Published by admin on Tue, 2011-11-01 01:49

A large amount of material has been written about the relationship of Blacks to Whites and Blacks to Jews in the scheme of things.

Blacks have long had had a love-hate relationship to whites for a number of reasons, which are well known to everyone. Their relationship to the Jews on the other hand has vacillated between out-and-out hate to unmitigated love. This is due to the Jews having for many decades been in the forefront of championing civil rights and in some cases have even given their lives to that worthy cause, albeit unwillingly.

Whether this is so because of guilt feelings on the part of the Jews I don't know. That seems to be a plausible explanation even though guilt feelings toward another race are actually an unknown quantity amongst the Jews.

We know that the slave trade was a multi-layered affair involving numerous nations and groups of people. None of the slaves would have been captured had it not been for other blacks who went inland from the African coastal regions raiding unsuspecting villages and marching the unfortunates to the coast. How many died during these brutal marches will never be known. Once arrived at the coast, they were sold to white slavers who had been waiting for their "merchandise". These slavers were of different nationalities: Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and last, but certainly not least, the ubiquitous English, always present when injustice and horrors have been committed.

As everyone knows, trade requires capital. Traders seldom if ever have their own capital. As everyone also knows, merchandise and the means of transporting this merchandise must be insured against loss.


The financing of this trade in human cargo was arranged by the Bank of Britain. The wealth amassed by the buying and selling of human beings can never be calculated, but it is safe to say that to this day the British Pound Sterling is an unclean currency.

The slave-ships, being subject to the vagaries of the high seas, being financed with British money, had to be insured and who to do that better than anyone else, Lloyd's Of London of course. The amounts of insurance-generated profits stagger the imagination and I am sure that those American Blacks who realize all this, must harbor particularly good feelings toward the humane, oh so good British with their stiff upper lip and all that.


I'd like to point out that the Germans are absent from this illustrious list of traders financiers, shippers and profiteers in human cargo.

So far we have covered the slave trade from Africa to those countries where the slaves were finally sold into servitude and frequently, degradation.


Lee Friedman: The bulk of the slave trade in Brazil, where most of the slaves went, was in the hands of Jewish settlers.

Wilfred Samuels: The Jews of Barbados made a good deal of money by buying and renting out of black slaves.

Seymour Liebman: The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were mainly manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains.

Moshe Kahan: Between 1653 and 1658 Jewish Marrano merchants were in control of the Spanish and Portuguese trade, were very interested in the Dutch East and West Indian companies, were heavily involved in shipping and most importantly had at their disposal large amounts of capital.

Arnold Wiznitzer: It so happened that cash was mostly in the hands of Jews. The buyers who appeared at the slave auctions were almost always Jews being able to buy at low prices because of lack of competition and were able to sell to the plantation owners at high prices for the same reason. Profits of up to 300% were often realized with high interest rates. If an auction fell on a Jewish holiday it was postponed.

Ira Rosenwaike: Of the Jews in the American south, 75% owned black slaves, whereas only 36% of the non-Jewish population did. Jews in the American South had developed a separate and distinctive accomodation to the slave-based economy. The southern planters depended on the Jews who had become auctioneers, slave-clothing dealers and diverse merchants. They kept the entire slave-economy oiled with money and supplies.

And here is what "The American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Societyhad to say in 1853: The Jews of the US have never taken any steps whatever with regard to the slavery question. As citizens, they deem it their policy to have every one choose whichever side he may deem best "to promote his own interests".


· The English financed and insured the slave wholesale trade.
The shipping of the slaves was usually accomplished by Jewish captains and crews, sailing ships under the flags of Portugal, Holland and England.
The Jews bought the slaves who had been unfortunate enough to survive the voyage to their destination.
The Jews were the slave retailers.
The Jews furnished the financing of the slave trade on the destined market place.
The Jews ran "Rent-A-Slave" shops earning obscene profits.
The Jews kept the entire sick enterprise of slavery, both in North as well as in South America going, "well-oiled" according to Jewish historian Ira Rosenwaike.
The Jews got rich off the abject degradation and misery of fellow human beings.

The Germans, who allegedly are such terrible people on the other hand, are nowhere to be found.


But they defame, of all people the Germans, who never owned a slave in their entire history, who protested officially against this inhuman obscenity in 1688 in Philadelphia, who sailed the oceans on clean, well run ships, engaged in honest trade.

This incessant defamation of character is beyond obscene. I have no words for the unfairness, for the disgust I feel toward those who are responsible for this incessant, unmitigated monstrous campaign of lies without foundation.

