May 16th marks the centenary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement which officially saw Britain and France divide the Middle East between them, and there have been a number of articles discussing it. This one from Time and this one from the New Statesman trot out the usual historical perspective of this seemingly ham fisted approach by Britain, France and, somehow, Ireland.
But all of this is discussed in the false reality that these countries were independent powers at that time when they were not.
I recently read “The Nameless War” (1952) by Captain Archibald H. Maule Ramsay. I take the following from the beginning of the book:
Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 – thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.
From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.
In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.
Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
End of quote.
Quite an interesting profile and it was this profile above all else that had me read his book. Why on Earth would a British MP be imprisoned for the bulk of the Second World War without charge or trial?
It turns out that Ramsay had recognised for some years that there was some hidden international interference in the affairs of Britain and he had worked long and hard to expose it. A close colleague of former Prime Minister Chamberlain, he had finally understood that this hidden hand was Jewish, and his book makes clear that he was imprisoned to prevent him from revealing this hand and the true forces behind the Second World War. In a way, his imprisonment gives credibility to what Ramsay writes that his words would otherwise not have.
And so, let me share with you some of the understandings that Ramsay came to and shared in his book.
Oliver Cromwell was funded and rewarded by international Jewish interests:
How well the Jews succeeded in this campaign in Britain may be judged from the fact that one of the earliest acts of ‘their creature and hireling’ Oliver Cromwell, after executing the King according to plan, was to allow the Jews free access to England once more .
I’m going to share with you a long quote because, without its completeness, you are unlikely to believe this piece of British and hence word history (much of it documented by the Jew Isaac Disraeli, father of British PM Benjamin Disraeli), and in it you see the first application of a template that was subsequently used in France and Russia, amongst others, along with the unfolding of global Reserve banking, as this now well-hidden global takeover proceeded:
THE BRITISH REVOLUTION
“It was fated that England should be the first of a series of Revolutions, which is not yet finished.”
With these cryptic words Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin Earl of Beaconsfield, commenced his two volume life of Charles I published in 1851. A work of astonishing detail and insight, much information for which, he states, was obtained from the records of one Melchior de Salom, French envoy in England during that period.
The scene opens with distant glimpses of the British Kingdom based upon Christianity, and its own ancient traditions; these sanctions binding Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and the people in one solemn bond on the one hand; on the other hand, the ominous rumblings of Calvinism.
Calvin, who came to Geneva from France, where his name was spelt Cauin, (At a B’nai B’rith meeting in Paris reported in Catholic Gazette in Feb. 1936 he was claimed to be of Jewish extraction.) possibly a French effort to spell Cohen, organized great numbers of revolutionary orators, not a few of whom were inflicted upon England and Scotland. Thus was laid the groundwork for revolution under a cloak of religious fervour.
On both sides of the Tweed these demagogues contracted all religion into rigid observance of the “Sabbath.” To use the words of Isaac Disraeli, “the nation was artfully divided into Sabbatarians and Sabbath breakers.” “Calvin,” states Disraeli, “deemed the Sabbath to have been a Jewish ordinance, limited to the sacred people.” He goes on to say that when these Calvinists held the country in their power, “it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a British senate had been transformed  into a company of Hebrew Rabbins”: and later “In 1650, after the execution of the King, an Act was passed inflicting penalties for a breach of the Sabbath.”
Buckingham, Strafford and Laud are the three chief figures round the King in these early stages: Men on whose loyalty to himself, the nation, and the ancient tradition Charles can rely.
Buckingham, the trusted friend of King James I, and of those who had saved his life at the time of the Gowrie Conspiracy (of ominous cabalistic associations) was assassinated in the early years of King Charles’ reign under mysterious circumstances.
Strafford, who had been in his early days inclined to follow the opposite faction, later left them; and became a staunch and devoted adherent of the King.
This opposition faction became steadily more hostile to Charles and by the time that they were led by Pym and decided to impeach Strafford. “The King,” writes Disraeli, “regarded this faction as his enemies”; and he states that the head of this faction was the Earl of Bedford. Walsh, the eminent Catholic historian, states that a Jew wine merchant named Roussel was the founder of this family in Tudor times.
