#Lord Arthur James Balfour

[theeleventhsignofthezodiac]

Philip Alexius de Laszlo - Lord Arthur James Balfour, 1914

[probablyasocialecologist]

Palestine Action ruined a 1914 painting by Philip Alexius de László inside Trinity College, University of Cambridge of Lord Arthur James Balfour – the colonial administrator and signatory of the Balfour Declaration [1]. An activist slashed the homage and sprayed the artwork with red paint, symbolising the bloodshed of the Palestinian people since the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917.  Arthur Balfour, then UK Foreign secretary, issued a declaration which promised to build “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, where the majority of the indigenous population were not Jewish [2]. He gave away the Palestinians homeland — a land that wasn’t his to give away.   After the Declaration, until 1948, the British burnt down indigenous villages to prepare the way; with this came arbitrary killings, arrests, torture, sexual violence including rape against women and men, the use of human shields and the introduction of home demolitions as collective punishment to repress Palestinian resistance [3] [4]. The British were initiating the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, fulfilling the Zionist aim to build their ‘home’ over the top of what were Palestinian communities, towns, villages, farms and ancestral land, rich in heritage, culture and ancient archeological history [5]. The Palestinians refer to this time as the Nakba — which translates into the great catastrophe. In 1948, the Zionist militia, trained by the British, forced over 750,000 Palestinians into exile, destroyed over 500 villages and forced those who remained to live under a brutal reign of occupation [6].

[howieabel]

"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." - Arthur James Balfour, Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917)

[jloisse]

La « Déclaration Balfour ».

Cette « Déclaration Balfour » du 2 novembre 1917 proclame la reconnaissance, par le gouvernement britannique, de l'existence d'un foyer national Juif en Palestine, ce qui fut une étape décisive permettant de poser la première pierre conduisant à la création de l'État d'Israël en 1948.

Elle fut adressée à Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild.

Il est essentiel de rappeler que la « Déclaration Balfour » ne devrait pas afficher ce nom, car le véritable auteur de cette Déclaration ne fut pas Lord Arthur James Balfour, mais Alfred Milner.

Alfred Milner appartenait au groupe de Cecil Rhodes. Il était le bras droit au sein du Cabinet de Guerre, du Premier Ministre Lloyd George. Il était également membre de la Round Table, du RIIA (ou Chatham House) et de la Société Fabienne.

Lord Balfour ne fut qu'un « prête-nom ». La Déclaration aurait dû s'appeler la « Déclaration Milner ».

Et ceci a été prouvé par Caroll Quigley dans son livre "Histoire secrète de l'Oligarchie anglo-américaine" :

« La Palestine, cependant, occupait une position particulière parmi les mandats en raison de la déclaration Balfour de 1917, qui disposait que la Grande-Bretagne verrait favorablement établissement d'un foyer national pour les Juifs en Palestine. Cette déclaration, toujours connue sous le nom de déclaration Balfour, devrait plutôt s'appeler "Déclaration Milner", tant ce dernier en fut le concepteur réel et, apparemment, son soutien majeur dans le Cabinet de Guerre. Il fallut attendre le 21 juillet 1937 pour que ce fait soit rendu public.

À ce moment Ormsby-Gore, s'exprimant pour le gouvernement à la Chambre des Communes, déclara "Le projet initialement affiché par Lord Balfour n'était pas le projet final approuvé par le Cabinet de Guerre. Le projet exact auquel consentit le Cabinet de Guerre et par la suite les gouvernements alliés ainsi que les États-Unis (...) et en fin de compte incarné dans le mandat, fut élaboré par Lord Milner. Le projet final doit être publié au nom du ministre des Affaires étrangères, mais le véritable rédacteur fut Lord Milner. »

- Caroll Quigley "Histoire secrète de l'Oligarchie anglo-américaine" page 263.

[fredborges98]

"Caro Lord Rothschild,

Tenho o grande prazer de endereçar a V. Sa., em nome do governo de Sua Majestade, a seguinte declaração de simpatia quanto às aspirações sionistas, declaração submetida ao gabinete e por ele aprovada:

`O governo de Sua Majestade encara favoravelmente o estabelecimento, na Palestina, de um Lar Nacional para o Povo Judeu, e empregará todos os seus esforços no sentido de facilitar a realização desse objetivo, entendendo-se claramente que nada será feito que possa atentar contra os direitos civis e religiosos das coletividades não-judaicas existentes na Palestina, nem contra os direitos e o estatuto político de que gozam os judeus em qualquer outro país.´

Desde já, declaro-me extremamente grato a V. Sa. pela gentileza de encaminhar esta declaração ao conhecimento da Federação Sionista.

Arthur James Balfour."

Por: Fred Borges

“O governo não é a solução para nossos problemas; o governo é o problema.”

Se você colocar o governo no controle do deserto do Saara, em cinco anos haverá escassez de areia.”

Frases de Milton Friedman.

Versão da Declaração de Balfour em 2033 no Brasil.

" Caro Luiz Philippe de Orléans e Bragança,

Tenho o grande prazer de endereçar a V. Sa., em nome do governo de Sua Majestade Bertrand Maria José Pio Januário Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga de Orléans e Bragança e Wittelsbach a seguinte declaração de simpatia quanto às aspirações sionistas, declaração submetida ao gabinete e por ele aprovada:

O governo de Sua Majestade encara favoravelmente o estabelecimento, na formação de um novo Estado no Brasil, vigésima oitava unidade federativa,de um Lar Nacional para o Povo Judeu, e empregará todos os seus esforços no sentido de facilitar a realização desse objetivo, entendendo-se claramente que nada será feito que possa atentar contra os direitos civis e religiosos das coletividades não-judaicas existentes neste nova unidade, nem contra os direitos e o estatuto político de que gozam os judeus em qualquer outro país.

Desde já, declaro-me extremamente grato a V. Sa. pela gentileza de encaminhar esta declaração ao conhecimento da Federação Sionista.

Fred James Balfour III."

Com esta declaração fica assim selada a paz entre Palestinos e Judeus.

Assim, o governo brasileiro dá um pequeno passo para o homem, mas um gigantesco salto para a humanidade sem direito a teorias conspiratórias e em pleno exercício da democracia.

O ano é 2033, o Brasil não é mais uma republiqueta corrupta e ditatorial administrada por juízes, senadores, deputados de moral duvidosa e um presidente ladrão e corrupto.

Todos os políticos " Chupa- Tetas" do Estado com seus "salários milionários foram desaparecidos" ou " desbaratados" pisados e amassados, feito baratas.

"Não se aproxime de uma barata pela frente, de um cavalo por trás ou de um idiota por qualquer dos lados."Provérbio Judeu( adaptado).

Houve uma higienização da "republiqueta", uma limpeza de todos os esquemas de corrupção, fisiologismo e clientelismo, assim como Brasília, a capital, perdeu o status de capital do Brasil e foi para o Paraná.

Todos os políticos da esquerda ditatorial foram exilados em ditaduras socialistas ou comunistas.

Seus bens assim todo seu patrimônio foi confiscado e distribuído ou alocado na educação, segurança e saúde da nação.

O mal foi cortado pela raiz, todo movimento de esquerda socialista ou comunista foi considerado ilegal e seus membros e líderes filiados ou não foram exilados pela preferência das "ervas perigosas" para Venezuela, Cuba, Rússia, China, Coréia do Norte, Irã, ou qualquer país cujo regime é ditatorial.

Estão proibidos de se deslocarem, se transferirem ou se mudarem para: França, Reino Unido, Suiça, EUA ou qualquer outro país livre ou capitalista, assim como estam proibidos de enviar, trocar, negociar, transacionar com qualquer cidadão brasileiro residente no Brasil, inclusive familiares ou amigos ou "companheiros".

Agora o Brasil é um regime monárquico e parlamentar democrático onde só pode exercer cargos públicos ou políticos quem se isenta do recebimento de qualquer valor econômico- financeiro direto ou indireto nesta atribuição ou ocupação ou no exercício da função pública.

“A intervenção do governo na economia tornou-se mínima, limitando-se à proteção dos direitos individuais e à manutenção da ordem.”Milton Friedman ( adaptado).

O voto não é mais obrigatório por parte da população e quem assim exerce este direito é obrigado ou tem o dever de acompanhar em tempo real o eleito ao cargo público, tendo plenos poderes de dar voto coletivo de censura e tornar inviável a permanência do eleito no poder, não precisando da anuência do congresso, sendo "a voz do povo a voz de Deus!"

A função pública tem pré-requisitos de candidatura:

Idade: Acima de 50 anos, brasileiro, financeiramente independente, renunciando a todo e qualquer valor no exercício da função pública.

"Para o ignorante, a velhice é o inverno; para o instruído é a estação da colheita." Provérbio judaico

Sem vínculos de qualquer tipo com o antigo regime de esquerda, socialista, comunista ou terrorista ou ditatorial.

Para concorrer ao cargo público se passa por um recrutamento feito pelos cidadãos e seleção com bases técnicas e meritocráticas de competência e habilidade a cada cargo público.

Assim, passada a fase de higienização da República, estamos neste momento vivendo a plena democracia com todos tendo o acesso à educação com qualidade.

Quanto ao ensino superior é totalmente privatizado ou destinado a fundações, institutos ou associações auto sustentáveis que podem receber doações,são isentos de impostos ou taxas federais, estaduais e municipais e que por sua parte,em contrapartida ,reserva bolsas de estudo para os melhores do livre mercado e de natureza concorrencial, livre de monopólios, oligopólios, cartéis, disfunções do capitalismo econômico ou de mercado causadas pelas antigas práticas de corrupção.

Agora os candidatos a cargos públicos são indicados por concursos anuais de provas de proficiência, habilidade e competência, sempre com transparência de critérios, métricas e parâmetros e padrões, sempre atualizados.

Neste contexto histórico,eu, Fred James Balfour III declaro oportuna e estratégica a iniciativa da criação do novo Estado que se chamará,pelo nome que quiser, inclusive Israel, um estado que promove e promoverá ainda mais, além de 2033, o desenvolvimento da educação, segurança e saúde de todo Brasil, mas sobretudo a PAZ!

