- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


A.W. Mann

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

Dec. 11, 2015

Whites Enslaved by Muslims


Blacks have not been the only ones enslaved.  William D. Phillips, Jr. writes in his book, Slavery from Roman times to the Early Transatlantic Trade, that prior to the tenth century A.D., Muslims generally purchased Christian Europeans as slaves, the Slavs being the most numerous (p.69).  Between the eighth and twelfth centuries, the Slavs and Finns were the primary groups sold as slaves by the Muslims (Ibid., pp. 63-64).  Thus, the word “slave” comes from the word “Slav.”

Unfortunately, the European governments cooperated with the enslavement of Whites.  Blackburn writes that in the 8th – 10th centuries, “Western Europe had little to offer foreign traders except slaves, yet its privileged classes craved the luxuries and exotic goods which could be bought in the East” (Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery, N.Y., 1997, p.43).


“The sale of White slaves to Asia and Africa was one of the few sources of gold for European treasuries.  From the eighth to the eleventh century, France was a major transfer point for White slaves to the Muslim world, with Rouen being the center for the selling of Irish and Flemish slaves. . . .  In fact, for 700 years, until the fall of Muslim Spain, those being herded were first and foremost overwhelmingly White     . . . . The men were worked to death as galley slaves.  The women, girls and boys were used as prostitutes” (Michael A. Hoffman II, They Were Whites and They Were Slaves, 4th ed., Dresden, New York, 1991, pp. 3-4).


In the early eighth century, Visigothic Spain was conquered by the Moors, and 150,000 Christians were enslaved (Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade, N.Y., 1997, p.36).  Whites were enslaved by Muslims for many years during the Middle Ages, and this continued until the 15th century.   Many Whites were captured by Muslim pirates:


“. . . [C]omparatively little attention has been given to the prolific slave trade that was carried out by pirates, or corsairs, along the Barbary coast . . . in what is now Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, beginning around 1600 A.D.  Anyone travelling in the Mediterranean at the time faced the real prospect of being captured by the Corsairs and taken to Barbary Coast cities and being sold as slaves.


“However, not content with attacking ships and sailors, the corsairs also sometimes raided coastal settlements in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, England, Ireland, and even as far away as the Netherlands and Iceland.  They landed on unguarded beaches and crept up on villages in the dark to capture their victims. . . As a result of this threat, numerous coastal towns in the Mediterranean were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants until the 19th century” (“The White Slaves of Barbary,” Oct. 6, 2014, p.1, barbary).

The mistreatment of White sailors caused many of them to desert and join the Muslim pirates.  “Some northern European seamen, English and Irish included,  . . . deserted to the Algerian pirates -- . . . bringing skill, technology . . . and experience to the . . . pirates” (Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many-Headed Hydra, Boston, 2000, pp. 62-63).


Professor Robert Davis of Ohio State University, in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, calculated that between 1 and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Muslim pirates and forced to work in Africa as slaves.  (For more information, see Dr. Bill Warner’s video called “Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret of Islam,” 44 min., and the article “The Greatest Murder Machine in History,” 5/31/14,

If it’s any consolation, Western Europe’s attitude toward slavery changed when it was confronted by the threat of Islam.  Islam forbade the enslavement of co-religionists and even barred enslavement of Jews and Christians as long as they lived peaceably under Islamic rule and paid tribute. “The Church Councils at Estinnes in 743 and at Meaux in 845 denounced the sale of Christian slaves to pagans, in the latter case urging that they should be sold to Christians instead” (Blackburn, p.43).

Whites Should not be Blamed for the Actions of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church has succeeded in obscuring its role in slavery by blaming slavery on the White Race, at least indirectly through Hollywood movies and the media.  Despite all its pretenses of being kind, just, and holy, the Catholic Church has thrived for many centuries on enslaving people worldwide:

“From the earliest times the Roman Church advocated human slavery.  In the Middle Ages, when feudal slavery flourished, the church fattened on the exploitation of the serfs who were bought and sold with the land. . . The great monasteries and nunneries were among the largest owners of serfs” (Burke McCarty, The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, p.71).

The Jesuits have had many centuries of experience of enslaving the native peoples of Mexico and Central and South America.  “The thirty Reductions [compounds] in Paraguay from 1600 to 1750 have become the model for the fifty States of 14th Amendment America from 1868 to (the present) . . .” (Eric Jon Phelps, Vatican Assassins, 2000, p.278).

“’The Jesuit Republic,’ composed of over 30 Paraguayan Reductions, was in fact a vast commercial empire on which were laboring over 200,000 slaves.  Boyd Barrett, an Irish ex-Jesuit, tells us:  ‘. . . More than a quarter million natives worked under their direction, and no payment was made directly to them. . . They were educated, trained, housed, clothed, fed and, to some extent, amused . . .’” (Ibid., p.277).

“Finally, the Jesuits, in keeping the natives ignorant and enslaved, taught them to hate and kill white men and so keep the existence of the Reductions a secret from the sovereigns of Europe” (Ibid., p.279).

The Jesuits have taught the Blacks not only to blame Whites for slavery, but to view Whites as their enemy (Ibid., p.280).  This, of course, transfers the responsibility for slavery from the Catholic Church and the governmental leaders to the White Race. The Catholic Church, of course, benefits when Blacks blame Whites and Protestant Christians for slavery, because this targets those whom it considers to be heretics.  When Blacks and Mexicans are misdirected to kill Whites, the Catholic Church can then pretend that it has clean hands and had no part in it.

With their experience of ruling over natives on every continent, “. . . the Jesuits were ready to amalgamate the races with the purpose of making America a nation of color, reducing it to the status of priest-ridden Mexico, Cuba and South America” (Ibid., p.428).  “For the Jesuits knew that nations of color, Negro or Oriental, are only able to be governed by absolutists, be they kings, emperors, shoguns, military dictators or tribal chiefs” (Ibid., p.429).  The Catholic Pope should be added to this list.  The Papacy dominated Europe for 1,260 years from 538 – 1798 A.D. in which “it claimed control over the souls of men as well as their bodies and extended its dominion beyond this life into the grave” (Howard B. Rand, Study In Revelation, p.44).

While the Mexicans like to blame Whites for past inequities instead of corporations like the Catholic Church, the Catholic Inquisition established itself as far away as Mexico and Peru and even in India – burning natives who would not convert to Catholicism as heretics and stealing their lands (Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History, Orlando, 1995, p.88).  Alberto wrote that “Years before the California gold rush, Roman Catholic priests tortured the Indians to make them confess where they were mining the gold for their holy places.”  The missions were established strategically to store the gold for shipment to the Vatican.   (For more information dispelling myths believed by Mexicans, see the video “Saint George and the ‘White Whore’” on YouTube [1:14:54]).

