Probably for this reason.
- In February 1917 the Soviets took control of Russia.
- Ukraine, which was part of the Russian empire, immediately claimed autonomy from the Soviet take over.
- in October 1917 the Bolsheviks took over Russia and invaded Ukraine.
- November 1917 the Balfour Declaration was created, establishing the nation of Israel.
When the Kazarians (the Rothschilds, etc) saw they would lose their center of operation, they decided to create their own sovereign country.
I do not think this idea has merit.
They didn't "lose" in Russia, or Ukraine. They won completely. Everything that happened there was exactly by design.
The Rothschilds had been trying to create Israel for at least a hundred years before it actually happened. I can't find the reference at the moment, but I found, in the Niles Almanac (1833 I think?) a statement that one of the Rothschilds (I think Nathan himself0 tried to buy Palestine from the Ottomans for some ridiculous amount of money. The Zionist movement itself is noted as beginning around that time. The Zionist movement is attributed to Abraham Mapu who wrote the "inspirational book" around 1850, but I think it began in earnest quite a bit before that time.
Interestingly, Abraham Mapu was the teacher (at Kovno Gymnasium), and noted most important influence in the life of Mark Natanson, who was one of the most important people in the Bolshevik Revolution. Mr. Natanson also happens to have been the uncle and surrogate father for Mr. Alexander Berkman, who was the "attempted assassin" for both Henry Frick (of Carnegie steel) and John D. Rockefeller. As it turns out, in both cases it ended up wiping the slate clean of their respective massacres in the media (Homestead massacre and Ludlow massacre respectively), because if you are "the victim" of a (failed) assassination, the media can sell you as "not a perpetrator."
Alexander Berkman also happens to have been BFFs with Margaret Sanger, who of course was a Rockefeller agent.
There is a GREAT DEAL more to that story, but there is only so much time.
Nothing is what it seems. Everything is controlled opposition, and most importantly:
The House Always Wins.
Found the reference on Rothschilds and Jerusalem. It was in 1829.
Top of page 214, second column, Niles Register.
Downloaded, thanks
You're welcome. There are numerous other references to the creation of the State of Israel in the early, mid, and late 1800s. Loooooong before the Balfour declaration.
The creation of the USSR served many purposes, not the least of which was aiding in the taking of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. Thinking that they "lost" there however, is not supported by any evidence I have found. On the contrary, it seems to have been a perfect coup, pretending to be a "failure," but the greatest success.
Frick was a bastard. He was the reason for the 1892 Homestead riot. My maternal great-grandfather was involved in that. He was accused of being one of the group of workers who stuck a bunch of Pinkerton detectives on a raft and sent it out into, I believe, the Mongahela river. It's sank and some of them didn't make it. He had to run out to Montana and live with the Blackfeet for 5 years until the heat died down. My family members are ashamed of that, I am not. The Pinkertons were real bastards also, shooting unarmed workers.
Now I'm going to have to check Andrew Berkman to see how he ties into this. Very interesting.
Whatever you think about Frick and the Homestead situation, it was nothing compared to Rockefeller and the Ludlow situation, which was very similar, though on a much larger scale. Both were "addressed" by Berkman as would be bungling assassin.
Berkman ties into everything, but is not himself a major player (as far as I can tell), except as a helper and propagandist. Berkman and his life partner Emma Goldman were BFFs (and likely lovers) with Margaret Sanger. They were the anarcho-Communists who were the pro Bolshevik revolution propagandists in the United States (as was Sanger). Look up the IWW (wobblies). Everyone involved in that "capitalist opposition movement" had direct ties to Rockefeller or the Bolshevik revolution, or both. The IWW, which organized protests "against the capitalists" and "for the workers" was a master class in how to create a agency of Controlled Opposition.
You can read my report here which shows how Rockefeller created the single corporation that exists (there can be only one, a true monopoly). The next section, hopefully coming out soon, will have a whole lot of stuff on Sanger and Berkman, and the co-creation of Israel and the USSR, both of which were primary intents (along with the United Nations) of the world wars.
That's an amazing report you created. It deserves to be reposted. I'm sure your next section will be just as, or perhaps more interesting. Especially concerning Hillary's idol Sanger. This Berkman seems to be quite a character. The guy who actually shot Frick but couldn't finish the job. Then planned to bomb Rockefeller's place, again not completing the job. What a guy.