The defamation of things German has been done in order to minimize the injustices perpetrated by others and, no matter how evil those injustices may have been, to make them appear "good", "benign" and "free of guilt".

Well, let's look for African-Americans with German names, shall we? Can't find any? Well, by now everyone should know the reason.

· Germans didn't own slaves.

· Germans never dealt in human cargo.

· Germans abhorred slavery.

As far back as 1688, that is 173 years before the Civil War, German immigrants marched in Philadelphia protesting the keeping of slaves. They published an official resolution to that effect.

The Germans were the first and only immigrant group, to ever march in support of making African Americans free.

The Civil War saw entire regiments of ethnic Germans volunteer to fight to keep the Union safe and to free Black Americans. There were by far more ethnic Germans wearing an American uniform then any other group, English, Italian, Irish, no matter who. None of them even came close.

The numbers of German immigrants who fought on both sides of the war was stupendous since it is in the nature of the German to be a good citizens of the country in which he lives.

The numbers who died for the American cause is unknown, but knowing the bravery displayed by the German soldier in other conflicts, it's a safe bet that there were numerous ones who didn't come home.

Later attempts by American authorities (led by Jewish interests as per usual) to paint the Germans as having been anti-black, at any time, at any place in history, are malicious slander, the kind of slander the German has endured for far too long.

During WW1 the black troops who fought on the side of the Germans in Africa were, without exception, honored and respected by the German authorities as well as by their German comrades-in-arms.

cannot be said of the French or British colonial troops who were used as latrine orderlies, clean up crews, grave diggers, and shoe shine boys. If they were lucky, they were not abused or called "Nigger" by their white officers.


The British BBC had the unmitigated gall to produce a program in the summer of 2000 in which a Black from Africa who couldn't have possibly served in any army during WW1 since he was far too young was featured.

This Black, who couldn't have been more than 70 years old, dutifully recounted how well he had been treated and how he fought the evil Germans who had been known to hate blacks and mistreat them.

This kind of horrendously perverted rot is being produced today by Germany's alleged allies and is being beamed around the world via BBC. The fact that none of the allegations and claims made by this person were in any way backed up by any sort of proof and that this kind of obscene anti-Germanism has no foundation in fact doesn't bother the British/Jewish filth merchants who produced this puke in the least. They merely grin talmudically satisfied, having put another horrendous lie on the air waves without the cowardly scum-German(?) government protesting in the least.


The black troops on the German side were treated as men and fought bravely, wearing the German uniform.

Today, in parts of Africa which were German colonies eighty years ago, there are local Blacks, who recall having been told proudly how their grandfathers served the Kaiser.

German is still spoken in some enclaves, street names are reminding people of German war heroes and there is absolutely no rancor against the Germans anywhere. Old Blacks proudly show the tattered German uniform shirts or jackets their fathers wore as teenagers fighting the British.

Now, take a look at the Congo, or Uganda, or anywhere else. How many Blacks show the tattered remains of British uniforms, proudly retelling how their grandfathers fought the Germans? Good luck

Parts of Africa which were part of the German empire 85 years ago are petitioning the German government today to again become part of Germany!



Germany did not gain colonies by conquering, massacring and exploiting the indigenous populations. They actually went into these lands, negotiated with the tribal chieftains and subsequently bought the land. As a consequence it is totally incorrect to equate the German "colonies" with those of England, France, Belgium or The Netherlands.

All of those countries went in, massacred, stole and abused on a scale so horrendous it can hardly be imagined. An interesting book to read on this subject is "King Leopolds Ghost".

We Germans have never been guilty of such acts on the African continent or anywhere else.


There isn't a former English colony that would again become part of the UK, even if you'd pay them. Any suggestion to that effect would be answered by a gunshot.

This is contrary to the way the situation is normally represented in Jewish Hollywood films, where the "oh so benign" British work together with their "fellow"-citizens of African ethnicity. Yeah, right.


It is truly unbelievable that the Germans, the only people of Europe who treated the Blacks of their colonies with dignity, are now being accused of wrongdoing.

What is even more atrocious is that the German (so-called!) government sits still, quiet as a church mouse and doesn't have the decency or moral courage to tell the Jew scum of the world who run the UK and the USA to go to hell in a hand basket.


1936, during the Berlin Olympics, black athletes were respected by their German hosts and competitors. Not a single one reported any discrimination of any kind.

The great Jesse Owens related how well he had been treated and how respected he had felt. Not like "at home" where he had to sit in the back of the bus, stay at segregated hotels, eat at segregated diners and had to make his living as a "speed-freak" at county fairs.