The Jesuits, of course, have always been a Jewish organization.  Hoskins explains:  “The Jews have historically been used as a hidden order of the Catholic Church.  They do things the Catholic Church does not like to be seen doing” (Richard Hoskins, In The Beginning     . . . , Lynchburg, 1995, p.147). 

“As long as people rail at the Jews, and as long as the Jews rail back at their attackers, no one will look beyond the Jew – and that is where the body is buried.  The Church cannot lend at usury because it is against the WORD . . . Therefore, to profit from usury, they used the Jews. . .

“To avoid the charge of using Jews as their agents – the Jews were attached to the kings to be managed.  With the king’s hand thus prominently displayed, no one could say that the Jews collected usury for the Pope. . . .

“When the antics of the Jews became abusive enough to provoke retaliation – the Church opened its doors to protect them from victims turned hostile – as one would expect them to do if they were of value to the Church” (Ibid., p.148).

“History is replete with stories of how they have been used, abused, bullied, robbed, and kept on pins and needles – but that applies only to the Jewish masses.  To the ‘alpha-Jews,’ the door of the Church corporation stands wide open.  There are countless Jewish priests, scores of Jewish cardinals and bishops, and some like Anaclet II, Gregory VI, and Gregory VII became popes.  Most Jews are Turks who have converted to Talmudism” (Ibid., p.150).

It may be noted that not only is the current Pope, Pope Francis, a Jesuit, but so is Vice President Joe Biden.  The CIA director, John Brennan, and Castro and Stalin were also Jesuit-trained.

A Brief History of Conditions in England in the 1500-1600s


To understand slavery in the west, we must go back in history to understand the mindset of those who were in power. 

Hoskins writes that the Papacy contracted with William of Normandy (aka William the Conqueror) to conquer England (Hoskins, p.145).  It was assumed that all the land belonged to the Pope.  William established the feudal system in England and dispossessed all the English landholders, large and small, making all the people serfs. Feudalism prevailed in England and in most of Europe for centuries.  “The feudal Church owned the land . . . . There was no question about who ruled – ‘Until the reign of Edward III, the peerage consisted only of high ecclesiastics, earls, and barons’” (Ibid., pp. 146-147).  The lords built castles which were used not only for their own protection, but for the protection of villagers.  The peasants were offered land to cultivate and protection in exchange for rent or services (Blackburn, p.40).

In an article called “Understanding Jurisdiction by an anonymous author,” we read:

“The nobility held the land under the crown. . . . The nobility wouldn’t sell their land, nor would they lease it.  They rented it.  Ever paid rent without a lease?  Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse.  You could move out or pay.  But what if you couldn’t have moved out?  Then you’d have a feel for what feudalism was all about.

“A tenant wasn’t a freeman.  He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble.  In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate).  That oath established a servitude [for the rest of his life].  The tenant then put his plow to the fields.  The rent was a variable.  In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell.  The tenant was a subsistence farmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustain him and his family. . . The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock.  He had to be fed.  Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow.  And, like a horse or cow, one usually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed so that the critter is productive” (

In time,

“[The large landholders] . . . radically changed agricultural practices by enclosing arable lands, evicting smallholders, and displacing rural tenants, thus throwing thousands of men and women off the land and denying them access to commons.  By the end of the 16th century there were twelve times as many propertyless people as there had been a hundred years earlier” (Linebaugh and  Rediker, p.17).

The land held in common (“the commons”), which the common people had utilized to provide food and shelter for themselves, was confiscated and even deforested by the gentry.  Most of the Irish and Scottish people evicted from their lands were unable to find profitable employment and became subject to the laws against vagabondage.  Vagabonds were viewed as poised to destroy the State and social order. Women at this time were considered to be good for nothing but breeding future slaves (labor power).  In fact, the term proletarian originally meant “poor women who served the state by bearing children” (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.332).  There were at least 15 rebellions/uprisings of the people between 1497 and 1607.

“Under Henry VIII (1509-1547), vagabonds were whipped, had their ears cut off, or were hanged (one chronicler of the age put their number at 75,000).  Under Edward VI (1547-1553), they had their chests branded with the letter V and were enslaved for two years; under Elizabeth I (1558-1603), they were whipped and banished to galley service or the house of correction” (Ibid., p.18).

To the rulers, it was a given that these people could be exploited as “beasts of burden,” so the ruling class did not like it that the people refused to work for low wages.  Consequently, the common people were considered to be “seditionists” and “criminals” and were shipped to the British colonies and sentenced to work on plantations (prisons without walls). America was considered to be the “land of the living dead.” The people shipped to the American colonies were considered to be commodities necessary for the accumulation of capital.

Queen Elizabeth I was responsible for having 1.5 million Irish Catholic peasants starved or put to the sword and for seizing their land.  Hoskins says that 154,000 Protestant Irish were killed between 1641-1642 (Hoskins, p.176).  Ireland’s food supply was taken at gunpoint, and 40 – 70 shiploads were sent to England every day (“Heads Up: Rothschild Bankers Who Screwed Everyone in Ireland are Finally on Trial . . . ,” 2/13/14,

One of the reasons for taking over the commons was that the growing demand for beef by the British aristocracy required more pastureland in the 17th century.  So the Scots and Irish were thrown off their lands to make room for cattle and sheep.  It was a win-win situation for the wealthy, because the displaced people created a cheap new labor pool for unskilled jobs in the factories in England.

Ireland fared worse than Scotland.  Rifkin writes:

“Pushed off the best pastureland and forced to farm smaller plots of marginal land, the Irish turned to the potato, a crop that could be grown abundantly in less favorable soil. . . In 1846, a blight devastated the Irish potato crop, causing mass starvation and death. . . . By 1880, Ireland had been virtually transformed into a giant cattle pasture to accommodate the English palate” (Jeremy Rifkin, Beyond Beef, N.Y., 1992, p.57). 

When Ireland and Scotland could not meet the growing demand for beef, the British bankers turned to the great plains of grassland in North America to raise cattle.  Unfortunately, these grasslands were already occupied by Indians and buffalo.  So, the strategy was to get rid of the Indians by getting rid of their primary means of subsistence, the buffalo.  With the help of the U.S. Army, they began massive slaughtering of buffalo.  Colonel Richard Dodge estimated that over four million were killed (Ibid., p.74).  The Kiowa Indians only found one survivor in 1881, which they killed for one of their ceremonies.  However, the following year, none could be found (Ibid., p.80).

