News Ticker

Lord Palmerston: Britain’s Black Operations Prime Minister

Editor Note: This is a round up post of a central figure in our recent series of articles on British pederast skulduggery and political occultism.

Henry John Temple (1784-1865), dubbed 3rd Viscount Palmerston, was the British Empire’s black operations chief in the first half of the Victorian era. For him, the main objective of British foreign policy was to increase Britain’s power in the world by any means- and often the more criminal the better.

He hailed from an aristocrat family with a huge country estate in the northern County Sligo, West of Ireland, which he rarely visited. He held office almost continuously from 1807 until his death in 1865. From 1809 to 1828, he served as British Secretary of War, as Foreign Minister for most of 1830-1851, and as Prime Minister for a decade, from 1855 to 1865.

In terms of the made-man case for Palmerston, we see that although there wasn’t the standard British-Israelism “God-people” supremacist dispensationalism in his religious upbringing, he fell under the influence of Lord Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury was certainly instrumental in causing Palmerston to promote several prominent evangelicals who manipulated him, according to the “Oxford English Historical Review.”

Read: Race-Cult Zionism as a British Oligarchical Strategy

Palmerston was the Grand Patriarch or Master of Grand Orient Freemasonry, as well as a knight of the Order of the Garter. In fact, Lady Queenborough described him as the “patriarch of European Freemasonry” [“Occult Theocracy,” Vol. I., p. 264]. Recommended reference for serious conspiracy realist researchers: “Occult Theocracy”  Edith Starr Miller, (1933).

Classic Miller quote:

“Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant! It is fashionable to be tolerant — but mostly tolerant of evil — and this new code has reached the proportions of demanding intolerance of good.” -Edith Starr Miller

He was an intimate friend of Kossuth and Mazzini, supporter of the 1848 French Revolution and he influenced Napoleon III to appoint Prince Murat, Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masons, as King of Naples. He was an enemy of Russia and prevented Austria from joining Russia in the Crimean War, thus ensuring Russia’s defeat. He was censored by Queen Victoria for forming important decisions without consulting her.

Palmerston was under the short leash sway of the Rothschilds and served as one of their agents. In a letter written by H. Reeve to Chas Greville, Reeve states:

“Rothschild says: ‘Lord Palmerston is a friend of the House; he dines with us at Frankfurt, but he has the disadvantage of depressing the funds all over Europe without giving us notice’” (X, letter 20th December, 1845).

Palmerston’s long experience of Freemason privilege, wealth and running in Zionist-dispensationalist circles allowed him to quickly ascend the ladder of political power. He was a Cecil Rhodes clone and British exceptionalist who believed he had been tasked with furthering the Illuminist model of intelligence.

Read “Cecil Rhodes and His Warmongering Buggery Hegemony

Charles Moscowitz and Russ Winter on Cecil Rhodes’ Clique of Pederast Warmongers

The main modus operandi of what Webster Tarpley called “Palmerston Zoo” were dirty tricks and assassinations to maintain an iron clad grip on illegal dope trafficking and international opium trade, a British monopoly. Criminal connections were essential to this underworld economy on which the Empire depended; thus, a “fifth column” existed in the British government with Palmerston as its operational head, overseeing a carefully managed cluster of criminal organizations at his disposal.

Like his agent Giuseppe Mazzini the skulduggery of Lord Palmerston is too extensive to cover in a 1000 word post. But Winter Watch has already covered the Opium Wars, and a reading is recommended to get the flavor of Lord Palmerston. In our view the international opium trade kick started the elitist Anglo-American-Zionist Crime Syndicate, which we cover extensively on these pages.

For the record: My surname Winter is English from Lincolnshire County. My understanding is that my ancestors in this family were staunch Royalists in the English Civil War (1642-1651), and after they lost, made their way to Virginia. The English Civil War opened the gates to the development of religious British Israelism. Maybe it something in the genes to stand against that?

Read “Precursor To The Global Crime Syndicate: The 19th-Century Opium Trade

In 1839, the Manchu Emperor named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse-hsu, to lead a campaign against opium. Lin seized 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium and threw it into the river. An outraged British “citizen” David Sassoon, the leader of the Bombay Jewish community, demanded that Great Britain retaliate. Thus, the Opium Wars began with the British Army fighting as mercenaries of the Sassoons. They attacked cities and blockaded ports. The Chinese Army, decimated by 10 years of rampant opium addiction, proved no match for the British Army.