[dinomutt1]

The Balfour Declaration

Foreign Office

November 2nd, 1917

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

[lesfeldickbiblestudy]

  Through the Bible with Les Feldick LESSON 2 * PART 3 * BOOK 70 ADULTEROUS ISRAEL TO BE RESTORED – PART 3 Hosea 2:14 – 4:14 Once again, it’s good to have everybody back from the coffee break. We’re doing program number three this afternoon. We’re going to go right back and pick up what I didn’t finish in the last program.  For those of you on television, if you’re just tuning in, we’ve been talking about Israel being scattered into all the nations of the world. We started with our references in Deuteronomy, and now we’re back up into Ezekiel.  That’s where we’re going to pick up – right where we left off in Ezekiel 37, how the Nation of Israel is out there scattered into every nation under heaven, but the time would come when they would start coming back to their homeland. Now of course, it didn’t happen over night.  It really started in the late 1800’s, 1890-95, somewhere in that neck of the woods when Jewish leaders started talking about a homeland.  They and Great Britain, of course, who had the empire that circled the globe, were the major players.  So, a politician in England by the name of Balfour (Arthur James) and the Jews made the Balfour Declaration--that was that the Jews could have a homeland in the Middle East. First they had it drawn clear across the Jordan Valley and on into what is present-day Iraq and Jordan, but the Arab world put up such a howl that Great Britain backed off.  Instead they designated it from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.  So anyway, the Jews back then were being forced by persecution and every other which way, that was long before Hitler came on the scene.  So, a lot of the Jews started making their way back from North Africa, Morocco and in that area.  Then the rest of the Arab world started persecuting them unmercifully, so they finally left Syria.  I don’t think there’s a Jew left in Syria, certainly not in Iran. As a result of all that, they gradually made their way back to the homeland. In 1948 they declared themselves a Sovereign State.  Okay, so all that has come in fulfillment of this. Come back with me now at the opening to Hosea chapter 3 verse 4, so that we can be where we want to start every program in Hosea.  Back to chapter 3 verse 4 where we’re talking about the dispersion.  How that for a long time they’ll be out there in all the nations of the world, verse 4. Hosea 3:4-5a “For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim:” In other words, they had nothing of their religion, as much as I hate to use the word.  All right, then the key word in verse 5 is—“Afterward…”  All right, but we’re not going to look at the “afterward” yet, until we go back and finish some of those verses with regard to all those 1900 and some years that Israel was scattered into the nations of the world. All right, come back where you were with the dry bones in Ezekiel 37 verse 11.  Here’s where we have the interpretation of this vision. Ezekiel 37:11 “Then he (the LORD) said unto me, (the prophet) Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: (Now that tells you right up front that ten tribes are not lost.  All Twelve Tribes are still involved even at this point in time.) behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.”  In other words, that was when they were out amongst the Gentile world--verse 12. Ezekiel 37:12a “Therefore, prophesy and say unto them, (these scattered Jews) Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves,…” Now, the best way I can explain that in recent history was when the Soviet Union collapsed, and one of the first results of that collapse was permission for the Jews to immigrate out and down to Israel or wherever. It was a providential thing. As soon as the Jews had the opportunity, I think in the first two years of the 90’s--1990, 91, 92, something like two million Jews left Russia to go to the Nation of Israel.

  In fact, Iris and I ran into a family of them down on the Dead Sea.  The parents couldn’t talk English but the kids could.  So we could communicate with the family through the kids.  But it was typical of Russians who had left Russia because now the bars were lowered. All right, that’s exactly what I think of when it says here “I will open your graves.”  When the Gentile world would finally give permission for Jews to leave their nation and go wherever they wanted to go.  Of course, a lot of them ended up there in their homeland of Israel.  All right, reading on. Ezekiel 37:12b “…O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.”  Now, do you see how providential that is?  You know, I’ve shared it on the program before, and I’ll do it again.  The first time Iris and I were in Israel, we came out of the hotel restaurant that evening and a well-dressed businessman approached us. He said, “You’re from America, aren’t you?”  We said, “Yes.”  He said, “What do you think of our little country?”  I said, “It’s fabulous what God has done!”   He said, “God didn’t have a thing to do with it.  We did it!”    “Well,” I said, “I beg to differ.  But I’m not going to argue with someone in his homeland.” But see, that was their idea, that they did it.  No, they didn’t!  God did it!  Against all the odds.  My goodness, Great Britain did everything in their power to keep any Jews from coming to the land of Israel.  But they got there.  And then the Arab world consorted to drive them into the sea, but it never happened.  Even to this day, they talk about it.  It’s not going to happen, because God has sovereignly designated that they are going to come to their homeland. Okay, so now they’re back according to Ezekiel. Now, let’s just stop at one verse on our way to the Book of Acts, so that you’ll see what James was referring to.  Turn to the Book of Amos, that’s right after Hosea--Joel then Amos.  Amos the last chapter, chapter 9, this is an interesting verse. Yet, it was in such a veiled form that Israel’s prophets didn’t catch it.  Jesus, of course, never alluded to it.  But now as we can read and look back, we know that this is what the prophet was talking about.  Amos chapter 9 and again, we’re talking about the dispersed Nation of Israel in those first nine – ten verses.  But now look at verse 11. Amos 9:11 “In that day (When God will finally have His people back in their homeland.) will I  raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it (Now remember, we’re talking about King David’s day.) as in the days of old:”  Now, you remember what I said in one of the earlier programs this afternoon?  When did Israel reach the pinnacle?  During David’s and Solomon’s reign.  The glorious Kingdom of David.  What did the Queen of Sheba say?  “The half has never yet been told.”  Of what?  The glory of David’s kingdom.  All right, so this is the analogy.  It’s going to be restored with the glory that it was in David’s day, only far, far greater. Amos 9:12 “That they (the Nation of Israel) may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, (the Gentile world) which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.”  In other words, God is going to bring Israel back to the homeland at some point in time.  He’s going to return and set up this glorious kingdom promised to Israel. All right, now I made mention of Acts chapter 15. Here we have the record of the Jerusalem Council.  And I think, according to some of the ancient writers, this was in A.D. 51.  Now get your numbers – Christ was crucified in A.D. 29.  I feel that the Apostle Paul was converted in A.D. 37.  He began his ministry in A.D. 40. Now, he is being confronted by the Judaizers from the Jerusalem Jewish church and told that his converts had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses.  That was the whole purpose of the Jerusalem council.

  All right, now I’m not going to take the time to take you through all that. As you come to the end of that council, the leadership of the Jerusalem church recognized Paul’s Apostleship and that he would be going to the Gentiles, come in at verse 12. Acts 15:12 “Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, (Who had been ministering up in Antioch, remember, as well as in Turkey and so forth.)  declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among (What people?) the Gentiles by them.”  Now this is unheard of.  God had done all kinds of miracles in Israel, but amongst the Gentiles?  Unheard of! All right, so they took this all in as the argument is now being kind of put to rest, because they are recognizing that Paul and Barnabas do now have a ministry with the Gentiles that Israel was never permitted to do.  All right, now verse 13. Acts 15:13 “And after they had held their peace, (The tumult was quieting down.) James answered, (We know from Galatians chapter 2 that James was the moderator of this Jerusalem council.) saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14. Simeon (Peter) hath declared how God at the first did visit the (What?) Gentiles, to take out of them…” Now keep your pronouns right.  Who are the “them” now?  The Gentile world.  Paul has been designated to go to the Gentiles. Acts 15:14b “…to take out of them a people for his name.”  Now, Acts can’t tell us what it is, because it really hasn’t been totally revealed.  But you get to Paul’s letters and what do we call it?  The Body of Christ.  The Body of Christ is that called-out group of Gentile believers under Paul’s Gospel of Grace that has believed for salvation that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. The Body of Christ is totally insulated from all the promises of Israel. Now, let’s see my timeline again.  Here we come past the rejection now.  All the promises concerning this glorious kingdom over which God the Son, Jesus the Christ, would rule and reign, but Israel rejected it.  Then they hit the prime of their rejection when they did what?  Stoned Stephen.  Stephen was still appealing to the Nation to repent of having killed that promised Messiah.  But they would not.  So they stoned Stephen.  All right who were we introduced to at the stoning of Stephen?  Saul of Tarsus All right, now we get back to our timeline. After Christ has ascended and Israel’s rejection, now God is going to do exactly what Amos is referring to.  That after a period of time, which would include our Church Age and the Tribulation, the King and the Kingdom would still come in and bring back the glories of David and Solomon. But here’s what we have to realize.  God’s time clock stopped.  He sent Paul out into the Gentile world to call out a people for His name, which like I said, we call the Body of Christ.  All right, come back with me a minute to Acts chapter 15 again, now verse 15. Acts 15:15 “And to this (James says) agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,” But you see, they didn’t have a clue what Amos was talking about.  They didn’t have a clue that after 1,900 years of being scattered into all the nations of the world, they would come back and reappear as a Nation and yet have the promised Kingdom become a reality.  They didn’t know that. In fact, how many times have I done this before, and I’m going to do it again.  Keep your hand in Acts 15.  Go to I Peter, because I think this is so interesting that now, after the fact, Peter can write just exactly what I’m saying.  They couldn’t put it together.  Oh, it was back there, but in such veiled language they didn’t understand.  And they weren’t supposed to.  All right, back in I Peter chapter 1, I usually like to start at verse 9.  Now remember, Peter, too, is addressing fellow Jews.  He says that up in verse 1. I Peter 1:1a “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia…” Well, Gentiles weren’t strangers in their own land, but Jews were.