The Indians were converted to Christianity and then transformed into cowboys, or vaqueros (Ibid., p.48).  African slaves and poor Europeans were also used to tend the herds.  They, like the Scots and Irish, were poorly paid and mercilessly exploited.  “Cattle, chattel, and capital went hand in hand . . .” (Ibid., p.50).

It may be noted that Rev. William Cowherd (1763-1816) asked his congregation of Christ Church in Salford, England on January 18, 1809 to refrain from eating meat, which culminated in the founding of the Vegetarian Society in 1847.  Cowherd offered free vegetarian soup to the hungry poor people in his area.


Oliver Cromwell’s Role in England

The common people had some hope that things would turn for the better when Oliver Cromwell led the Puritans in a revolution against the Catholic King Charles I and did away with censorship of the press and repressive courts like the Star Chamber, dissolved the monarchy and House of Lords, and declared a Republic (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.71).  Cromwell settled himself and his followers en fief on the lands he confiscated.  However, Cromwell also began undoing the reforms of the Protestant Presbyterians.  He “allowed the surrogates of the Catholic Church, the Jews, into England where they took the place of the expelled Catholics who had formerly managed Church financial and business interests.  Some believe that Cromwell was a secret agent of the Roman Catholic Church” (Hoskins, In The Beginning . . . , p.172).  Hoskins writes that Cromwell and his Puritans, ruled by Amsterdam (Jewish) bankers, were now “the establishment” (Richard Hoskins, Vigilantes of Christendom, Lynchburg, 1990, pp. 101-102).  The aristocrats who could claim descent from the ancient kings of England and Scotland who had supported King Charles I escaped from Cromwell by coming to Virginia in America as indentured servants.  

Cromwell held the Putney Debates in 1647.  Cromwell was on one side with the army officers, while the agitators of the rank and file were on the other.  Henry Ireton spoke for the grandees and gentry, while Thomas Rainborough, who had served in both the army and navy, was the most powerful spokesman for the commoners.  Laurence Clarkson wrote at this time that the “oppressors” were “the Nobility and Gentry” (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.81).  Rainborough was affiliated with “soldiers who had returned to England from America to wage war against the king” (Ibid., p.105).  He argued that the soldiers and sailors had been enslaved by those who were rich (Ibid., p.110), and he also spoke out against the enslavement of Europeans and Africans (Ibid., p.111).  He advocated that the courts speak in English rather than Latin, “the right to call witnesses, the right to a speedy trial, equality under the laws, no impressments, religious toleration, jury trials, no double jeopardy, the right to confront accusers, and the abolition of capital punishment for theft.  He emphasized the sovereignty and rights of ‘the poorest . . . that is in England’ . . . [T]he denial of access to the commons . . . to Rainborough was the ‘greatest tyranny that was thought of in the world’” (Ibid., pp. 105-106).  These Debates affected the decision of King Charles I to take 236 acres of the commons and use them for a hunting park (Ibid., p.109).

Rainborough was taken out of the way by being assassinated by “royalists” in 1648.  While this was a setback, other leaders stepped forward to carry on.  The Diggers believed that the lands people held in common prevented theft, murder, imprisonment, and hangings, so they went ahead and repossessed the land and created about a dozen communes.  However, Lord Fairfax, an associate of Cromwell, personally led his troops and “drove the commoners off the land, breaking their spades, trampling the crops, and destroying their houses” (Ibid., p.118).  Cromwell had Fairfax round up, execute, or exile the Levellers two weeks later (Ibid., p.119).  One day later, on March 29, 1649, Cromwell left to conquer Ireland where he seized the lands in Ireland in order to be able to pay his soldiers.  Ireland was surveyed in the 1650s, and the fields were enclosed and given to the English upper class (Ibid., pp. 121-122).

Cromwell not only shipped five-sixths of the Irish population into slavery (Hoffman, p.28), but he also shipped the homeless and/or poor from England and Scotland (Ibid.). The Sephardic Jews from Holland provided most of the financing and shipping facilities for the enslavement of Whites in the West Indies (Ibid., p.52).  Four-fifths of the White slaves sent to the West Indies died within the first year from the heat and rigors of slavery (Ibid., p.51).  It is estimated that of the 25,000 slaves of Barbados in the British West Indies in the 1640s, 21,700 were Whites (Ibid., p.7).  Even hardened criminals preferred hanging over being sentenced to slavery in the British colonies (primarily Barbados and Jamaica) as they considered slavery to be a living death (Ibid., p.80).  


Eventually, Blacks were imported as slaves since they were more docile, less rebellious than the Irish, and were accustomed to working in the tropical heat.  Blackburn writes:


“The English could defeat the Irish in battles, but could not then fix and exploit them as peasants.  The [English] colonists [in Ireland] became demoralized by the hostility of the natives and the desolation of the countryside; many [Englishmen] returned to England” (Blackburn, p.222).


The following synopsis concerning the Irish is taken from an article on the internet:


“The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World.  His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.  By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat.  At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. . .


“From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves.  Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.  Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic.  This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children.  Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.


“During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England.  In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder.  In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2,000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. . . .


“African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling).  Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling).  If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime.  A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.  The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. . . . (in many cases, girls as young as 12) . . . The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion.  These new ‘mulatto’ slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.  This practice of interbreeding . . . went on for several decades [until 1681] . . .” (“How Blacks Have Irish Last Names,” 10/19/15,


White women were not given special treatment over Black women.  They worked together in the fields, although the plantation owners preferred using Black women as domestics (Hoffman, pp. 22-23).  A White female slave who had a baby out of wedlock was penalized by an additional 2 ½ years of slavery – even if the slavemaster himself had made her pregnant.  The child was penalized to remain a slave for 31 years, although this law was changed in 1765 to 21 years for boys and 18 years for girls (Ibid., p.49).


Cromwell challenged the Dutch for supremacy of the Atlantic by mobilizing English shipyards to build many more ships.  By the 1690s, “the Royal Navy had become England’s greatest employer of labor, its greatest consumer of material, and its greatest industrial enterprise” (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.148).  However, the Navy did not have enough sailors, and it had little or no money to pay them.  Ships and sailors were also necessary to transport “commodities.”  So, England turned to Ireland and forced Irishmen to supply its army and navy.  Since working conditions were terrible, and sailors were treated harshly, many mutinied or deserted.

Hoskins explains what happened after Cromwell’s death:

“When Cromwell died, the old rulers quietly stepped back into the shoes that he had kept safe from the Presbyterian Protestants.  King Charles II restored the Anglican Episcopal Church, which he called ‘protestant,’ as the state religion.  He banned the Presbyterian Covenanters as traitors . . . and fined, confiscated, imprisoned, transported, and executed those who were arrested attending meetings held . . .” (Hoskins, In The Beginning . . . , p.172).

“Most Irish Presbyterians in the north, and Irish Catholics in the south, to this day do not realize that the Anglican Church owns title to the very land they live on in Ireland.  The fight the IRA is making against the Protestants, with the secret encouragement of the Catholic Church, is to force the Anglican landlords to share the land rents with the Roman Catholic Church.  This is the reason for the Vatican visits by the British royals.  Both the Irish Presbyterians and Catholics are expendable” (Ibid., p.176).

Conditions in England in the 1700-1800s

The first steam-driven cotton factory opened in 1789 in Manchester.  The cotton gin was invented in 1793.  While this cut the costs of the industrialists, mechanization put people out of work and contributed to the dehumanization and expendability of the common people.

The Bank of England and the Houses of Parliament thrived on expropriation and exploitation.  In June of 1791, Parliament passed an Act to “enclose” (appropriate) 6,000 acres in Sheffield (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.338).  Between 1801-1831, the British Parliament expropriated 3,511,770 acres of common land from the people (Ibid., p.315).  Then they passed laws “to protect themselves and to criminalize the dispossessed” (Ibid., p.316).  While the aristocracy did not consider this to be theft and did not consider hanging, decapitating, starving, or burning protesters to be murder, it expected the people to obey, even if it meant them starving to death.

The cities were overcrowded, and the disease-ridden slums were home to a population always on the verge of starvation with no means to improve their situation (Carolly Erickson, Her Little Majesty: The Life of Queen Victoria, N.Y., 1997, p.97).  Many of the paupers had been driven off their lands because of high taxes.  In London, “74 percent of all children died before the age of five” (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.336).  The average life expectancy for those who survived childhood was 30 or 40 years, but in 1851, only 45 percent of the people lived until the age of 20.  “. . . [B]y one estimate there were 30,000 homeless young children sleeping on the London streets, winter and summer . . .” (Erickson, p.207).  (Keep in mind that between 1650 – 1850, England was in a little Ice Age.)  Children could be hung for minor offenses or sold into slavery for stealing a loaf of bread.  Marcus Cunliffe writes in Chattel Slavery and Wage Slavery about John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia travelling to England and Ireland with his Black servant.  They were so shocked by the conditions of the poor Whites that his servant never felt so proud to be a slave as compared to the poor Whites who were supposedly free (Cunliffe, p.73). 

An article written by N. W. P. of New Zealand, called “White Slavery,” describes the conditions in England:

“By 1840, six-sevenths of the workers in England and Wales lived in areas where the Poor Law was in force.  This provided for the setting up of work-houses for the destitute.  Yet conditions were so bad that people endured hunger and cold before applying for entry.  In the work-houses, husbands and wives were separated from each other and their children. . . .

“The great slum complex of St. Giles, London, some 12 acres, was crammed with people and rotting corpses.  Toilet facilities consisted of ditches of putrifying filth.  The foundations and rotting floors on dwellings rested on soil that absorbed the filth until it had become a putrid sponge.  Cholera epidemics were frequent and ensured a high mortality rate, especially among children.  Women had to keep watch for rats that gnawed their babies’ fingers.

“In the 1800’s, tens of thousands of White children were employed as ‘slave laborers’ in British coal mines.  Little White boys seven years old, harnessed like donkeys, dragged through the darkness carts filled with coal.  Little White girls of the same age were filling up those carts.  In 1842, White children aged 3 to 4 were working down [in] pits. . . .

“The thriving cotton industry of the 1850’s employed 15,000 White children under the age of 13.  Six-year-old children worked from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day. . . Unguarded machinery removed fingers and hands.

“During this time, to be sent to prison was tantamount to a death penalty.  Many were shipped in far worse conditions than the slaves were to penal settlements abroad for life for petty theft, never to see their wives and children again . . . Their wives and children were likely to die at a very early age. . . .

“Scots and Irish – Whites – forcibly removed from their lands by grasping landowners, were put on . . . ships sailing for the New World.  A ship weighing 300 tons would load 400 passengers, all crammed into a hold 60 feet by 18 feet and only 6 feet high.  In one year alone, of 13,762 passengers who sailed to the New World, more than a third were attacked by cholera; over 1,000 died.  William Hutcheson, the Colonial Secretary, said:  ‘I really do believe that there are not many instances of slave traders from Africa to America exhibiting so disgusting a picture.’

“In 1881, 25% of the population of such cities as Glasgow lived as families in one room situated in the worst slums history has known.  Two million White Britons (and there wasn’t a 56 million population then) lived solely on potatoes – nothing else – just potatoes.  In Ireland, four million lived on potatoes.  During the potato famine, hundreds of thousands of them died of starvation.”

Erickson adds that between 1832 – 1842, England’s population greatly increased, primarily from Ireland, because their potato crop had failed three years in a row (Erickson, p.109). 

Dodd reports that many petitions were sent to Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the Queen for relief for British subjects, but they were ignored (William Dodd, The Factory System Illustrated, Boston, pp. 25-26), just as our petitions are ignored by Congress today.

 “. . . [I]t would never have occurred to the queen [of England] to throw the weight of her prestige and influence behind a campaign to alleviate human misery” (Erickson, p.207).  However, she “strenuously argued for improving the conditions under which animals bound for slaughter were kept” (Ibid., p.235).

To sum up, Hoffman says:

“The Rev. Charles Edwards Lester, the great-grandson of the Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, . . . stated that if he had a choice between having his children born negro slaves in the South or poor people in England, he would choose the former:  ‘I would sooner see the children of my love born to the heritage of Southern slavery than to see them subjected to the blighting bondage of the poor English operative’s life’ (Lester, The Glory and the Shame of England, Vol. 1, p.viii)” (Hoffman, pp. 13-14).

“Robert Owen declared in 1840, ‘The working classes of Great Britain are in a worse condition than any slaves in any country in any period of the world’s history’” (Ibid., p.11).  An accurate portrayal of the people at that time is given in the movie “Oliver Twist.”