The war ended in 1842 with the signing of “The Treaty of Nanking.” This included provisions especially designed to guarantee the Sassoons the right to enslave an entire population with opium. The “peace treaty” included these provisions: 1) full legalization of the opium trade in China; 2) compensation from the opium stockpiles confiscated by Lin of 2 million pounds; and 3) territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over several designated offshore islands such as Hong Kong.

However, British PM Palmerston wrote Crown Commissioner Captain Charles Elliot that the treaty didn’t go far enough. He said it should have been rejected out of hand because, “After all, our naval power is so strong that we can tell the Emperor what we mean to hold rather than what he would cede. We must demand the admission of opium into interior China as an article of lawful commerce and increase the indemnity payments and British access to several additional Chinese ports.” Thus, China not only had to pay Sassoon the cost of his dumped opium but reimburse England an unheard sum of 21 million pounds for the cost of the war.

The Manchus resisted the privilege of selling opium throughout China, so the British Army again attacked in the Second Opium War, fought from 1858 to 1860. Palmerston declared that all of interior China must be open for uninterrupted opium traffic. The British suffered a defeat at the Taku Forts in June 1859, when sailors, ordered to seize the forts, were run aground in the mud-choked harbor. Several hundred were killed or captured.

An enraged Palmerston said, “We shall teach such a lesson to these perfidious hordes that the name of Europe will hereafter be a passport of fear.”

Palmerston supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War, mostly as a way of weakening U.S. influence and potential, and keeping Britain at the top of the roost. Post-Palmerston, and as the U.S. ascended, the British turned more to infiltration and co-opting. The long game of the British pederast satanists was manipulating the US into involvement in two world wars.

Read: Covert Agent Edward Mandell House: The Enemy Within Wilson’s White House

12 Comments on Lord Palmerston: Britain’s Black Operations Prime Minister

  1. Recommend The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome by Michael Hoffman for crucial insights into today’s ruling criminal cabal.

  2. Downloaded and am currently reading “Occult Theocrasy”. I decided to try and discover a little about the beliefs of Edith Starr Miller and found she more than likely was murdered for exposing things the adepts wanted hidden.

    “Occult and New Age web sites label Edith Starr Miller as an “anti Semitic, pro-fascist, Christian fundamentalist, who believes in the Jesuit-Jewish-Masonic-Illuminati-Bolshevik conspiracy theory.”

    “This is how Satanists classify the vestiges of decent humanity who turn over the rock and describe the insect life beneath. This is one of thousands of stories of valor that Illuminati Hollywood will never tell.”

    Thank’s for recommending this book Russ, it is an excellent read.

    More on Edith Millers murder:

    • Please let us know if you spot any special gems.

      “Today, most of the good people are afraid to be good. They strive to be broadminded and tolerant! It is fashionable to be tolerant — but mostly tolerant of evil — and this new code has reached the proportions of demanding intolerance of good.” -Edith Starr Miller

      • After the retelling of Capt Morgan’s botched Masonic assassination, Edith chimes in with this doozy(p226);

        Nowadays, greater precautions are observed in getting rid of the enemies of the sect. Some little study and the cooperation of a few culpable doctors, its auxiliaries and affiliates, enable the terrible sect to dispose easily of their enemies. The victim of their vengeance, swallowing some disease germ, meets a fate that none can prove to have been artificially contrived. This is the secret of secrets, denied again and again ! And yet the charge remains ! For plague, cholera and all epidemics can be let loose on the world at a word from the Hidden Masters !

    • An excellent book. Her preface is eerily relevant into today’s world. Not surprising how much she is bashed/slandered by so-called scholars.

  3. Years ago I came across a quote from Palmerston along the lines of (paraphrasing) ‘nothing must be allowed to get in the way of the power of money’. Unfortunately I wasn’t far enough along the path of discovery to fully comprehend the significance of (and copy) the quote, and haven’t been able to track it down since, but Palmerston was clearly a major strategic figure of the dark forces.

  4. Just downloaded that Occult Theocrasy PDF. Absolute truth about what the author wrote regarding Christianity, which, after the death of Christ, was perverted by man-made dogmas and doctrines along with hundreds of denominations fighting each other and claiming it is the only truth while the others are false. For me it is Christ, not religion! Thanks, Russ, for posting this link.