   So, this is who Peter’s writing to. He’s writing to Jews of his own day and who were fellow believers that Jesus was the Christ.  All right, now verse 9. I Peter 1:9a “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.  10. Of which salvation the prophets (the Old Testament prophets) have inquired…”  They were just constantly questioning – what about this?  How is this going to happen?  What is it?  You can just about cook up as many questions as I can. I Peter 1:9b “…have inquired and searched diligently, (What were they searching?  The Scriptures!  The Old Testament Scriptures.  Trying to put it all together.  And they couldn’t. They weren’t supposed to.) who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:” Well, when would it come for the Jew?  When their Messiah would return, see? But the Old Testament Prophets didn’t speak of it as a second coming.  They just spoke of it in veiled language that He would come and suffer and die.  But on the other hand, there were prophecies that He would rule and reign.  I’ve covered this before on the program.  My, they questioned--how is this going to happen?  Are we going to have two Messiahs?  Will one suffer?  Are we going to have a second Messiah that will rule and reign?  They certainly couldn’t put together that the same One would be both!  All right, that’s what Peter is talking about.   All right, reading on in verse 11. I Peter 1:11 “Searching (the Scriptures) what, or what manner of time the Spirit (the Holy Spirit) of Christ who was in them (the writers of the Old Testament) did signify, when it (or He) testified beforehand (Now here they are, the two aspects of the Messiah.) the sufferings of Christ, (the Messiah) and the (What?) glory that should follow.”  Now, can you see their dilemma?  Here we’ve got to have a Messiah who suffers.  But we have to have a Messiah that’s going to rule and reign.  How is He going to do that unless we have two?  They could not put it together that it would be one and the same.  That’s why the normal rank and file Jew of today, is he looking for the Messiah the second time?  No.  The what?  The first!  They can’t reconcile the fact that the Messiah that suffered is the Messiah that’s going to rule and reign.  That has been a dilemma for the Jew down through the centuries.     All right, I think that’s sufficient there. Back to Acts then a minute.  Now James and Peter and John, after the fact of the suffering, have now seen Him ascend back to Glory.  Now they’re beginning to get the picture that this same Messiah who suffered would return and be the Messiah who would rule and reign.  But, now here’s my question.  Did they have any idea it would be 1,900 and some years?  No way!  So Peter and James and John and Jude and Revelation all speak in language as though it would be in their lifetime.  They had no idea it would be such a long extended period.  But yet, you see, Hosea is talking in the same language that the Nation would be out there for a long time.  Until the “bones were white with age.”  And then they’d come back.  All right, verse 15: Acts 15:15 “And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,” Now they can put it together.  This is what Amos was talking about. After the calling out of a people for His name up in verse 14, after that long period of dispersion, they would be back in the land, but they would still have to wait for the out-calling of that Body of Christ, the Gentiles. Acts 15:16 “After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:” Now, get the “after.”  After what?  The calling out of the Gentile Body.  That’s why I maintain it has to be a pre-tribulation rapture, because God is not going to be dealing with the Gentile Body and the Nation of Israel.  No, He’s going to be dealing with the earthly people, the Nation of Israel, first in the horrors of the Tribulation and then in the glory of the Kingdom.

  But it won’t happen until the church is complete and is taken out of the way. All right, now I’ve got a few minutes left, yet?  Well, let’s go to verse 17.  Let’s not skip that.  Let’s stay here a minute.  After the calling out of the Body of Christ, “he would raise up again the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;”  That’s why we read it in Amos before we came to Acts.  “And I (God says) will set it up.”  Set what up?  The Kingdom of David.  Now verse 17. Acts 15:17 -18 “That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Well, He certainly worked only with the Nation of Israel, but I had one writer say, “He must have been a racist!”  No, He’s not a racist!!  What a stupid comment.  But see, that’s the mentality of the world.  Just because He dealt with Jew only.  I guess they were commenting on that verse in Matthew 10:5-6 where the Lord told the Twelve, “Go not into the way of a Gentile or house of a Samaritan, but go only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” That is when he wrote and said, “He must be a racist.”  No!  I’m going to write back.  The letter is still on my desk.  I’m going to write back that Christ was on Covenant ground!  He could not condescend to Gentiles until the covenant promises were fulfilled.  But He’s going to set those covenant promises aside for 1,900 years and turn to the Gentiles without Israel. Is He being racist by now setting Israel aside?  No!  It’s in His Sovereign design.  All right, now let’s go to Romans chapter 11. We have the same concept in different language.  It’s the same thing.  That after God has called out the Body of Christ, He’s going to return and deal with His covenant people. Romans chapter 11 verse 25 and then there are people, famous people, highly esteemed people, who say that there’s nothing to do with Israel anymore. They say that the people who call themselves Jews aren’t Jews at all.  How ridiculous can people get?  But here’s another verse that shows that God is not through with Israel.  Romans 11 verse 25. In fact, the whole chapter 11 is dealing with God coming back and dealing with Israel. Romans 11:25a “I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, (Or secret or something that no one previous to Paul understood.  And what is it?) lest ye should be  wise in your own conceits; (In other words, puffed up with your own ignorant knowledge.  And here it is.) that blindness in part (Not forever, but for a period of time. And I suppose even Paul, after the Holy Spirit inspired him to write that, was thinking in terms of 10 or 15 years, instead of 1,900 and some.  But nevertheless, here we are, and it still holds.) that blindness in part (for a period of time) is happened to Israel,…” It is a spiritual blindness that the Jewish people, as a multitude, cannot understand.  So they’re spiritually blind.  Oh, we get a few.  I’ve got a fair amount of Jews in my audience, and they’re interesting.  I could sit here for another hour and tell you about some of them, but whatever.  Here we have it that the rank and file of Israel are spiritually blind to this Age of Grace. Romans 11:25b “…that blindness (Sovereignly) in part is happened to Israel, (Then what’s the next word?) until (At some point in time that blindness is going to end, and God is going to be able to deal once again with His covenant people. When will that be?) until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”  All right, now you compare that with what we just read in Acts 15.  When will the fullness of the Gentiles come about?  When the Body of Christ is complete.  When the last person, I feel, has been saved and has become a member of the Body of Christ, we are out of here!  And God picks up where he left off with Israel. Now, I can’t understand why that’s so hard for people to see.  I had one lady that saw it in just 15 minutes of a phone conversation.

  And she said, “Les, it’s all so logical!”  Yeah, that’s exactly what it is.  It’s so logical.  God has set Israel aside for 1,900 and some years.  He has fulfilled the prophecy of bringing them back, and He is filling up the Body of Christ.  And one of these days it’s going to be full.  The trumpet will sound.  We’re out of here, and God will start dealing with Israel. Oh, it’s going to be horrible for seven years.  But He's still dealing primarily with Israel. As a result of all of their chastisement and the wrath and vexation of God, here comes the Kingdom.  And for the Jews who have survived and are believers, they’ll go into that Kingdom. They’re going to enjoy all the promises of God that have been spoken for the last 4,000 years.  It’s just going to come rolling in on the Nation like a flood.  As the Old Testament puts it, “They’re going to blossom like a rose in the desert.” So, don’t ever give up on the Nation of Israel.

[notbryanray]

Quote from Said's ORIENTALISM

The following excerpts are from the very start (pages 31, 34 & 35) of Edward W. Said’s book ORIENTALISM.

On June 13, 1910, Arthur James Balfour lectured the House of Commons on "the problems with which we have to deal in Egypt." […] He spoke with the authority of a long-time member of Parliament, former private secretary to Lord Salisbury, former chief secretary for Ireland, former secretary for Scotland, former prime minister, veteran of numerous overseas crises, achievements, and changes. During his involvement in imperial affairs Balfour served a monarch who in 1876 had been declared Empress of India; he had been especially well placed in positions of uncommon influence to follow the Afghan and Zulu wars, the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, the death of General Gordon in the Sudan, the Fashoda Incident, the battle of Omdurman, the Boer War, the Russo-Japanese War. In addition his remarkable social eminence, the breadth of his learning and wit—he could write on such varied subjects as Bergson, Handel, theism, and golf—his education at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, and his apparent command over imperial affairs all gave considerable authority to what he told the Commons in June 1910. […]

As a rhetorical performance Balfour's speech is significant for the way in which he plays the part of, and represents, a variety of characters. There are of course "the English," for whom the pronoun "we" is used with the full weight of a distinguished, powerful man who feels himself to be representative of all that is best in his nation's history. Balfour can also speak for the civilized world, the West, and the relatively small corps of colonial officials in Egypt. If he does not speak directly for the Orientals, it is because they after all speak another language; yet he knows how they feel since he knows their history, their reliance upon such as he, and their expectations. Still, he does speak for them in the sense that what they might have to say, were they to be asked and might they be able to answer, would somewhat uselessly confirm what is already evident: that they are a subject race, dominated by a race that knows them and what is good for them better than they could possibly know themselves. Their great moments were in the past; they are useful in the modern world only because the powerful and up-to-date empires have effectively brought them out of the wretchedness of their decline and turned them into rehabilitated residents of productive colonies.

[quranandearth]

Tomorrow November 2 is the 105th anniversary of the ill-fated Balfour Declaration

Do you know what the Balfour Declaration is?

On November 2, 1917, the ill-fated Balfour Declaration was issued, according to which Britain granted the Jews the right to establish a national home in Palestine, based on the false saying "a land without a people for a people without a land." With this promise, the famous phrase summarizing such a situation was fulfilled: 'He has given a promise to the unworthy', and that day will be a black day in the history of the Palestinian people, indeed in the history of all mankind, and a blow to justice and international legitimacy. This promise was the first actual step of the West on the road to establishing a Jewish entity on the land of Palestine in response to the wishes of world Zionism at the expense of an authentic people rooted in this land for thousands of years. The promise came in the form of a statement addressed by the then British Foreign Secretary (Arthur James Balfour) in the government of David Lloyd George on November 2, 1917 to Lord Rothschild (one of the leaders of the world Zionist movement) after three years of negotiations between the British government on the one hand, and British Jews and the World Zionist Organization on the other; through which the Zionists were able to convince Britain of their ability to achieve Britain's goals and preserve its interests in the region.

==

غداً 2 نوفمبر الذكرى رقم 105 لوعد بلفور المشؤوم

هل تعرف ما هو وعد بلفور؟

في الثاني من تشرين الثاني 1917 صدر وعد بلفور المشؤوم، الذي منحت بموجبه بريطانيا حقًا لليهود في تأسيس وطن قومي لهم في فلسطين، بناءً على المقولة المزيفة "أرض بلا شعب لشعب بلا أرض".

بهذا الوعد تحققت العبارة الشهيرة التي تلخص حالة من هذا القبيل: 'لقد أعطى من لا يملك وعداً لمن لا يستحق'، وليكون ذلك اليوم يوماً أسود في تاريخ الشعب الفلسطيني، بل في تاريخ البشرية كلها، وضربة للعدالة والشرعية الدولية.

وكان هذا الوعد بمثابة الخطوة الفعلية الأولى للغرب على طريق إقامة كيان لليهود على أرض فلسطين استجابة لرغبات الصهيونية العالمية على حساب شعب أصيل متجذر في هذه الأرض منذ آلاف السنين.