Riefenstahl's movie of these games makes liars of everyone who has attempted desperately to smear the German record. There one sees German fans by the thousands reacting joyfully and enthusiastically whenever a foreign athlete, black or white, won. These scenes were not staged, they were spontaneous reactions of common people, showing their heartfelt joy at being honored to witness excellence.

The Germans displayed a sense of fair play totally lacking in practically all other Olympic Games on record where the home crowd howls like mad dogs when one of theirs wins, but stays silent whenever a foreigner, particularly a German takes the victory podium.

This is particularly evident whenever the games are shown on American TV. American athletes are lionized to a degree all out of proportions to their real value, whereas the others, particularly Germans and Austrians are shamelessly ignored, discriminated against and if ever, given only grudging, miniscule coverage, no matter their brilliance.

The German Olympics in Berlin 1936 on the other hand were covered in an evenhanded and fair manner the subsequent commentators in their utterly senseless anti-German hysteria couldn't even dream of.

There was no favoritism shown, even though a little would most certainly have been understandable.

None of the foreign athletes, black or white experienced any sort of maltreatment and were lionized by the crowds, regardless of nationality or race. They were housed in an exemplary housing complex, given the best food and care and had nothing but positive things to say about their experiences when returning home.


There were no drug tests, because there were no drug problems. There were no sex tests (the absurdity of a "sex test" staggers the imagination), because women athletes were women, pure and simple.

It was quite obvious to any human being that one was watching women compete, not some pitiful caricature of a woman/man/thing, some androgynous creatures, sacrificed on the altar of performance at all costs, including the health and normalcy of the athletes.

This perversion is Talmudic, it is foul and the stench rises to the heavens.

There were none of these revolting perversions in Berlin - just superb, fair competition, honestly cheered, regardless of race or nationality.

There were no corruption scandals either. No one in Berlin took a bribe, or I venture to say, even thought about it. Berliners were inordinately proud of their city and their achievements. They wanted to host the world to show everyone what they had achieved, despite boycotts, unfair competition on the world market place and hate mongering amongst the much touted democracies. They wanted to show they were fair and decent and welcomed everyone, regardless.


Compare this with the foulness pervading the Olympics today, corruption, drug abuses, hermaphrodites masquerading as women athletes, not to forget male athletes with totally unnatural mountains of muscles.

It's truly disgusting, on the same level as silicone enhanced porno stars who need to wear a back brace in order to walk upright.

What was once thought of as a competitive meeting place of the best of the world's youths, has been turned into a Talmudic money grubbing, revolting spectacle of unfairness.

A display of "win-at-all-costs,even if you have to kill the son-of-a-bitch (as long as you don't get caught), a repulsive display of the destruction and utter corruption of all Western values on which the Olympic games are based.

Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, noted once: "We have the terrible power of the purse." Well, what you see in today's so-called sports spectacles is the result. Whenever an athlete makes a trillion bucks a year, be assured, there's a Jewish attorney who makes 30%. Now you may say, "So What?Okay. Tell me, how many athletes are there who earn that kind of money? One millionth percent of the Blacks or Hispanics? And how many Jews are skimming off the profits? A couple hundred thousand or more? And how many athletes in high school and college are ruined forever by high strung promises? A couple of hundred thousand per year? Get my drift? THIS folks, is corruption, pure and simple. Foul, obscene, Talmudic corruption.




"Ira Rosenwaike: Of the Jews in the American south, 75% owned black slaves, whereas only 36% of the non-Jewish population did."

A few points to consider here: It would seem that of these 36% of non-Jewish slave owners; the vast majority were black -

White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. White enslavement was crucial to the development of the Negro slave system.

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, 300,000 Irish were sold as slaves. Including deaths via the English - Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

Little has changed since the early 1800s when the men of property and station of the English Parliament outlawed Black slavery throughout the Empire. While this Parliament was in session to enact this law, ragged five year old White orphan boys, beaten, starved and whipped, were being forced up the chimneys of the English parliament, to clean them.

1840’s Black African king Geso [sp?] “The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people, it is the source and the glory of all their wealth, and the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery”

Video MUST SEE Political Correctness Exposed! Marxism Communism Frankfurt School_ End of Freedom


The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). 

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city. To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters. The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates. In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4). In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6). In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slave owner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

and by 1860 [Negro] William Ellison owned 63 slaves. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. Trained as gin makers by their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live. In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.








Add new comment