You can argue that the Balfour Declaration was not the origins of Israel but it was the final clincher. Halfway through WW1, tha Allies were struggling. Some wanted out and the UK was running short of everything. Being an island has advantages and disadvantages!
The UK government hoped that they could prevail upon "the Jews" for finance and for their influence in the USA. They wanted the USA to join in with WW1 and it was thought that Jewish influence could make that happen. (I find that remarkable!)
The UK government sent a nice letter to the second Lord Rothschild saying: "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 ..." Sadly, the next part of that sentence seems to have been forgotten.
The UK was governing Palestine at the time. If you remember your Lawrence of Arabia, he did a great job out there. Peter O'Toole wanted to give Arabia back to Omar Sharif but he was thwarted by the British government - because they wanted to give it to the Jews, instead.
I appreciate what you're saying, but the "final clincher" was really the creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations. That couldn't have happened without the forced emigration into Israel from Europe by the "Nazis" (which was aided by the closed borders of all other nations to the Jews, and economic incentives to promote moving to Palestine), and of course the creation of the United Nations itself, both of which were primary functions of both WWI and WWII.
The Balfour Declaration certainly has it's place of note, but it was just one step in the chain. I agree it was an important event, I suggest it was not the most important event in the creation of the State of Israel. It's importance is really in it's brevity and content, i.e. it is something that is easy to show to the public that suggests a broader fuckery.
T.E. Lawrence was a controlled opposition agent, a spy. Believing the propaganda about him from the movie is exactly what you are supposed to believe. The evidence suggests the entire event was orchestrated, controlled on all sides. Nothing was left to chance. No one was acting towards the agenda that history, or their "biography" portrays.
I suggest the best lens to look through history is to take what actually happened as an outcome, then work backwards to see who created that outcome, and see who funded them. For example, what actually happened after WWII was the United Nations was created, Israel was created, and the Cold War was created. You need to dig deep into who was responsible for the creation of these things. Look at their family connections, their job connections, their other work for The Trust (the word I use in my report about Rockefeller et al). Recognize that everyone was an aristocrat, all related to each other, both by family and by monetary obligation. This is the case even for those who "history" reports as "coming from humble beginnings".
A deeper investigation into everyone involved in any event of note for the past few centuries returns a result that suggests an orchestration so detailed it boggles imagination. It is the level of control of all sides, and the rejection the mind demands to cope with the possibility of everything being controlled opposition, which is exactly how it has remained hidden for so long. That and of course us being strongly encouraged to not look at anything that suggests "a conspiracy."
I did wonder how he was allowed to do what he did.
The Khazarians were bankrolling the communists. Israel was just another feather added to their cap three decades after they took Ukraine.
Ukraine IS Kazaria, or at least a part of it. I think many of the Khazarians/Ashkenazi Jews never left there, they just stayed and eventually became Ukraine.
Khazaria extended from east Ukraine to the Caspian Sea. But… it hasn’t always been controlled by the KM. In the 1800’s it was controlled by the Russian Tsar . The KM regained it in the Bolshevik revolution but lost it after communism collapsed in the early 90’s. They then regained it in an orchestrated coup in 2014. They’re now in the process of losing it again to Russia.
It's more complicated than that, because the Russian Tsar was controlled by the Rothschilds through loans. The Russian ruling family were also just cousins of the rest of the European aristocracy, all of whom were controlled by Rothschild. In addition, most of that history has been rewritten (by leaving things out). You really have to dig deep to find their connection to that place through history.
Again, more complicated than that because the USSR was created and controlled by Rockefeller and Rothschild.
I know it’s more complicated than that, and no doubt they pulled some levers on Nicholas II, but they wouldn’t have offed him and his family if he was on their side.
Also, Rothschild & Rockefeller families are both KM, and the means by which they bankrolled the communist revolution. So that point stands.
They can be both "on their side" and "in opposition" at the same time. There are levels of compliance. There are also layers upon layers of deception. I suggest that thinking as straightforward as you suggest is not appreciating those layers.
You said they "lost Ukraine." They never lost Ukraine. They didn't lose it when the USSR invaded Ukraine, and they didn't lose it when the USSR collapsed. They orchestrated both the initial "takeover" and the collapse of the USSR.
To fulfill Biblical prophesy.
Yup.
God’s timing, no matter who or what the motive was.
Because every body needs a shithole.
WHAT!!!!!! Say this isn't so.
The Bolsheviks and Khazarians are "brothers" / the same, though. Aren't they? They have the same roots, at least.