“[Rev. Richard Oastler, a Methodist minister in York] attacked the hypocrisy of Yorkshire clergymen and politicians who condemned with great fervor the enslavement of Blacks in the West Indies while in England, ‘thousands of our fellow creatures . . . are this very moment . . . in a state of slavery more horrid than are the victims of that hellish system colonial slavery’” (Ibid., p.11).

The British distracted the attention of the people from the wrongs committed by the upper class toward the common people to the fancied wrongs against the negro.  But note that they treated fellow Englishmen worse than the negro slaves were treated.

Most Whites Were Brought to America as Slaves


In the 17th and 18th centuries, Americans used the words “slave” and “servant” synonymously.  However, historians generally reserve the term “slave” for Blacks and the term “indentured servants” for Whites.  Some Whites were indeed “indentured servants” and worked under privileged conditions of limited bondage for a specific period of time, primarily as apprentices, in exchange for their transportation to America and for room and board during their time of service.  However, the indentured servant system only held for a small number of Whites in the colonies, and records show that there were Blacks who were indentured servants for an agreed upon period of time too.  “When the new colony of Maryland was established, it was to offer 50 acres, clothes, tools, and a gun to servants at the expiry of the indentures” (Blackburn, p.227).

Most of the slave-laborers in the American colonies in the 1600s were White.  “From 1609 until the early 1800s, between one-half and two-thirds of all the White colonists who came to the New World came as slaves.  Of the passengers on the Mayflower, twelve were White slaves (John Van der Zee, Bound Over, p.93).  White slaves cleared the forests, drained the swamps, built the roads.  They worked and died in greater numbers than anyone else” (Hoffman, p.19).  A Virginia planter named John Pory stated in 1619 that White slaves were the “principal wealth” of the colonies (Ibid., p.20).  While the Quakers were opposed to negro slavery, they had no qualms about enslaving Whites.

Half of the Whites who were “indentured” between the ages of 16 and 20 never lived to see their freedom (Ibid., p.48).  Thousands of cases were recorded of beatings and murders by masters of their White male and female slaves.  Many poor White slaves who ran away from their masters found refuge in the mountains of Appalachia in North Carolina, where they are still poor today.  So much for the myth of “White privilege” and the myth that only negroes were enslaved.


One eyewitness estimated that 10,000 poor Whites in Britain were kidnapped and sold into slavery every year (Hoffman, p.77).  “The very word kidnapper was first coined in Britain in the 1600s to describe those who captured and sold White children into slavery (‘kid-nabbers’)” (Ibid., p.27).  “As late as 1660, ordinary parents pitifully followed ships carrying their children to the West Indies down river to Gravesend, ‘cryinge and mourning for Redemption from their slavery’” (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.110).  Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, Kidnapped, was based on the true story of a boy in Scotland who was sold into slavery to America.

The voyage to America took 9 – 12 weeks, but the slaves were often on the ship for two weeks before crossing the Atlantic.  The White slaves, including the children, remained chained together with padlocked collars around their necks.  The death rate was usually 25%, but sometimes as high as 50%.   A loss of 20% was considered acceptable.  The slaves were never allowed to go up on deck.  While the ships that transported Black slaves were designed to carry slaves, the ships that transported White slaves were cargo ships which were not built to accommodate human passengers.  They were so crowded in the hold that they could not all lay down at the same time without lying on top of one another.  A minimum of two million Whites were sold into slavery from Britain, and at least half of them died before reaching the shores of America.

Since White slaves were often sold to planters in America in advance, and since the captains were only responsible for feeding and keeping the slaves alive during the first half of the trip with the planters being responsible for the second half, the White slaves were virtually allowed to starve during the last half of the voyage.  If they were sick or diseased upon arrival in America, they were forced to remain quarantined on board for another 10 to 12 weeks.

I would highly recommend that parents go to Michael Hoffman’s website, “Revisionist History Bookstore,” and purchase his book on White Slavery.  Children should be taught this history to counteract what is and is not taught in school and in modern textbooks.



Conditions of the Slaves and Sailors on the Ships

Captain Hugh Crow, a man involved in the African slave trade, stated that he would have preferred being a slave in the West Indies to being a free man at home in England working as a miner, a fisherman, or factory worker.  Another captain, Joseph Hawkins (1793), stated that many of the black slaves that he purchased in Africa were eager to escape their bondage there and preferred taking their chances in the West Indies to what they were exposed to in Africa (Thomas, p.308).  African tribes in the Congo fattened their slaves for eating like cattle and poultry (Gary Hogg, Cannibalism & Human Sacrifice, Buffalo, New York, 1980, p.105).

John Newton had no other way of earning money, and he did not want to resort to robbing people on the highways, so he became a captain of a slave ship.  He would read prayers to his crew twice a day.  While still a slave captain, he became a clergyman and wrote the Christian hymn, “How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds” (Thomas, p.309).

Some of the captains on the slave ships treated the Africans kindly.  For instance, Captain William Snelgrave, who was in command of a slave ship named Katherine for a private owner in 1727, treated the slaves well once underway.  After allaying their fears through a linguist, he took their irons off the males (the women and children were never fettered), fed them two good meals a day, let them come up on the deck until sundown if they wanted, and Monday was nicotine-day when pipes and tobacco were issued to everyone (James Pope-Hennessy, Sins of the Fathers, Edison, New Jersey, 2004, p.90).

Captain Thomas Phillips, whose ship was the Hannibal in 1693-1694, was also a kind man and let the slaves out of their fetters at sea (Ibid., pp. 97-98).  Captain Hugh Crow, of the ship Will in 1801, was also kind and humane to the Africans (Ibid., p.201).

On the other hand, officers frequently treated their sailors worse than their slaves.  Most sailors had to sleep on deck in the open air, their food rations were terrible, and they received little pay for their work (Thomas, p.311).  “Apart from the obvious perils of heaving in wet, flapping canvas one hundred feet above a pitching deck, there was a constant requirement to haul on ropes at all hours of the day and night and the likelihood of being cold and wet for days on end” (David Cordingly, Under The Black Flag, N.Y., 1997, p.14).  They made up for their bad food by good drink.  Gambling was almost as popular as drinking.  They gambled with cards, dice, and backgammon.  Over 20% of the crews from Bristol and Liverpool died on their voyages in the 1780s (Thomas, p.311).  Since slave ships weren’t legally required to bring a surgeon along, many of them economized by not having one (Ibid., p.310).   The voyages usually lasted for 15 – 18 months (Ibid., p.313).