With the impeachment and execution of Strafford, the powers behind the rising Calvinist, or Cohenist, Conspiracy began to reveal themselves, and their focus, the City of London.
At this time there suddenly began to appear from the City armed mobs of “Operatives” (the medieval equivalent for “workers” no doubt). Let me quote Disraeli: “They were said to amount to ten thousand … with war-like weapons. It was a militia for insurgency at all seasons, and might be depended upon for any work of destruction at the cheapest rate … as these sallied forth with daggers and bludgeons (from the city) the inference is obvious that this  train of explosion must have been long laid.”
It must indeed ; and we must recollect here, that at this time Strafford was still unexecuted, and civil war in the minds of none but of those behind the scenes, who evidently had long since resolved upon and planned it.
These armed mobs of “workers” intimidated all and sundry, including both Houses of Parliament and the Palace at critical moments, exactly on the model employed later by the “Sacred Bands” and the “Marseillais” in the French Revolution.
Isaac Disraeli draws again and again startling parallels between this and the French Revolution: Notably in his passages on the Press, “no longer under restraint,” and the deluge of revolutionary pamphlets and leaflets. “From 1640 to 1660,” he writes, “about 30,000 appear to have started up.” And later, “the collection of French revolutionary pamphlets now stands by the side of the French tracts of the age of Charles I, as abundant in number and as fierce in passion.”
He goes on, “Whose hand behind the curtain played the strings … could post up a correct list of 59 commoners, branding them with the odious title of ‘Straffordians or betrayers of their country’.”
Whose hand indeed? But Disraeli who knew so much, now discreetly draws a veil over that iron curtain; and it is left to us to complete the revelation.
To do so we must turn to such other works as the Jewish Encyclopedia, Sombart’s work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, and others. From these we learn that Cromwell, the chief figure of the revolution, was in close contact with the powerful Jew financiers in Holland; and was in fact paid large sums of money by Manasseh Ben Israel; whilst Fernandez Carvajal, “The Great Jew” as he was called, was the chief contractor of the New Model Army.
In The Jews in England we read:
“1643 brought a large  contingent of Jews to England, their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew). Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor.”
In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members had set in violent motion the armed gangs of “Operatives” already mentioned, from the city. Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as Disraeli tells us: “Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of ‘To your tents, O Israel’.” Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the Palace of Whitehall. The five members with armed mobs and banners accompanying them, were given a triumphal return to Westminster. The stage was now set for the advent of Carvajal and his Jews and the rise of their creature Cromwell.
The scene now changes. The Civil War has taken its course. The year is 1647: Naseby has been won and lost. The King is virtually a prisoner, while treated as an honoured guest at Holmby House.
According to a letter published in Plain English (A weekly review published by the North British Publishing Co. and edited by the late Lord Alfred Douglas.) on 3rd September, 1921: “The Learned Elders have been in existence for a much longer period than they have perhaps suspected. My friend, Mr. L. D. van Valckert, of Amsterdam, has recently sent me a letter containing two extracts from the Synagogue at Mulheim. The volume in which they are contained was lost at some period during the Napoleonic Wars, and has recently come into Mr. van Valckert’s possession. It is written in German, and contains extracts of letters sent and received by the authorities of the Mulheim Synagogue. The first entry he sends me is of a letter received:
16th June, 1647.
From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt.
In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. 
Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.
In reply was dispatched the following:
12th July, 1647.
To O.C. by E. Pratt.
Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted.
Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.”
With this information now at our disposal, the subsequent moves on the part of the regicides stand out with a new clearness. On 4th June, 1647, Cornet Joyce, acting on secret orders from Cromwell himself, and, according to Disraeli, unknown even to General-in-Chief Fairfax, descended upon Holmby House with 500 picked revolutionary troopers, and seized the King. According to Disraeli,
“The plan was arranged on May 30th at a secret meeting held at Cromwell’s house, though later Cromwell pretending that it was without his concurrence.”
This move coincided with a sudden development in the army; the rise of the “Levelers” and “Rationalists”. Their doctrines were those of the French revolutionaries; in fact, what we know today as Communism. These were the regicides, who four times “purged” Parliament, till there was left finally 50 members, Communist-like themselves, known later as the Rump.
