most irrational and very silliest form of absolute nonsense.

For instance, it is rather a sad and awful satire to hear genitals and semen referred to as holy, and the genitals as ‘they holy of holies’ and surely must constitute sure and certain direct evidence of the inner corruption of the Judaism of the patriarchs. So much of the Zohar follows this template. A Sefira is referenced, then a quote from the Torah, then something sexually suggestive about mothers, queens or brides. Then a suggestive remark like ‘the holiness of the male enters’ or ‘beautiful path into the queen’ or ‘the influx of pleasure’ or ‘marital conjunction’; make a reference to Hebrew consonants then refer to a Biblical patriarch and you have your Kabbalah mysticism. This is the seed in order to procedurally generate the Kabbalah.

Something like the following is typical:

“The husband hath dominion over the wife.. combination with the female, the letter I or Yod is the fundamental member by which the world is preserved.. The father illuminating the mother.”

In fact, some passages were considered so ‘off colour’ that Samuel Mathers did not translate them into English but kept the original Latin of Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. We can’t be sure about what is being discussed but there seems to be a reference to semen and fertility:

“For everything that is the oil, and the declaration of, and in the power of these men also, is gathered together out of the whole body; for they are all of the army, which is produced from them, and come forth, and all pour in the openings of the genital organs.”

This next excerpt refers to the action of the penis entering inside the uterus of a woman:

“Through the Yesod, he goes into the woman in a place called Zion and Jerusalem. For here is the wife’s secret feminine place and it is called the uterus.”

It is possible that the Zohar is partially a kind of text based marital aid for inexperienced couples, or a form of sex education. In the Lesser Holy Assembly, the so-called Star of David or Seal of Solomon, according to the Zohar, is a symbol of sexual congress:

“Chokmah is the fire: I, and Binah is the water: H, the Father and Mother who, conjoined, produce the Son. Now the fire is symbolized by a triangle with the apex uppermost  , and water by  , these two together united form   the sign of the Macrocosm, the external symbol of Vau: V, Microprosopus.”

Judaism is pretty clear when it comes to sexual license and such things, all though not strictly considered shameful are certainly not considered holy, they are most assuredly ‘things of the flesh that perisheth,” though notably this is a New Testament reference. In fact I had assumed that the Bible was globally censorious regarding ‘the sins of the flesh’ but to my surprise I found that it was largely the New Testament, not the Old Testament, which exhorts the mind to think on spiritual things.

This distinction is hardly made in the Old Testament and leads one to the suspicion of a certain unreformed carnality in the Chewish mind which the Christian mind rejects and sets itself with a view on higher and better things. The Old Testament however is full of sexual immorality, often committed by  the Israelites themselves. King David having sex with Bathsheba, then murdering her husband to cover up his immorality for example. The major sexual crimes in the Old Testament tend to refer to homosexuality or of Israelite women sleeping with non-Israelite men. Gross sexual license and carnality seems to be common in the Old Testament and indeed is most often the behaviour of Israel’s Kings for which they are chastised by the prophets and punished by God.

The book of Deuteronomy warns the children of Israel:

“Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the LORD your God, and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates.”

Ahab King of Judea set up an altar to Baal and an Asherah pole. It is possible that The Tree of Life comes from a time predating monotheism in Judaism, when Jahweh was said to have had a wife: Asherah, who was represented by a stylised tree or wooden pole. Asherah was an Ugaritic mother Goddess and the role of Asherah was said to be the mediation of opposites, which is exactly what we see with the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and is said to be part of the alchemical process. The result of mediation of the opposites which we have seen has been such a key theme of the so called Western mystical current since the middle-ages is quite startling.

According to the Chewish Encyclopaedia:

“… the "Sefer Yeẓirah" draws the important conclusion that "good and evil" have no real existence, for since everything in nature can exist only by means of its contrast, a thing may be called good or evil according to its influence over man by the natural course of the contrast.”

What’s more it is my belief that the Biblical Tree of Knowledge in the garden of Eden from which God commanded Adam not to eat, was a reference to the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and was an injunction not to follow Asherah worship and the associated rites. This also makes sense of the word for serpent which supposedly tempted Eve to eat of the fruit. The Hebrew word for serpent is Nachash which also means the occult.