Sometimes the sailors were lured to work on a slave ship by getting them drunk at the inns in Britain until they could not pay their liquor bills.  They were then given the choice of going to jail or going to sea (Ibid., p.310).  The managers of the inns were usually paid under the table by the captains to cooperate in this type of blackmail.

The European men who worked as soldiers at the West African forts (which protected the slave trade) were “men without education and without aim in life, often the riff-raff of the coast who had drifted into the Company’s service to replace the dead” (Pope-Hennessy, p.159).  They were treated as “white negroes” with just enough salary to buy canky (fermented corn) baked into buns, palm oil, and a little fish (Ibid., p.162).  They were forced to obey strict rules.  At sundown, after the gates of the forts were closed, they all got drunk.  Slave-trading on the African coast was long and tedious, “made all the worse by sickness and by the rains that began in May and lasted till October” (Ibid., p.235).  This proves that the slave trade was no picnic for most Whites who were involved in it.

The British Navy used violence to force the common people to become sailors on its ships.  Three-fourths of the sailors died within two years, and those who survived were generally not paid for their service.  In the 1740s, the sailors in the American colonies attacked the British press-gangs and captured their ships.  They would drag the ships on land and burn them.  After the insurrection in New York in 1741 of slaves and sailors, both poor Whites and Blacks, the authorities attempted to disrupt interracial cooperation by appealing to White identity and solidarity.  This was, of course, ironic since race meant nothing to the upper class when they enslaved and even killed poor White men, women, and children in England, Ireland, and Scotland. 

In the late 1760s, sailors in England and America, both White and Black, linked their revolts together and crippled commerce.  This continued in 1770 when England was at war with Spain and in 1776 when at war with the American colonies.  The sailors went on strike in Liverpool in 1775 over a reduction in their wages, and they were joined by 3,000 men, women, and children.  When the authorities fired at the crowd and killed several people, the sailors responded by dragging cannons from the ships to the center of the city and “bombarded the Mercantile Exchange” and trashed the properties of several of the rich slave-trading merchants (Linebaugh and Rediker, pp. 220-221).

The sailors’ mutinies and piracy severely harmed the slave trade between 1716-1726 (Ibid., p.168).  The pirates of the Caribbean caused havoc in the merchant shipping on the Atlantic.  Since other ships could only be identified by their flags, they frequently deceived other ships by flying false flags to catch their victims off guard so they could be taken by surprise.  The mutinies at sea, insurrections on plantations, and riots in port cities in the 1760s and 1770s destabilized the British hold on the American colonies and finally pushed the colonies into a war for liberation from Britain.  Slaves and sailors were central in the protests against the Stamp Act (1765), the Quartering Acts (1765, 1774), the Townshend Revenue Act (1767), the British customs service (1764-1774), the Tea Act (1773), and the Intolerable Acts (1774) (Linebaugh and Rediker, p.228).  The sailors also intimidated British officials by tarring and feathering them.  Around 42,000 sailors in the British Navy deserted between 1776 and 1783 (Ibid., p.241).  Thus, Parliament passed Acts which penalized desertion by the death penalty. 

The Sons of Liberty group was organized in New York to counteract the anarchy of the slaves and sailors and to reassure the public that order would be established.  American merchants, artisans, and landowners sought to move politics from the streets to legislative chambers in which those who owned no property (and were most likely illiterate) would have no vote or voice in the government (Ibid., p.238).  Still, it should be recognized that the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause.  Had the revolution failed, they would have all been hanged as traitors.  As it was, nine of them died as a result of the war or its hardships on them.  Twelve had their homes ransacked and ruined, and six literally gave their fortunes to further the cause.  Robert Morris, a merchant, lost 150 ships that were sunk during the war.  Blacks today assume that our founders’ lives were easy and that they were greedy “White supremacist” capitalists who were only interested in their own power, wealth, and vanity.  However, the founders put everything on the line, even though they knew it might mean losing not only all their possessions, but also their lives and the lives of their wives and children.

The First Continental Congress (Oct. 1774) called for a complete end of importing slaves after December 1.  The Second Continental Congress (April 1776) reaffirmed this (Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Slaveholding Republic, N.Y., 2001, p.16).  However, the delegates believed the institution of slavery should be decided on the state rather than on the federal level.  In 1820, Congress passed a law declaring slave trading to be piracy, punishable by death (Ibid., p.136).  However, little attempt was made to enforce this law.  The anti-slave-trade act, “made permanent three years later, virtually completed the substantive legislation of Congress for suppression of the African slave trade” (Ibid., p.152).  However, France, Spain, Brazil, and Portugal continued the slave trade, primarily to Brazil and Cuba (Ibid., p.156).  Thus, suppression of the slave trade internationally by the British was difficult.  While Americans did not import African slaves into the U.S., this did not stop them from participating in the international slave trade.  “By the 1850s, New York in particular had become notorious as the place where more slave-trade voyages were being organized, financed, and fitted out than anywhere else in the world” (Ibid., p.202).   The Southerners should not be blamed for what the New Yorkers did!

To thwart the British, ships would often fly false colors and carry false papers.  Americans were often used to pose as captains so that slave ships could evade capture by the British.  However, because of a possible death sentence under U.S. law for slave-trading, slave ships seldom flew the U.S. flag after they were loaded with slaves (Ibid., p.175).   Slave ships could not be confiscated by the British Navy unless there actually were slaves on board.

Duff Green, a well-known editor from Kentucky, wrote in 1842 that England was opposed to slavery in the western hemisphere, not out of sympathy for the slaves, but because her colony in India could produce cotton, rice, coffee, and sugar cheaper than the United States, Cuba, and Brazil, and a disruption of slavery in the west would make the world dependent on England for those goods (Ibid., p.168).  Instead of spending millions to abolish slavery in all its colonies, under the pretense of philanthropy, the British should have spent the money helping lift people out of poverty and homelessness in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Conditions in America after Slavery was Abolished

Americans today who do not know history can easily fall into the trap of assuming that all of our founding fathers were wealthy Christian White racists, that all Southerners were slave owners, that only Blacks were enslaved, and that the cause and methods of the abolitionists were righteous.  However, as we have already noted, it is a mistake to make these assumptions.  For instance, Dr. Josiah C. Nott (1804-1873), a physician and writer from Mobile, Alabama who is famously considered to be a “White racist” by people today, stated that he had “always been an emancipationist at heart . . . [and] utterly opposed . . . the slave trade  . . . [and] maintained that every people capable of self-government had a right to liberty . . . [He repeatedly told the few slaves that he owned that] ‘Whenever you think you can do better without me than with me, I will pay your expenses to Boston or Liberia’” (Paskoff and Wilson, p.60).