To return to the letter from Mulheim Synagogue of the 12th June, 1647, and its cunning suggestion that attempted escape should be used as a pretext for execution. Just such an event took place, on 12th November of that year. Hollis and Ludlow consider the flight as a stratagem of Cromwell’s. Isaac Disraeli states:
“Contemporary historians have decided that the King from the day of his deportation from  Holmby to his escape to the Isle of Wight was throughout the dupe of Cromwell.”
Little more remains to be said. Cromwell had carried out the orders from the Synagogue, and now it only remained to stage the mock trial.
Maneuvering for position continued for some time. And it became apparent that the House of Commons, even in their partially “purged” condition, were in favour of coming to an agreement with the King. On 5th December, 1648, the House sat all night; and finally carried the question, “That the King’s concessions were satisfactory to a settlement.”
Should such agreement have been reached, of course, Cromwell would not have received the large sums of money which he was hoping to get from the Jews. He struck again. On the night of December 6th, Colonel Pryde, on his instructions, carried out the last and most famous “purge” of the House of Commons, known as “Pryde’s Purge.” On 4th January, the Communist remnant of 50 members, the Rump, invested themselves with “the supreme authority.”
On 9th January “a High Court of Justice” to try the King was proclaimed.
Two-thirds of its members were Levelers from the Army.
Algernon Sidney warned Cromwell: “First, the King can be tried by no court. Second, no man can be tried by this court.” So writes Hugh Ross Williamson in his Charles and Cromwell; and he adds a finishing touch to the effect that “no English lawyer could be found to draw up the charge, which was eventually entrusted to an accommodating alien, Isaac Dorislaus.”
Needless to say, Isaac Dorislaus was exactly the same sort of alien as Carvajal and Manasseh Ben Israel and the other financiers who paid the “Protector” his blood money.
The Jews were once again permitted to land freely in England in spite of strong protests by the sub-committee of the Council of State, which declared that they would be a  grave menace to the State and the Christian religion.
Perhaps it is due to their protests that the actual act of banishment has never to this day been repealed.
“The English Revolution under Charles I,” writes Isaac Disraeli, “was unlike any preceding one … From that time and event we contemplate in our history the phases of revolution.” There were many more to follow on similar lines, notably in France. In 1897 a further important clue to these mysterious happenings fell into Gentile hands in the shape of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In that document we read this remarkable sentence: “Remember the French Revolution, the secrets of its preparation are well known to us for it was entirely the work of our hands.”[Protocol No.3, 14.]
The Elders might have made the passage even fuller, and written,
“Remember the British and French revolutions, the secrets of which are well known to us for they were entirely the work of our hands.”
The difficult problem of the subjugation of both Kingdoms was still however unsolved. Scotland was Royalist before everything else; and she had proclaimed Charles II King. Cromwell’s armies marched round Scotland, aided by their Geneva sympathizers, dispensing Judaic barbarity; but Scotland still called Charles II King. He moreover accepted the Presbyterian form of Christianity for Scotland; and slowly but steadily the feeling in England began to come round to the Scottish point of view. Finally upon the death of Cromwell, all Britain welcomed the King’s restoration to the throne of England.
In 1660 Charles II returned; but there was an important difference between the Kingdom he had fled from as a boy, and the one to which he returned as King. The enemies of Kingship were entrenched within his kingdom now, and as soon as the stage should be set for renewing the propaganda against the papacy and so, dividing once more persons, all of whom considered themselves as part of Christ’s Church,  the next attack would develop. The next attack would aim at placing the control of the finances of both Kingdoms in the hands of the Jews, who were now firmly ensconced within.
Charles evidently had no consciousness of the Jewish problem or plans, or the menace they held for his peoples. The wisdom and experience of Edward I had become lost in the centuries of segregation from the Jewish virus. A consciousness of the danger to the Crown in placing his enemies in possession of the weapon of a “Popish Plot” cry he did retain.