وجاء الوعد على شكل تصريح موجه من قبل وزير خارجية بريطانيا آنذاك (آرثر جيمس بلفور) في حكومة ديفيد لويد جورج في الثاني من تشرين الثاني من عام 1917م إلى اللورد روتشيلد (أحد زعماء الحركة الصهيونية العالمية) وذلك بعد مفاوضات استمرت ثلاث سنوات دارت بين الحكومة البريطانية من جهة، واليهود البريطانيين والمنظمة الصهيونية العالمية من جهة أخرى؛ واستطاع من خلالها الصهاينة إقناع بريطانيا بقدرتهم على تحقيق أهداف بريطانيا، والحفاظ على مصالحها في المنطقة

[jacobsvoice]

Unsettled by Settlements

(October 21, 2022 / JNS)

New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Patrick Kingsley has an Israeli “occupation” obsession. One month into his new position (February 2021) he identified the Palestinian city of Ramallah as “the hub of the occupied West Bank.” The Palestinian Authority, Kingsley has written, “oversees parts of the occupied territories.” In his opinion Jewish settlements in “occupied territories” are the major obstacle to peace with Palestinians.

In his most recent iteration (Oct. 15) Kingsley referred to Israel’s “occupied West Bank,” “the occupied territories,” “the 55-year occupation” and “Israeli occupation.” But Kingsley is not the first Times reporter to fixate on settlements as the major obstacle to peace with Palestinians, the better to blame Israel for Palestinian intransigence.

Leading the way was Thomas Friedman, Jerusalem Bureau Chief between 1984-88 and a columnist ever since. Settlements, he wrote, are “insane,” “a cancer for the Jewish people” that “threatens the entire Zionist enterprise.” Israel’s “colonial occupation” (of its biblical homeland) expressed “insatiable appetites” for “Palestinian land.” Settlement building, he insisted, was “sheer madness.” Friedman absurdly equated Jewish settlers with Palestinian suicide bombers.

Friedman, like his Times successors, is oblivious to history. It was Arabs who occupied land promised to the Jewish people by the Balfour Declaration (1917), when British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour conveyed British government endorsement of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

But where was “Palestine?” Its boundaries were redefined, and sharply narrowed, after World War I when the land east of the Jordan River was gifted by Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to Abdullah bin al-Hussein for his own kingdom. Then, during Israel’s war of independence, the kingdom of Jordan seized land west of the Jordan River that had comprised Biblical Judea and Samaria. Obliterating Jewish history, it became known as Jordan’s “West Bank.” Not until Israel’s stunning victory in the Six-Day War (1967) was that land restored to the Jewish people. Despised Jewish “settlers,” following in the path of their Zionist predecessors, soon began the return to their biblical homeland.

Times bureau chiefs and columnists have been unrelenting in their criticism of settlers. Serge Schmemann blamed “the fears and passions of the settlers” for the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin—although his assassin lived in the Tel Aviv suburb of Herzliya. Steven Erlanger, oblivious to the prominent place of Hebron in Jewish history, described its tiny Jewish neighborhood as “occupied” by settlers.

The litany of criticism was endless. Editorial page editor Jack Rosenthal warned that “the more settlements, the more Israelis desensitize to the odious idea of dominating others.” Columnist Roger Cohen cited Israel’s “self-defeating expansion of settlements.” To columnist Anthony Lewis, “occupied territories” by settlers reveal that Israel “does not live up to minimum standards of humanity.”

Times editors, convinced that settlements undermined Israeli democracy, were stunned by a report from former Israeli Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy concluding that settlements were legal under international law. The rule of law, often defended by the Times as its standard for criticism of Israel, was suddenly irrelevant once it protected settlements. An editorial criticized “the aggressive new push to expand settlements.”

Times laceration of settlements was relentless. Friedman criticized “scary religious nationalist zealots” who were “so arrogant, and so indifferent to U.S. concerns” as to announce the plan for new settlements—as though Israelis must not act without American approval. Otherwise, he imagined, Israel could become “an apartheid-like state.” For Roger Cohen, troubled by a “religious-nationalist push to keep all the land” (including its biblical homeland), “messianic” settlers undermined the principles of “freedom, justice and peace” embedded in Israel’s Proclamation of Independence.

Now the Times has Patrick Kingsley to castigate the return of Jews to their Biblical homeland. Yet, ironically, it is Palestinians who occupy Jewish land in biblical Judea and Samaria. Unfit to print, the Times is not likely to notice.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of 12 books including Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel (2009).

[bravebeing]

oo

De troon van de Antichrist wordt klaargezet

zondag, 09 mei 2021 19:54 Hits: 9941

Terwijl de wereld zich druk bezighoudt met een nep coronapandemie en wij stilte houden om de Holocaust te herdenken, gebeuren er ook andere dingen.

Zoals mensen wiens huis wordt gestolen, hun kinderen doodgeschoten en die een kogel in de rug krijgen als ze aan het bidden zijn.  

We hebben afgelopen week weer een volledige lading herdenkingen over ons heen gekregen, waarbij men elkaar plechtig verzekerde dat dit soort dingen nooit meer voor zullen komen.

Zo hebben wij op 4 mei de dodenherdenking die formeel gaat over alle doden die zijn gevallen sinds het uitbreken van de Tweede Wereldoorlog, maar in de praktijk de herdenking van de Holocaust betekent.

Maar, gelukkig liggen die tijden ver achter ons en hebben de Joden tegenwoordig een eigen land waar ze niet bang hoeven zijn voor vervolging.

Echter, hetzelfde kan niet worden gezegd over de Palestijnen die er ook wonen.

Zoals inmiddels bekend zijn er

nog slechts kleine gebieden

over waar de Palestijnen mogen wonen in Israël en die paar kleine gebieden die er nog zijn, worden er met de dag minder. Voor meer achtergrondinformatie

verwijzen wij naar dit eerdere artikel.

Nu verschijnen er het

volgende soort berichten:

Tienduizenden moslims waren voor het vrijdaggebed naar de Al-Aqsamoskee gekomen, die geldt als een van de heiligste plekken voor moslims. De Tempelberg waarop de moskee ligt is in het jodendom de heiligste plaats.

Na de gebeden begon een demonstratie tegen de uitzetting van Palestijnse families in een wijk in Oost-Jeruzalem. In de avond keerden betogers zich tegen de politie en gooiden onder meer met stenen en flessen.

Wat er bij de NOS uiteraard niet verschijnt zijn de volgende beelden, waar dit commentaar bij werd geplaatst:

Unforgivable scenes of inhumane barbarity inside a House of God as israeli occupiers attack Palestinians praying inside al-Aqsa Mosque

En verder dat Israëlische troepen in het wilde weg schieten op mensen die aan het bidden zijn in de Al-Aqsa moskee. Er raakten meer dan 163 Palestijnen gewond en klaarblijkelijk mocht er geen medische hulp worden geboden.

Men noemt deze schietpartij het begin van de Derde Intifida.

Videolink

Wat je ook niet ziet bij de NOS zijn het volgende soort beelden waarbij huizen van Palestijnen worden gestolen door Joodse kolonisten.

Videolink

Wat je ook niet ziet bij de NOS zijn het volgende soort berichten. Altijd maar weer berichten over Palestijnse kinderen die worden vermoord.

Breaking: Israeli forces killed Said Yousef Mohammad Odeh, 16, on May 5 around 9 p.m. in Odala, a village south of Nablus, in the occupied West Bank. He sustained two gunshot wounds from the back and died soon after. pic.twitter.com/AraGv1X8ZS

De manier waarop dit land tot stand is gekomen is iets dat waarschijnlijk niet veel mensen weten. Wel bekend bij velen is de zogenaamde Balfour Declaration waarover dan

het volgende wordt geschreven:

De Britse minister Arthur Balfour stuurde op 2 november 1917 een brief naar Lord Rothschild, een prominent Brits zionist. De brief werd bekend als de Balfour-declaratie. Veel Joden zagen de brief als een internationale goedkeuring voor de stichting van de staat Israël.

De verklaring wordt voor een groot deel toegeschreven aan lobbywerk van Chaim Weizmann, een van de leiders van de Zionistische Wereldorganisatie. In de brief stond:

“Hare Majesteits regering staat welwillend tegenover de vestiging van een nationaal huis voor het Joodse volk in Palestina, en zal naar beste vermogen het bereiken van dit doel ondersteunen, waarbij het duidelijk moet zijn dat niets zal worden gedaan dat de burgerlijke en religieuze rechten van bestaande niet-Joodse gemeenschappen in Palestina kan schaden, of de rechten en politieke status die Joden genieten in enig ander land”.

Wat er natuurlijk nooit bij staat bij dit soort verhalen is waarom Balfour dat deed. Waarom zou de Engelse overheid het land Palestina aan de Zionisten geven? Welk belang hadden ze daarbij?

Het heeft dan ook niets te maken met lobbywerk, maar alles met omkoping.

De Balfour Declarion werd geschreven en afgegeven in november 1917. Echter, er is wel degelijk iets aan vooraf gegaan en dat begon in 1916. Groot-Brittannië was volop in een slopende oorlog met Duitsland verwikkeld en wilde niets liever dan dat Amerika aan haar zijde mee zou doen, zodat ze samen met deze machtige bondgenoot erin zouden slagen om de Duitsers te verslaan.

De Zionisten wisten de Britse overheid ervan te overtuigen dat zij met hun invloed erin zouden slagen om Amerika bij die oorlog te betrekken, aldus onderzoeker en auteur James Perloff in zijn boek:

Thirteen Pieces of the Jigsaw.

Zij hadden tenslotte volledige controle over de toenmalige president

Woodrow Wilson

, net zoals ze dat ook hebben over

huidige Amerikaanse presidenten.

Volgens Perloff hadden ze het voor elkaar dat Wilson voor zijn verkiezing in maart 2013 een afspraak had gemaakt met de machtige Joodse bankier

Bernard Baruch

.

Er werd overeengekomen dat Wilson vier dingen zou doen als hij zou worden gekozen tot president.

Die vier dingen waren:

1. Goed luisteren naar het advies dat hem in zijn oor zou worden gefluisterd over de samenstelling van zijn kabinet.

2. Het ondersteunen van de plannen voor de oprichting van een centrale bank, de Federal Reserve (is in december 1913 opgericht).

3. Het ondersteunen van plannen voor het invoeren van inkomstenbelasting (is in 1913 ingevoerd).

4. Goed luisteren naar het advies dat hem in zijn oor zou worden gefluisterd als er een oorlog in Europa zou uitbreken (oorlog begon in 1914).

Zoals bekend is het hen gelukt om Amerika bij de oorlog te betrekken. Los van dat Groot-Brittannië hier voordeel bij had, wilden zij ook dat de Amerikaanse overheid zo snel mogelijk zoveel mogelijk geld ging lenen bij de nieuwe door hen gecontroleerde Federal Reserve Bank (FED) en daarvoor was een oorlog de uitgelezen gelegenheid.

Volgens Perloff hebben ze eerst een poging ondernomen om Amerika bij de oorlog te betrekken via een false flag operatie met het torpederen en

laten zinken van de Lusitania

. Een groot Brits passagiersschip met aan boord ook veel Amerikanen. Dit plan mislukte deels omdat, ondanks dat het schip werd gezonken, de Amerikanen toch nog niet zover waren dat ze in een oorlog betrokken wilden worden.

Maar, zoals Perloff beschrijft, wat het zinken van dit schip wel veroorzaakte was dat er als het ware een bodem was gelegd en een behoorlijke hoeveelheid propaganda later lukte het Wilson wel om het Congres ervan te overtuigen dat een oorlog met Duitsland bittere noodzaak was.

De Britten hadden echter ook een probleem, want alleen het afgeven van de Balfour Declaration aan de Rothschild was niet genoeg, want het land Palestina was op dat moment nog onderdeel van het Ottomaanse Rijk.

Maar, een beetje geluk komt altijd van pas en omdat het Ottomaanse Rijk een bondgenoot was van Duitsland hadden de Britten een reden om een invasie in Palestina uit te voeren. Dit deden ze met behulp van de Arabieren aan wie ze Palestina beloofden als deze zouden helpen met het verslaan van de Turken.

Wat de Britten ter plekke in het Midden Oosten niet wisten was dat achter hun rug om het land was weggegeven aan de Rothschild.

Vijf dagen nadat de Britten de Balfour Declaration hadden afgegeven begonnen de Joodse Bolsjewieken de revolutie in Rusland, waarmee Rusland geen verdere partij meer was in de oorlog. Men vermoedt volgens Perloff dat Lenin heeft gewacht op het seintje van zijn Wall Street bankier controllers om te wachten met het grijpen van de macht totdat de Britten de Balfour Declaration hadden ondertekend.

Volgens Perloff is de reden dat de Zionisten het land Palestina willen omdat het onderdeel is van hun geheime agenda en die is dat ze de troon van de Antichrist in Jeruzalem willen voorbereiden.

En daar zijn ze zo te zien nu volop mee bezig.

[the-paintrist]

Sir James Guthrie - Statesmen of World War I - 1924-30

Work given to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1930. See source website for additional information. All images in this batch have been confirmed as author died before 1939 according to the official death date listed by the NPG.

The individuals depicted are, from left to right, starting with those seated on the left side of the table:

Sir Joseph Cook, former Prime Minister of Australia (1913–14), Leader of the Opposition (Australia) (1914–1916), Minister for the Navy (1917–20) (with beard)

Billy Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia (1915–23) (head resting on hand)

David Lloyd George, 1st Earl Lloyd-George, Chancellor of the Exchequer (1908–1915), Minister of Munitions (1915–1916), Secretary of State for War (1916), Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1916–1922)

Alfred Milner, 1st Viscount Milner, Secretary of State for War (1918–19) (leaning forward)

William Massey, Prime Minister of New Zealand (1912–25) (seated facing away)

Sir Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty (1911–15), Minister of Munitions (1917–19) (later Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1940–45 and 1951–55) (illuminated)

Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon, Foreign Secretary (1905–16) (in profile with aquiline nose)

Standing behind Lloyd George are:

Ganga Singh, Maharaja of Bikaner, only "non-White" member of the Imperial War Cabinet

Louis Botha, Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa (1910–19)

Behind Churchill are:

George Nicoll Barnes, leader of the National Democratic and Labour Party

Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada (1911–20)

To their right are:

Arthur Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1902-05); First Lord of the Admiralty (1915–16) and Foreign Secretary (1916–19) (standing adlocutio in a black suit)

Herbert Henry Asquith, 1st Earl of Oxford and Asquith, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1908–16) (sitting in front)

Sir Eric Campbell Geddes, First Lord of the Admiralty (1917–19) (behind, cleanshaven)

Andrew Bonar Law, Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) (1911–15), Secretary of State for the Colonies (1915–16), Chancellor of the Exchequer (1916–19) (later *Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1922–23) (dark moustache)

Edward Morris, 1st Baron Morris, Prime Minister of Newfoundland (1909–17) (white moustache, in the shadows)

Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener, Secretary of State for War (1914–1916) (in the shadows)

Sir James Guthrie (10 June 1859 – 6 September 1930) was a Scottish painter, best known in his own lifetime for his portraiture, although today more generally regarded as a painter of Scottish Realism.

[astrte]

There are three kinds of lies...

What's the meaning of the phrase 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics'?

This saying has a literal meaning. It suggests that statisyics can be used to mislead even more than the worst form of untruth.

What's the origin of the phrase 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics'?

This quotation is often attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th century British Prime Minister. The source for this view is the autobiography of Mark Twain, where he makes that attribution. Nevertheless, no version of this quotation has been found in any of Disraeli's published works or letters. An early reference to the expression, which may explain Twain's assertion is found in a speech made by Leonard H. Courtney, (1832-1918), later Lord Courtney, in New York in 1895:

'After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, "Lies - damn lies - and statistics," still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of.’

There's no indication that by 'Wise Statesman' Courtney was referring to any specific person, although it may be that Twain thought that he meant Disraeli.

The earliest citation that I know of of the current usage of the phrase, that is, "there are three kinds of falsehoods, lies, damned lies and statistics" is from Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, as quoted in the Manchester Guardian, 29th June 1892:

“Professor [Joseph] Munro reminded him of an old saying which he rather reluctantly proposed, in that company, to repeat. It was to the effect that there were three gradations of inveracity - there were lies, there were d-d lies, and there were statistics."

It is quite possible that earlier examples may be found in print. There are certainly numerous earlier examples that approximate to the phrase - "a fib, a lie and statistics" (1891), "simple liars, damned liars and experts" (1885) etc. There are several other examples from the 1880s and 1890s of different wordings of what is the same thought, that is, the distrust of misleadingly interpreted statistical data.

In 1885, Leonard Huxley, published The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, a memoir of his distinguished zoologist father. Included in this is T. H. Huxley's account of a meeting of the X Club, which was a gathering of eminent thinkers who aimed to advance the cause of science, especially Darwinism:

"Talked politics, scandal, and the three classes of witnesses - liars, d-d liars, and experts.”

The same idea was also current in the USA around the same date. The New Albany Daily Ledger printed this opinion in July1887:

The total value of the entire agricultural crop for 1886 is given at $219,531... There is nothing lies like statistics.

As more printed material from the late 19th century becomes digitally available I've little doubt that the dates above will be pushed backwards. As things stand, the earliest example of the phrase comes from Balfour in 1892.

(THE ABODE)

[mustafailhann]

100 Yıldır Kanayan Yara: Filistin II.

Dönüm noktası: Balfour Deklarasyonu  

Birinci Dünya Savaşı arifesinde Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun zayıflaması, hem Büyük Devletlere, hem Siyonistlere hem de Arap milliyetçilerine büyük cesaret vermişti. Aslında nüfus dağılımına bakıldığında 1914’de Filistin’deki durum Siyonist argümanlara hiç uygun değildi. Değişik kaynaklara göre, bölgede 525 bin ila 683 bin Müslüman’a karşılık, 40 ila 80 bin arasında Yahudi yaşıyordu. Siyonistlerin bütün çabası, Büyük Devletlerin Filistin’e göçe izin vermesi ve desteklemesiydi.

Yeni yeni siyasallaşan Arap milliyetçiliğinin ise ortak bir programı yoktu. Örneğin Türk tarih yazımında ‘Arapların Türkleri sırtından hançerlemesi’ olarak yer etmiş Mekke Şerifi Hüseyin’in isyanı Hicaz’daki kabileler tarafından bile tam desteklenmemiş, Mısırlı entelektüeller arasında büyük huzursuzluk yaratmış, Suriyeli ve Iraklı milliyetçiler, Hüseyin’e çok uzak durmuşlardı. Filistin’in Hüseyin’e ilgisi olmamış, Hüseyin’in Filistin’e ilgisi ise Kudüs’ün kutsallığıyla sınırlı kalmıştı. Ancak zaman içinde, gerek Siyonistler, gerekse Arap milliyetçileri ulus-devletlerini kurmayı başardılar. Sadece Filistinlilerin hayali gerçekleşmedi. Bunun nedenlerine daha sonra değineceğim. Şimdi İsrail Devleti’nin kuruluşuna giden yolu açan ünlü mektuba değinelim.

Tarihî mektup

Lloyd George kabinesinin Dışişleri Bakanı Arthur James Balfour’un Britanya Parlamentosu’nun Yahudi asıllı üyesi Lord Walter Rothschild’e yazdığı 2 Kasım 1917 tarihli kısa mektupta şöyle deniyordu: “Majestelerinin Hükümeti adına size bildirmekten mutluluk duyarım ki, Yahudi Siyonist emellere sempatiyi belirten ekteki deklarasyon kabineye sunulmuş ve kabul edilmiştir. Majestelerinin Hükümeti, Filistin’de Yahudiler için bir milli yurt kurulmasını uygun görmekte olup bu hedefin gerçekleştirilmesini kolaylaştırmak için elinden gelenin en iyisini yapacaktır. Şurası açıkça anlaşılmalıdır ki, Filistin’deki Yahudi olmayan toplumların sivil ve dini haklarına ve Yahudilerin diğer ülkelerde sahip oldukları hak ve politik statülerine halel getirebilecek hiç bir şey yapılmayacaktır. Bu deklarasyonu, Siyonist Organizasyonun bilgisine sunarsanız müteşekkir olurum.”

Muğlak ifadeler

Deklarasyonda kullanılan dil zaman içinde herkesin kendi arzularına göre yorumlanmasına olanak verecek kadar muğlaktı. Örneğin Siyonistler ‘yurt kurma’yı ‘devlet kurma’ olarak okuyorlardı. Sonra ‘Filistin Yahudilerin milli yurdudur’ denmiyordu bunun yerine ‘Filistin’de Yahudilere bir yurt’ kurulmasından söz ediliyordu. Bunu telafi etmek için, Yahudi olmayan topluluklardan söz ediliyordu ama Filistinlilerin adı anılmıyordu. Yahudi olmayan toplulukların gözetilecek hakları vatandaşlık hakları ve dini haklar olarak tarif edilirken, Yahudilerin hakları ‘politik statü’ gibi daha farklı bir terimle tarif ediliyordu. Kısacası, deklarasyon Siyonistleri memnun etmemişti ama hiç yoktan iyiydi.

O günkü Britanya hükümetinin tek taraflı beyandan ileri gitmeyen bu beyanın başka garip yanları da vardı. Birincisi bu beyanı yapan Britanya’nın Filistin’le ne tarihte, ne o dönemde hiçbir ilişkisi yoktu. İkincisi, hakkında beyanda bulunulan Filistin, hukuken ve fiilen Osmanlı toprağıydı. Üçüncüsü, bu beyanın kime yapıldığı belli değildi. Nitekim, Balfour Lord Rothchild’den mektubu Siyonist Organizasyona iletmesini rica etmişti. Peki, Siyonist Organizasyon kimleri temsil ediyordu?

Kudüs’ün düşmesi

Balfour Deklarasyonu’nun ilanından üç hafta sonra General Allenby komutasındaki İngiliz ve Arap birlikleri Kudüs’ü Osmanlılardan teslim aldılar. Bunu Osmanlı birliklerinin Suriye cephelerinde yenilgiye uğratılması izledi. 30 Ekim 1918 tarihinde imzalanan Mondros Mütarekesi ile tüm Filistin, Britanya’nın kontrolüne bırakıldı. Böylece, yukarıdaki sorulardan ikisi cevaplanmış oldu: Britanya, ilerde kendisinin olacağından emin olduğu bir toprak hakkında beyanda bulunmuştu.

Siyonistler Britanya’nın ‘Yahudilere Filistin’de bir yurt kurulması’ derken, bir devlet kurmaktan bahsetmediklerini kısa sürede anladılar ama koşullar uygun olmadığı için sineye çektiler. Hatta Siyonist önderlerden Nahum Sokolow bir adım daha ileri gitti ve ‘Bazıları deklarasyonun bağımsız bir Yahudi devleti kurulmasını amaçladığını söylüyor. Halbuki Yahudi Devleti hiçbir zaman Siyonist programın bir parçası olmamıştır” dedi.

Ardından Britanya yetkilileri, Mekke Şerifi Hüseyin’i temin ettiler ki, Yahudi yerleşimlerine sadece Arap nüfusun ekonomik ve politik özgürlükleri ile uyumlu olduğu sürece izin verilecekti. Şerif Hüseyin böylece Filistin’e Yahudi göçünün sürmesine izin verdi.

Faysal-Weizmann Anlaşması

3 Ocak 1919’da geleceğin düşman kardeşleri, Şerif Hüseyin’in oğlu Faysal’la Haim Weizmann Akabe’de buluştular. Faysal’a İngilizler tarafından vaat edilen Irak ve Suriye’de kurulacak Arap Devleti ile Filistin’de kurulacak Yahudi yurdu hakkında konuştular. Ardından bir deklarasyon imzaladılar. Buna göre Yahudilerin Filistin’e göç etmesini teşvik etmek ve canlandırmak için gerekli tüm tedbirler alınacak, mümkün olan süratle Yahudi göçmenler birbirine yakın yerleşim alanlarına iskân edileceklerdi. Bu tedbirler alınırken, Arap köylülerin ve araziyi kiralayanların hakları korunacak ve ekonomik gelişimlerini sağlayacak şekilde yardımda bulunulacaktı.

Ancak, 6 Temmuz 1919’da toplanan Büyük Suriye Kongresi’nde, Faysal’dan daha tecrübeli Arap milliyetçileri bu kadar yumuşak davranmadılar. Kongre, ‘Yahudi yurdu’ ile ‘Yahudi devleti’nin aynı şey olmadığını, Siyonist Organizasyonu tanımadıklarını, buna karşılık Suriye ve Filistin’de yaşayan Yahudilerin diğer vatandaşlarla eşit sorumluluk ve haklara sahip olacaklarını ilan etti. Kongre ayrıca, Yahudilerin Filistin’e, bir deniz kavmi olduğu sanılan Filistîlerden daha sonraki bir tarihte gelmesini ima ederek ‘Yahudilerin iki bin yıl önce bu topraklarda işgalci olmalarından doğan haklarını tanımayacaklarını’ belirtti.

Kongre’de söylenenleri dinleyen Arthur Balfour, 11 Ağustos 1919 tarihinde Britanya hükümetine verdiği memorandumda şöyle demişti: “Dört Büyük Devlet, Siyonizme taahhütte bulundular. Siyonizm, doğru ya da yanlış, iyi ya da kötü, kökü asırlarca geriye giden bir geleneği, bugünkü ihtiyaçları, gelecekteki umutları temsil ediyor ve bu antik topraklarda yerleşik bulunan 700 bin Arabın arzuları ve önyargılarından daha derin bir önemi ifade ediyor.”

Görünen o ki, Büyük Devletler, 90 yılda, Balfour’un açıkladığı noktadan bir adım ileri gitmiş değil!

Balfour Deklarasyonu neden yapıldı?

Balfour Deklarasyonu’nun baş mimarlarından Sir Mark Sykes’ın oğlu Christopher Sykes, Crossroad to Israil (Londra 1965) adlı eserinde ‘Kimse Balfour Deklarasyonu’nun niye yapıldığını bilmez’ diye yazmakta haklıydı. Mark Sykes 1919’da gripten öldüğünde Christopher Sykes henüz 12 yaşında olduğu için cevabı bilmiyor olması doğaldı. Halbuki pek çok kişi, o sırada Manchester Üniversitesi’nde kimya profesörü olan Haim Weizmann’ın, Britanya donanmasının kullandığı dumansız barutun (cordite) imalatında kullanılan asetonu, bakteriyel fermantasyon yolu ile imal etmeyi başardığı için ödüllendirildiğini ileri surer. Bunu düşündüren bir ifade Lloyd George’un War Memoirs (Londra, 1936) adlı eserinde vardır. Ancak Weizmann özel bir sohbetinde, bu efsaneye ilişkin şu ironic açıklamayı yapmıştı: “Herkes benim büyük bir kimyager olduğumu söylüyor. Tam bir saçmalık. Ama eğer Siyonizm davasına hizmet ettiysem, bu iddiayı kabul edebilirim.”

Weizmann haklıdır, çünkü bulduğu yöntemle aseton üretmek pek mümkün olmamıştır. Ancak, mümkün olsaydı bile, Britanya’nın bir avuç aseton karşılığı emperyal çıkarlarına uymayan bir adım atması beklenemezdi.

Sykes-Picot Antlaşması

Bugün savaş dönemine ait belgeleri ve hatıratları inceleyen araştırmacılar esas olarak iki senaryo üzerinde duruyor. Bunlardan ilki çok bilinen bir senary 1916 ilkbaharında Britanya adına Sir Mark Sykes ile Fransa adına George Picot’nun imzaladığı gizli Sykes-Picot Antlaşması’na göre (ki anlaşmanın varlığından 1917 Devrimi’nden sonra Bolşevik yöneticilerin Çarlık idaresinin imzaladığı bütün gizli antlaşmaları açıklamaları sayesinde haberdar olunmuştu) Ortadoğu, Fransa ve Britanya’nın otorite alanlarına ayrılıyor, Filistin de Fransa’nın payına bırakılıyordu.

Bu durum, Britanya’nın hoşuna gitmemişti. Çünkü bu hat, Britanya’nın sömürgelerine giden Hindistan Yolu’nu Rusya’ya ve Fransa’ya karşı korumak açısından çok önemliydi. Ancak 1915 yılında Gelibolu’nda yaşanan hezimetten sonra, Britanya, Fransız müttefiklerine daha bağımlı hale gelmişti ve Filistin’i Fransızlara bırakmaya razı olmak zorunda kalmıştı. Söz konusu anlaşmanın mimarı olan Mark Sykes ise bu tavizden dolayı ‘günah keçisi’ ilan edilmişti. Britanya, Balfour Deklarasyonu aracılığıyla, Filistin’de Fransızların temsil ettiği Hıristiyan çıkarları ile Müslüman çıkarları arasında bir denge kurmak istemiş olabilirdi. Mark Sykes’in deklarasyonun ateşli taraftarı olmasının nedeni, muhtemelen Sykes-Picot Antlaşması’nı telafi etmek istemesiydi.

Bu tezin zayıf yanı, Britanya’nın aynı zamanda Haşimi Ailesi (Mekke Şerifi Hüseyin ve oğulları) aracılığıyla Arap kartını da oynamasıydı. Bilindiği gibi, Britanya’nın Siyonistlere verdiği bu taviz, Araplara karşı durumunu güçleştirmiş, Britanya 1947’ye kadar, Filistinlilerle Siyonistlerin arasında dengeyi sağlamakla uğraşmıştı.

Ortadoğu değil Avrupa cephesi

İkinci senaryoya göre, Balfour Deklarasyonu, Britanya’nın Ortadoğu politikalarından çok, Avrupa’daki savaş politikalarıyla ilgiliydi. Çünkü 1917 Nisan’ından itibaren Britanya savaşta zorlanmaya başlamış, ABD’nin İtilaf Devletleri’nin yanında savaşa sokulması, Rusya’nın savaştan kopmasının engellenmesi, Fransızların Filistin’den uzak tutulması ve Almanların Siyonistlere çengel atmasının önlenmesi önem kazanmıştı.

Bu hedeflerin ortak noktası Yahudilerdi. Öncelikle Britanya Yahudileri, kendi Yahudilerine pogrom’lar düzenleyen ‘Yaşlı Otokrat’ Rusya ile ittifak yapılmasına karşı çıkıyordu. Bu tepki, Rusya Romanya’nın Karpatlar bölgesindeki ve Polonya’daki Yahudileri sürmeye başladığında zirveye çıkmıştı. Aynı gerekçelerle Avrupalı ve Amerikalı Yahudi finansörlerden bazıları Rusya’daki Romanov Hanedanı’na kredi açmayı reddetmişlerdi. Ama daha kötüsü, Britanya Dışişlerine akan bir dizi istihbarat raporuna bakılırsa, Rusya, Polonya ve Romanya Yahudileri Almanların beşinci kolu gibi çalışıyordu. Benzer bilgiler İstanbul’daki konsolosluktan da gelmişti. Herzl, Abdülhamit ve Kayzer arasındaki görüşme trafiği, Siyonistlerin de Alman yanlısı politikalara yakın olduğunu düşündürmüştü.