The Northern abolitionists (federalists) had an ulterior motive in wanting to abolish negro slavery.  They had no particular fondness for the negro, and they were funded by the bankers to destroy our Republican form of government and replace it with a “Democracy.”  They wanted to consolidate power in the hands of the federal government.  Like the Bolsheviks who took over Russia in the early 1900s, the abolitionists were fanatic about their cause.  For instance, they sent armed, lawless men into Kansas where they asserted that the laws were invalid, and they openly prevented the marshals and ministers of the law from discharging their duties (Paul Paskoff and Daniel Wilson, eds., The Cause of the South, Baton Rouge, 1982, p.194).  Allen Wilkinson was flayed alive, had his nose and ears cut off, his scalp was torn from his head, and then he was stabbed through the heart (Ibid., p.195).  Others had their fingers and arms cut off before they were killed.  Some had their houses burned and their possessions stolen before being driven out of the territory and threatened with death if they ever returned (Ibid., p.196).  The U.S. troops nearby did nothing to stop these outrages.


Americans need to understand that, although most slaves were not paid wages, they did receive payments in one form or another.  Some did receive wages, so it was not pure slavery.   Slaves were sometimes given a degree of autonomy.  In Louisville in 1820, “at least 150 slaves . . . hired their own time and paid their owners $20 per month” (Mary Turner, ed., From Chattel Slaves to Wage Slaves, Bloomington, Indiana, 1995, p.130).  One Louisville slave named Yellow Jim “was allowed to be on his own, provided he paid his owner, James Rudd, $5 a week” (Ibid.).


Slaves transitioned from slavery to wage slavery at the same jobs they held in slavery (Ibid., p.143).  Turner writes:  “In slavery the laborer is a commodity, while in wage labor the labor power of legally free laborers is the commodity” (Ibid., p.123).  In both slavery and wage labor, those who were in charge utilized whatever methods they could to exploit them to the fullest.  While wage laborers are technically free today, they are still treated as slaves by their employers and/or are exploited by the government through taxes.  As bad as people may think slavery was, all of the costs of supporting the negro slaves was borne by the slave holders, not by society.  George Fitzhugh, born in 1804 in Virginia and an associate judge, “believed that chattel slavery was better for the slave than the ‘wage slavery’ of the North and Europe because it offered the slave greater protection . . . He . . . suspected they could not long survive without the protection of their masters” (Paskoff and Wilson, p.291).


Horace Greeley wrote in 1872 that the War “had brought all workers to a common level, not so much by raising the level of the slaves, but by ‘reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom’” (Ray Bilger, The Untold History of America, Vol. I, Las Vegas, 1997, p.19).  Since returning the Blacks to Africa was out of the question for the abolitionists, Blacks were forced to compete with Whites for employment.  Since the South had been so utterly destroyed by the war and Reconstruction, employment opportunities were scarce since the Southerners were impoverished, so the negroes were forced to take care of themselves.  This was the result that the Northern abolitionists worked for, proving that the bankers were in charge and that the vast majority of Whites were exploited along with the newly-emancipated negroes!  It is important to note that poverty and unemployment today are still caused by the bankers, not by White racism!


To make matters worse, the ruling class pooled its money together to form corporations to do business.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 1886 that corporations were “natural persons” under the 14th Amendment allowed corporations to compete with small businesses and individuals.   Since corporations only serve their investors, not society as a whole, there was/is always the danger that corporations and the general public will come into conflict since corporations only exist to make profits.

Working and living conditions in America mirrored what Whites had experienced in England.   This occurred after negro slavery was abolished in the United States.


“By the mid-1890s, . . . children worked side by side with their parents in sweatshops in New York City and elsewhere under deplorable conditions just in order to have food to eat and a place to live.  As the 10th century began, 284,000 children between 10 and 15 years of age worked in mines, mills and factories.  In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1903, children worked 60 hours a week in textile mills” (Bilger, p.31).


Child labor wasn’t outlawed until 1938.  Apparently, the abolitionists were not in any hurry to abolish child slavery.

Sickness rates in the 1890s among Blacks were 20% higher than on slave plantations (Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross, 3rd Ptg., Boston, 1974, p.261).  It’s true that the abolitionists tried to pass laws requiring the federal government to do something, but that meant taxing (penalizing) the nation for their private cause.  Naturally, this would have required the government to borrow more money from the bankers.  (The bankers and the abolitionists certainly did not want to voluntarily donate any of their money to alleviate the suffering.)  However, the federal government was created by the states to handle international business, not to interfere with the domestic institutions of the several states. The states were in fact considered to be separate “countries” from one another (Fehrenbacher, p.370). 


“Ever since abolition, those parts of the country with large black populations have been afflicted with crime and poverty, which have only worsened in recent decades   . . . Prisons, welfare, and crime prevention are disproportionately paid for by Whites.  Underclass blacks have made many of our cities so squalid and dangerous that Whites rarely venture into them.  School integration has so lowered the standards of public instruction that many Whites now pay for two systems:  public schools for blacks and private schools for their own children.  As Southerners now sometimes observe, ‘If we had known then what we know now, we would have picked the cotton ourselves.’  They feel they have already suffered more than enough for the sins of their ancestors” (William Robertson Boggs, “The ‘Reparations’ Hoax”).


Slavery in the South had held families together, because Blacks were at least guaranteed work and financial security.  The bankers and abolitionists disrupted the stability in society and then expected everyone to compete with everyone in a survival of the fittest. The situation after the “Civil War” was very similar to what has happened in recent times:


“After NATO was finished making a mess of Libya by taking out Gaddafi and leaving a right proper mess of a power vacuum, it simply departed – leaving the country to fend for itself.  Libya descended, of course, into an outright civil war and has remained ever since a hotbed of sectarian violence and increasing ISIS control and presence. . . .