With James II’s accession, the crisis could not be long delayed. The most unscrupulous pamphleteering and propaganda was soon in full swing against him, and it is no surprise to find that many of the vilest pamphlets were actually printed in Holland. This country was now quite openly the focus for all disaffected persons; and considerable comings and goings took place during these years.
Stories were brought to the King that his own brother-in-law had joined those who plotted against him; but he utterly refused to credit them, or take any action till news came that the expedition against himself was actually under way.
The chief figure amongst those who deserted James at that crucial juncture was John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough. It is interesting to read in the Jewish Encyclopedia that this Duke for many years received not less than 6,000 pounds a year from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.
The real objective of the “Glorious Revolution” was achieved a few years later in 1694, when the Royal consent was given for the setting up of the “Bank of England” and the institution of the National Debt. This charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal prerogative of minting money; converted the basis of wealth to gold; and enabled the international money lenders to secure their loans  on the taxes of the country, instead of the doubtful undertaking of some ruler or potentate which was all the security they could previously obtain.
From that time economic machinery was set in motion which ultimately reduced all wealth to the fictitious terms of gold which the Jews control; and drained away the life blood of the land, the real wealth which was the birthright of the British peoples.
The political and economic union of England and Scotland was shortly afterwards forced upon Scotland with wholesale corruption, and in defiance of formal protests from every county and borough. The main objects of the Union were to suppress the Royal Mint in Scotland, and to force upon her, too, responsibility for the “National Debt.” The grip of the moneylender was now complete throughout Britain. The danger was that the members of the new joint Parliament would sooner or later, in the spirit of their ancestors, challenge this state of affairs.
To provide against this, therefore, the party system was now brought into being, frustrating true national reaction and enabling the wire-pullers to divide and rule ; using their newly-established financial power to ensure that their own men and their own policies should secure the limelight, and sufficient support from their newspapers, pamphlets, and banking accounts to carry the day.
Gold was soon to become the basis of loans, ten times the size of the amount deposited. In other words, 100 pounds in gold would be legal security for 1,000 pounds of loan; at 3% therefore 100 pounds in gold could earn 30 pounds interest annually with no more trouble to the lender than the keeping of a few ledger entries.
The owner of 100 pounds of land, however, still must work every hour of daylight in order to make perhaps 4%. The end of the process must only be a matter of time. The moneylenders must become millionaires; those who own  and work the land, the Englishman and the Scotsman, must be ruined.
The process has continued inexorably till now, when it is nearly completed.
It has been hypocritically camouflaged by clever propaganda as helping the poor by mulcting the rich. It has been in reality nothing of the kind. It has been in the main the deliberate ruination of the landed classes, the leaders among the Gentiles, and their supplanting by the Jew financiers and their hangers-on.
End of quote.
Remember, this man was imprisoned without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. Ramsay knew too much.
He goes on to document the French and Russian takeovers in a similar manner, along with others that followed.
And so, what has this to do with the Sykes-Picot agreement?
Simply, everything. Britain and France were both controlled by the Jewish elite at the time of this agreement.
Unless we understand this, and it is well and truly hidden and never written about or discussed in the mainstream media, we do not understand that the hidden hand behind the Sykes-Picot agreement is that of the elite international Jewish fraternity that run our world. Further, if you understand the history of the creation of Israel, which in truth got underway in earnest with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, then you realise that the Sykes-Picot agreement was really a mechanism for breaking up the traditional boundaries of the Middle East prior to the creation of Israel after World War II.
Remember, the so-called Young Turks that drove the breakup of the Ottoman Empire were Jewish.
And so, as we mark the centenary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, it is useful to strip away the bullshit and recognise the true intent of that agreement.
This article gets a little closer to the reality of things as it reflects upon the consequences of this agreement on the ground today, and this cartoon gets it very well.
Again, it is important to recognise that Israel is simply a tool of the Jewish elite, and most of the Jews that have moved there as a result of the horrific deception known as the Holocaust are simply pawns in the global game of this elite, as were their forebears who were jockeyed in a not dissimilar manner to emigrate to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century. This manipulation is very old and goes largely unrecognised today, as these Jewish pawns are told that it’s really the goyim who are the threat – remember the Holocaust…
May a few more take this centenary to wake up.