Kadim önyargılar mı?

Bu algı önyargıya, yanlış istihbarata, tek yanlı değerlendirmelere dayanıyordu (örneğin Rusya Yahudileri Bund Hareketi dışında Menşevikleri destekliyordu ve devrimden sonra savaşın devamından yana tavır almışlardı) ancak sonuçta Britanya Dışişleri yetkililerin kafasında, ister Britanya’da, ister ABD’de, ister Rusya’da, ister Osmanlı ülkesinde olsun birbiriyle bağlantılı, uyumlu politikalar güden, varlıklı, güçlü, Britanya’ya düşman, Alman yanlısı Yahudi imgesi canlanmıştı. Savaşı kazanmak için dünya Yahudilerinin kazanılması gerektiğini düşünmüşlerdi. Deklarasyonu yayımlarken, Siyonistlerin dünya Yahudilerini temsil ettiğine inanmaları, Britanyalı yöneticilerin naifliğinden mi yoksa Weizmann, Sokolow, Samuel gibi Siyonist liderlerin becerisinden mi sorusuna gelince, ‘her ikisi de’ demek doğru olur.

Bu senaryoyu savunanların ima ettiği ilginç nokta, Balfour Deklarasyonu’nun Britanya’nın Yahudi sevgisinden değil, modern anti semitizmden doğduğu, arka planda, Yahudilerin dünyayı kendi amaçları uğruna kollektif bir şekilde yönetmek için komplolar kuracaklarına ilişkin kadim korkunun olması. Yani, Britanyalı karar alıcılar, inanmak istediklerine inanmışlardı.

Bu iddiayı destekleyen bir husus olarak da, Balfour Deklarasyonu’nu hazırlayan Balfour, Sykes, O’Beirne, Ormsby-Gore, Wickham-Steed gibi kadroların aslında anti semitik kişiler olduğunu söylüyorlar. Bu tabloya uymayan tek kişi Başbakan Lloyd George’tu ama, bazı araştırmacılar aslında onun da ‘inceltilmiş’ bir anti semitik olduğunu söylerler.

Balfour Deklarasyonu’na en büyük muhalefet Britanya Hükümeti’nin Hindistan’dan Sorumlu Bakanı Yahudi kökenli Edwin Montagu’den gelmişti. Montagu’ye göre bir Yahudi devletinin kurulması, Yahudilerin halen yaşadıkları ülkelere sadakatlerinin sorgulanmasına neden olabilirdi. Bu da yeni bir anti semitizm dalgası demekti. Montagu dünyanın değişik ülkelerinde eşit vatandaşlar olarak yaşamanın, Filistin’de Siyonist bir getto’ya kapatılmakla değiştirilemeyeceğini söylüyordu. Montagu’nün temsil ettiği kesimler Yahudilerin tarihsel olarak başlarına gelenlerden kalkarak Filistinlilerin haklarının yok sayılmasının ahlaki olarak ne anlama geldiğinin farkındaydılar.

Siyonizmin babası Theodor Herzl’e göre, Avrupa’nın anti semitikliği, İtilaf Devletleri’nin bir Yahudi devleti kurulmasına ön ayak olmasında temel itici güç olacaktı! Sonuca bakınca Herzl’in haklı olduğunu kabul etmek gerekiyor…

İttihatçılar ve Siyonizm ilişkisi

İttihatçıların yabancıların denetiminde bir Mason locası yerine, 1909’da Osmanlı Büyük Doğusu adlı ‘yerli’ bir loca kurdukları, bu locanın üstatlığına da Talat Paşa’nın getirildiği bilinir. Bu ve başka ilişkiler yüzünden bugün bazı kişiler, 1908’de Meşrutiyet’in ikinci kez ilanını bile, Abdülhamit’in Siyonistlere satmadığı Filistin topraklarıyla ilişkilendirirler.

1910 yılında Osmanlı Büyük Doğusu, İskenderiye’de ararda dört loca açınca, içlerine Mısır’ı kaybetme korkusu düşen İngilizler de İttihatçılara yöneltilen Masonluk/Siyonistlik suçlamalarına destek verirler. Meclis’te bu konuda pek çok konuşma yapılmıştır.

Talat Paşa’nın savunması

Ancak, Filistin’e Yahudi göçü ya da Siyonizm gibi konular Osmanlı Meclisi’nde çok az görüşülmüştür. Bu konuda en şiddetli tartışmalar 1911 şubatındaki bütçe görüşmeleri sırasında yapılmıştır. Hürriyet ve İtilaf Fırkası’ndan Dersim Mebusu Lütfi Fikri ve Gümilcine mebusu İsmail Hakkı Beyler, İttihatçı hükümeti bazı kredi anlaşmalarında Siyonistlerle işbirliği yapmakla suçlamışlardı. İsmail Hakkı Bey’e göre, Siyonizm dehşetli bir illetti ve Siyonizmin hedefi, bölgedeki Yahudi sayısını arttırarak Filistin’den Mezopotamya’ya uzanan bir devlet kurmaktı. Bu suçlamalara hem Sadrazam İbrahim Hakkı Paşa hem Dahiliye Nazırı Talat Paşa hem de meclisin Yahudi mebusları karşı çıkmışlardı. Onlara göre bir Yahudi devleti kurulması gibi bir hedef yoktu, Osmanlı Devleti ile Siyonistler arasında ilişki de yoktu. Bu tartışmalarda, Meclisin Arap kökenli milletvekilleri hükümetle muhalefet arasında ikiye ayrılmıştı. İTC Aydın mebusu Ubeydullah Efendi muhalefetin kin ve nefretle hareket ettiğini iddia edince, Arap mebuslar muhalefete destek çıkmışlardı.

Konunun Meclis'in gündemine ikinci gelişi Mayıs ayında, Dahiliye Nezareti’nin bütçesi görüşülürken olur. Kudüs mebusu Ruhi el Halidi, hükümetin Siyonizm denen ‘dahili meselelere’ yönelik tavrını öğrenmek ister. Halidi’nin Siyonizmden, semitizmden, Herzl ve Mendelhsonn’un teorilerinden, Siyonizme taraftar olan ve karşı olanlardan söz eden uzun konuşmasını Türk ve Arap kökenli mebuslar ilgiyle dinlerken, Yahudi mebuslar tepki gösterirler. Halidi’nin ardından söz alan bir diğer Kudüs mebusu Said el Hüseyni ise, Taberiye’nin dörtte üçünün, Hayfa’nın dörtte birinin Yahudiler tarafından ele geçirildiğini söyleyerek hükümeti umarsızlıkla suçlar. Dahiliye Nazırı Talat Paşa’nın buna cevabı, Yahudilerin Hicaz hariç, imparatorluğun her yerinde toprak almaya hakları olduğu yolunda olur. Arnavut mebus Hafız İbrahim de, Yahudilerin Suriye ve Irak’ı ele geçireceği korkusuyla alay ederek, Talat Paşa’ya destek verir. Ertesi gün, Siyonist önderlerle ilişkisi olan Bulgar mebus Dimitri Vlahog Yahudi göçünün ekonomik yararlarından söz ettiğinde, Arap mebuslar onu protesto ederler ancak tartışmalar daha fazla sürmez ve bütçe görüşmeleri içinde konu unutulup gider.

I. Bölüm | II. Bölüm | III. Bölüm | IV. Bölüm

Filistin meselesi mutlaka kulağınıza, gözünüze tanıdık geliyor olmalı... İyi ama neler oluyor orada? İsrailliler ve Filistinliler 90 yıldır neden birbirleriyle savaşıyorlar, neyin mücadelesini veriyorlar? Araaştırmacı yazar Ayşe Hür'ün kaleminden çok iyi hazırlanmış bir dosya...

[jewishvirtuallibrary-blog]

Today in Jewish History (1917): The UK Government endorses the Balfour Declaration.  x

Today is the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Balfour Declaration.  On November 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour wrote a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild. The contents of this letter became known as the Balfour Declaration.  

The British had no right to determine the future of Palestine; however, the League of Nations gave the Balfour Declaration international legitimacy when it was incorporated in the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically referred to the historical connections of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the moral validity of reconstituting their National Home in that country. The term reconstituting shows recognition of the fact that Palestine had been the Jews’ home. Furthermore, the British were instructed to use their best endeavors to facilitate Jewish immigration, to encourage settlement on the land and to secure the Jewish National Home. The word Arab does not appear in the Mandatory award. The Mandate was formalized by the 52 governments at the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

To read more about one of the most important documents in Jewish history, please click here!  

[thedsp-blog1]

Dr. Death’s victim list

Acton, Lily Adams, Lizzie Adkinson, Sarah Adshead, Norman Adshead, Rose Ann Aitken, Irene Andrew, Dorothy Mary Andrew, Joseph Andrew, Mary Emma Arrandale, Albert Arrowsmith, Winifred Ashcroft, Netta Ashton, Dora Elizabeth Ashton, Ellen Ashworth, Ada Ashworth, Brenda Ashworth, Elizabeth Ashworth, James Ashworth, Sarah Aveyard, Clara Ethel Baddeley, Elizabeth Mary Baddeley, John Bagshaw, Bertha Barber, Squire Bardsley, Joseph Bardsley, Lily Bardsley, Nellie Barker, Elsie Barlow, Charles Henry Barnes, James Edward Battersby, Elizabeth Baxter, William Beech, Joseph Bell, Norman John Bennett, Ethel Bennett, Frances Bennett, Nellie Bennison, Charlotte Bent, Arthur Berry, Irene Bill, Edith Annie Birchall, Mary Ivy Bird, Violet May Black, Alice Boardman, Kathleen May Boardman, Mary Louisa Bogle, Geoffrey Bolland, Alice Bowers, Mary Elizabeth Bradshaw, Miriam Brady, Edith Bramwell, Harold Bramwell, Vera Brassington, Charles Geoffrey Brassington, Nancy Anne Bridge, Doris Bridge, Jane Brierley, Albert Brierley, Edith Broadbent, Lily Brock, Edith Brocklehurst, Charles Edward Brocklehurst, Vera Brooder, Irene Brookes, Lily Brookes, May Brown, Alice Brown, Mary Alice Brown, William Henry Buckland, Edward Buckley, Ethel Burke, Elizabeth Mary Butcher, Lydia Edith Cains, Ida Callaghan, Sean Stuart Calverley, Edith Campbell, Annie Carradice, Marion Carrington, Alice Carroll, Josephine May Cartwright, Hannah Chadwick, Wilfred Challinor, Ivy Elizabeth Challoner, Genevieve Chapman, Irene Chappell, Alice Chappell, Wilfred Charlton, John Charnock, George Cheetham, Albert Cheetham, Alfred Cheetham, Elsie Cheetham, Hena Cheetham, Norah Cheetham, Thomas Chidlow, Amy Clarke, Fanny Clayton, Elsie Clayton, Frances Clee, Beatrice Helen Clough, James Condon, Thomas Connaughton, Alice Hilda Connors, Michael Conway, Margaret Ann Coomber, Frederick Cooper, Ann Copeland, Erla Copeland, Sydney Hoskins Couldwell, Constance Anne Coulthard, Ann Coutts, Mary Couzens, Hilda Mary Cox, Eileen Theresa Crompton, Eileen Daphne Crompton, Frank Crompton, John Crossley, Lily Cullen, Lilian Cuthbert, Valerie Davies, Cissie Davies, Eric Davies, Fred Davies, Miriam Dawson, Fanny Dean, Elsie Lorna Dean, Joan Edwina Delaney, Bessie Denham, Christopher Dentith, Frederick Devenport, Ronnie Dixon, Alice Dobb, Edgar Dolan, Ethel Drinkwater, Alice Drummond, Joseph Dudley, Mary Rose Dutton, Elaine Earls, Doris Earnshaw, William Eddleston, Harold Eddleston, Monica Edge, Agnes Evans, Bethel Anne Everall, Hannah Everall, Joseph Vincent Farrell, Phyllis Fernley, Marie Antoinette Firman, Mary Elizabeth Fish, Hilda Fitton, Hilda Fletcher, Dorothy Fletcher, Elizabeth Floyd, Arthur Fogg, Leah Foulkes, Edwin Fowden, Thomas Fox, Moira Ashton France, John Freeman, Harold Freeman, Winifred Frith, Hannah Galpin, Minnie Doris Irene Garlick, Rose Garlick, Violet Garratt, Mary Alice Garside, Millicent Gaskell, Marion Gaunt, Mary Gee, Nellie Gess, Clifford Givens, William Goddard, Edith Godfrey, Elsie Golds, Annie Elizabeth Gorton, Alice Maude Graham, Edith Gray, Rebecca Greenhalgh, John Sheard Grimshaw, Annie Grimshaw, Muriel Grundy, Donald Anthony Grundy, Kathleen Grundy, Nora Hackney, Clara Hackney, Clara Hadfield, Violet Hague, William Hall, Josephine Halliday, Frank Hallsworth, Janet Hamblett, Leonora Hamer, Mary Emma Hammond, Caroline Veronica Hampson, Jesse Hancock, Christine Hannible, Elsie Harding, Joan Milray Harris, Charles Harris, Harriet Harrison, Christina Harrison, David Alan Harrison, Marion Harrison, Muriel Eveline Harrison, Samuel Harrop, Elsie Haslam, Mary Elizabeth Hawkins, Sarah Healey, Winifred Heapey, Clifford Barnes Heapey, Gladys Heathcote, Irene Heginbotham, Olive Hennefer, Ellen Hett, Mary Jane Heywood, Ada Heywood, Florence Hibbert, Hilda Mary Hickson, Robert Higginbottom, George Eric Higginbottom, Peter Higgins, Barry Higgins, Lily Higham, Marion Elizabeth Highley, Ruth Higson, Ellen Hill, Sarah Ann Hillier, Pamela Marguerite Hilton, Ada Matley Hilton, John Hirst, Emma Holgate, Ethel Doris Holland, Alline Devolle Holt, Alice Hopkins, Dorothy Doretta Howcroft, John Hulme, Hilda Hurd, May Iwanina, Jozef Jackman, Harold Edward Jackson, Maureen Lamonnier Jackson, Nancy Jameson, Ronald Jeffries, Beatrice Johnson, Norah Johnson, Richard Johnston, Leah Jones, Alice Mary Jones, David Jones, Hannah Jones, Ivy Jones, Jane Jones, Robert Edward Jordan, Mary Ellen Keating, Mary Kellett, Ethel May Kellett, Fred Kelly, Ellen Kelly, Moira Kennedy, Alice Killan, Charles Henry King, Elsie King, James Joseph Kingsley, Mary Kitchen, Alice Christine Lacey, Renee Leach, Florence Leech, Edith Leech, William Henry Lees, Olive Leigh, Carrie Leigh, Joseph Leigh, Wilfred Lewis, Elsie Lewis, Florence Lewis, Peter Lilley, Jean Lingard, Robert Henry Linn, Laura Frances Livesey, John Louden Llewellyn, Edna May Lomas, Harry Lomas, Ivy Long, Dorothy Longmate, Thomas Alfred Lord, Jane Ellen Lowe, Beatrice Lowe, Esther Lowe, May Lyons, Eva MacConnell, Charles Mackenzie, Selina Mackie, Christina McCulloch Mansfield, Mary Ann Mansfield, Walter Marley, Martha Marsland, Sarah Hannah Matley, Maud McDonald, Kathleen McLaren, William James McLoughlin, Gertrude Melia, Joan May Mellor, Elizabeth Ellen Mellor, Samuel Mellor, Winifred Meredith, Oscar Metcalfe, Margaret Middleton, Deborah Middleton, Mary Mills, Samuel Mitchell, Cyril Mitchell, Wilbert Molesdale, John Bennett Morgan, Emily Moss, Bertha Moss, Hannah Mottram, George Henry Mottram, Hannah Helena Mottram, Pamela Grace Moult, Thomas Mullen, Nellie Mycock, Miriam Rose Emily Needham, Nora Nicholls, Violet Nichols, Fanny Nichols, Lily Nuttall, Hervey Nuttall, Norah O'Sullivan, Thomas Ogden, Mary Oldham, Agnes Oldham, Samuel Oswald, Frances Elaine Otter, Enid Ousey, Margaret Ovcar-Robinson, Konrad Peter Overton, Renate Eldtraude Oxley, Phyllis Parker, Marjorie Parkes, Annie Parkin, Laura Victoria Parr, Bertha Pearce, Elizabeth Pedley, Rosetta Penney, Vara Pickering, Leah Pickup, Kenneth Pickup, Mavis Mary Pitman, Edith Platt, Elsie Platt, Marion Pomfret, Bianka Potts, Frances Potts, Reginald Powers, Annie Alexandra Preston, Ada Marjorie Prestwich, Alice Proud, Ethel May Quinn, Marie Ralphs, Anne Lilian Ralphs, Ernest Colin Rawling, Alice Reade, Audrey Redfern, Tom Renwick, Dorothea Hill Richards, Jose Kathleen Diana Richardson, Alice Riley, Stanley Roberts, Edith Roberts, Esther Hannah Roberts, Gladys Robinson, Eileen Robinson, Eveline Robinson, Lavinia Robinson, Mildred Rogers, Elizabeth Ann Rostron, Jane Frances Rowarth, Dorothy Rowbottom, Annie Rowland, Jane Isabella Royles, Elsie Royston, Betty Rudol, Ernest Russell, Tom Balfour Sankey, Margaret Saunders, Albert Edward Saunders, Gladys Scott, Edith Scott, Elsie Sellors, Kate Maud Sharples, Cicely Shaw, Joseph Shaw, Leonard Shaw, Lilian Shaw, Neville Shaw, Susan Eveline Shawcross, Edna Shawcross, Ernest Shawcross, Mabel Shelmerdine, Jack Leslie Shelmerdine, Jane Elizabeth Shore, Lily Sidebotham, Florence Sigley, Elizabeth Teresa Simpson, Kenneth Harry Slater, Albert Slater, Florence Slater, Lena Norah Slater, May Smith, Alice Smith, Dora Elizabeth Smith, Emma Smith, Kenneth Ernest Smith, Margaret Smith, Mary Alice Smith, Sidney Arthur Smith, Winifred Isabel Sparkes, Monica Rene Squirrell, Alice Stafford, Harry Stafford, Kate Elizabeth Stansfield, Joe Ainscow Stocks, Louisa Stone, John Stopford, Arthur Henderson Stopford, Harriet Strickland, Ruth Sumner, Grace Swann, Bessie Swann, Robert Swindells, Emmeline Taylor, Caroline Mary Taylor, Edna Mary Taylor, Florence Taylor, Lily Newby Taylor, Mary Tempest, Mary Ann Thomas, Alice Thomas, Sarah Ann Thornton, Maria Tideswell, Sarah Tierney, Angela Philomena Tingle, Walter Toft, Beatrice Tomlin, Mary Townsend, Margaret Tucker, Dorothy Tuff, Mary Tuffin, Winifred Amy Turner, Frances Elizabeth Turner, Irene Uttley, Stanley Vickers, Frederick Vickers, Margaret Mary Virgin, Lucy Vizor, George Edgar Vizor, May Wagstaff, George Lawton Wagstaff, Jessie Irene Wagstaff, Laura Kathleen Waldron, Margaret Anne Walker, Edward Walker, Ellen Walker, Henrietta Walker, Winifred Mary Waller, Harry Waller, Marjorie Hope Walls, Mary Walton, Sydney Warburton, Ada Ward, Maureen Alice Ward, Minnie Ward, Muriel Margaret Ward, Percy Wardle, Eric Wareing, William Hill Warren, May Wass, Kathleen May Watkins, Annie West, Maria Wharam, Ellen Frances Wharmby, Lavinia White, Mona Ashton Whitehead, Amy Whitham, Colin Whittaker, Maureen Whittaker, Violet Mary Whittingslow, Vera Whittle, Edith Wibberley, Edith Wilcockson, Joseph Frank Wilkinson, Annie Wilkinson, Maud Williams, Albert Redvers Williams, Emily Williamson, Sarah Jane Wills, Jack Wilmore, Margaret Wilson, Muriel Elsie Wimpeney, Mark Winston, George Winston, Olive Winterbottom, Mary Wood, Annie Wood, Charles Henry Wood, Fanny Wood, James Woodhead, Joyce Woodhead, Kenneth Wharmby