“It’s disaster capitalism in action.  The idea is to break things apart and then make money off of the pieces.  It’s not to help people” (Chris Martenson, “Murder and Mayhem in the Middle East,” 11/30/15, p.3,


Today, although the old form of slavery no longer exists in the U.S., the bankers who run the government have become the new slave owners.  The costs of new slavery have been shifted to society.  Society must pay the costs of welfare, food stamps, medical, and prison costs.  The government wants to make businesses and laborers also pay for the medical expenses of the poor, the indigent, the illegals, and the newly-arrived, disease-infested “refugees.”  If the bankers are so caring about all of them, why don’t they volunteer to pay these expenses themselves?  Going into more debt only forces Americans into slavery, because “the borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7).  Only the bankers benefit.  Up until 1943, only wealthy Americans paid income taxes, and they did so by March 15 of the year following the taxable year, but today most corporations and wealthy individuals pay little or nothing in taxes, and yet they want to be the ones to run our government and make sure that we pay for all their “liberal” schemes.


As if things aren’t bad enough, Whites have been forced to shoulder most of the responsibility for slavery through “Affirmative Action.”  All Whites -- whether from the North or South, or whether their ancestors came to America in the 1700s or the 1900s – are passed over for jobs regardless of their education, qualifications, or experience in order to pay for sins or crimes that their ancestors have been accused of but rarely, if ever, committed.  Thus, Whites who want to work are often prevented from doing so, because jobs are given to nonwhites to supposedly balance inequities of the past.  Since Affirmative Action is a “reparation” being paid by Whites, not by the bankers, it should be obvious that this is inequitable.  Like the Catholic Church, the bankers have diverted people’s attention to Race as the issue.  One thing is clear.  If Whites were truly in power, they certainly would not have imposed Affirmative Action on themselves.


A Brief Review of the Banking System


By what right do the bankers exercise a monopoly over all of our lives and our livelihood?  Ben Franklin’s partner, Arthur Lee, obtained loans for the Revolutionary War from the Bank of England on condition that if America won the war, the Bank’s financial interests would continue as under English rule.  Since we won, one of the first actions taken by Congress in 1792 was the establishment of the Bank of the United States (Adrian H. Krieg, July 4th 2016: The Last Independence Day, Tampa, 2000, p.31).  At Thomas Jefferson’s insistence, the bank was chartered for only twenty years.  When the time came for renewal, and Americans balked, England attacked Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812.  This time, Congress gave the Bank of England a monopoly on our currency and chartered it for twenty years.  In addition, Congress guaranteed the Bank’s financial solvency. “Within three years . . . the bank had virtual control of the nation’s business and as a monopoly had the government act as their enforcement department” (Ibid., p.34).  This shows that the Bank of England was the one that won the war.  While Americans may have won their independence from England, they did not win their independence from the Rothschild-controlled Bank of England (the Crown).


In 1863, the National Banks were able to get the National Banking Act passed, which “virtually forced State Banks to become National.  It made National Banks impervious to State courts and State jurisdiction.  Further, the law doubled the actual net worth (capital) of any National Bank” (Ibid., p.38).


In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed unlawfully.  Members are not elected by Americans, nor are the Federal Reserve banks ever audited.  What is worse is that the government guarantees “their every financial risk” (Ibid., p.43).  In other words, they are guaranteed profits and no losses.


The Bank of England is a private corporation just like the Federal Reserve and of course has been run by the Rothschilds for over 200 years.  Henry Ford, Sr. explained their power in more detail:


“Rothschild power, as it was once known, has been so broadened by the entry of other banking families into governmental finance, that it must now be known not by the name of one family of Jews, but by the name of the race.  Thus it is spoken of as International Jewish Finance, and its principal figures are described as International Jewish Financiers” (The International Jew, Vol. II, Dearborn, Michigan, 1921, p.43).


“As a leading student of financial affairs puts it, the world of high finance is largely a Jewish world because of the Jewish financier’s ‘absence from national or patriotic illusions’” (Ibid., p.44).


The top eight “Class A” stockholders of the Federal Reserve Corporation in 1913 were all Jewish families:


1.     The Rothschilds of Europe

2.     The Lazards of Paris

3.     The Israel Moses Seifs of Italy

4.     The Warburgs of Germany

5.     The Lehmans of New York

6.     The Kuhn-Loebs of New York

7.     The Goldman-Sachs of New York

8.     The Rockefellers of New York


These Jewish families, of course, pay no taxes on their income.  Note the “coincidence” that all the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents today are Jews:


1)     Eric S. Rosengren – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

2)     Charles I. Plosser – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

3)     Jeffrey M. Lacker – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

4)     James B. Bullard – President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

5)     Gary H. Stern – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

6)     Thomas M. Hoenig – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

7)     Richard W. Fisher – President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

8)     Janet L. Yellen – President, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco



The following articles offer information regarding the bankruptcy of our nation in 1933:


1.     James Traficant, Jr.’s “The Bankruptcy of the United States,” March 17, 1993 (

2.     John Nelson’s “The United States is Bankrupt,”

3.     Judge Dale’s “The Bankruptcy of America – 1933,”


In the “SlaughterHouse Cases” (Dec. 1872), we read that “Slavery in the annals of the world had been the ultimate solution of controversies between the creditor and debtor . . .” (U.S. Reports, Vol. 17, Wheaton 4, 1883, p.50).   The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia issued a publication entitled “The National Debt” which stated:  “Used recklessly, it [debt] has the power to make us slaves.”  “If [Americans] . . . don’t challenge and defeat this cabal, they will be doomed to slavery” (The International Forecaster, Sept. 2006).  “Their timetable for ending the Sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation is the year 2016” (Krieg, p.247).


If nonwhites are truly opposed to slavery and not just trying to dishonestly take advantage of Whites, they should appreciate the fact that they are not going to win by waging war against Whites, because Whites are not the enemy, Whites do not have the power, and Whites do not control the money system!  As we have seen, both White and Black soldiers and sailors worked together in the past against the upper class that exploited those without power and wealth.  The “elite” has made use of the strategy to “divide and conquer” over and over again.  This is why they finance both sides of every war.  The bankers are not financing the Muslims today because they love them or agree with their religion any more than the bankers advocated abolitionism because they loved the negro.


Farrakhan’s solution of killing all Whites and overthrowing our culture, government, and Constitution does nothing to solve the problem of Jewish power or the Jewish goal of establishing a one world dictatorial government (aka New World Order).  In fact, Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson are only proving that their calls for diversity, Affirmative Action, and multiculturalism have only been meant to weaken or eliminate White power, wealth, and culture, not to bring about racial equality or end the power of the bankers.  The Jewish-Marxist sayanim (the new abolitionists) are using the Blacks and Muslims as a battering ram to overthrow our culture and our Constitution to make way for a world government in which all non-Jews will be their slaves with no rights at all, and Americans will never get back the rights that they had under the Constitution.