  5. Here I go again, not quite on topic. Your last paragraph: sentences number 2 and 3 are more accurate than number 1.

    The British elite, overall, supported the Confederacy, for the geo-political reasons you note; for access to Southern cotton (for the textile mills) shutoff by the Union blockade; and the literary elite attached themselves to the notion of an agrarian people – descendants of wealthy British aristocrats unlike those vile Puritans – valiantly defending their homeland against the big bad Yankees.

    However, the “support” was entirely moral and never got at all close to actual diplomatic recognition much less direct military aide. Half-steps towards those actions at times during the course of the war were met with an explicit threat of a declaration of war delivered by the US Ambassador, Charles Adams (son and grandson of Presidents). And there was the issue of Canada. British recognition of the Confederacy would have triggered the US invasion of Canada and very likely its loss.

    In addition, the British thought they needed only bide their time. Up to 1862 or 63 at least the consensus opinion there and on the continent was that the Confederacy was almost sure to prevail. They misunderstood that by that time (referring to an observation yesterday) war was no longer a matter of military forces contending in geographic space. But rather nations contending and bringing to bear their industrial and demographic resources and their will to wage war. In reality, as long as there were sufficient Ohioans and others in the mid west who absolutely refused to accept the Port of New Orleans falling into the hands of a foreign country, the Union was assured victory.

    • Wrong. You contradict your position in your first paragraph by the following two. The fact is that the “British elite” you speak of in your first paragraph played the confederacy as a pawn, and never intended to let them win, because they already controlled the north, and simply wanted to weaken both. They played both sides, as international finance always does, displaying a time tested control measure.
      “And there was the issue of Canada. British recognition of the Confederacy would have triggered the US invasion of Canada and very likely its loss.”
      Balderdash. The union would’ve been forced into a two front war in your make believe scenario, fighting the confederacy in the south and the British in canada. Your idea that the union could take over canada in such a situation is laughable.

      • Hey! – Thanks for reading my note. We probably have a revisionist vs conventional history disagreement in progress (I being the latter).

        I am not sure that the British had the option of “letting” (or not) the Confederacy win. British elite was (as always) probably not a cohesive entity. Surely British textile mill operators were badly hurt by the loss of southern cotton – Turkish and Egyptian sources were more expensive and poorer quality.

        Each baby step the British took toward support of the Confederacy was met with an unambiguous warning and they quickly backed off (2 warships they may or may not have been building for them got sold to someone else). They did re-reinforce their meager garrison in Canada. Still you are probably correct that neither side wanted a fight over Canada – Lincoln was very careful to avoid provocations at a number of points. But the British were fearful of losing it – the world had changed since 1812.

        I stand by my claim that the British presumption until at least the summer of 1863 was that the Confederacy would prevail of their own efforts and that would have left two wounded entities in place of one ascendant one. That is, would have “weakened both”.

        Here’s some grist for your mill: Judah Benjamin – the first Jew to hold a cabinet position in N America was CSA Attorney General for most of the war – serving, as well I think, in the capacity of finance minister. He, unlike Davis, gave federal troops the slip at the end of the war and ended up in England working as a wealthy barrister to the 1880s.

        • Hey regretleft, thanks for the response. I enjoy this topic immensely, and I am a revisionist, because I don’t believe the story as told by the history books. I believe that you may be engaging in some revisionism as well, and I’m all for that. I was simply positing that yours is unlikely because you stated that Britain was scared of losing Canada to the Union, while also at the same time hurting from the loss of cotton from the Union blockade. Those are two excellent reasons to come in on the side of the Confederacy, and British elites being moralistic regarding the slavery in the south seems like a weak reason not to, my sentiments. I mean seriously- these are the same British elites engaged in the subjugation of Ireland, India and China on genocidal levels since way before the Confederacy’s existence. Certainly they could grasp the intricacies of geopolitics, and put any moral dilemmas aside. Your secondary reasoning that the British elites were essentially procrastinating and waiting for both sides to fight each other to exhaustion is more likely, and we actually agree that the result was the weakening of both sides. My revisionist gut holds that Davis was the poorest of choices for a leader and sealed their fate before the first shot. One of my main reasons for this gut feeling is that he appointed Judah Benjamin, who financially tanked confederate currency to the tune of 9000% inflation over the course of the war because of overprinting and usury. Perhaps Davis was a crypto.

Post a Comment

Winter Watch
%d bloggers like this: