Louise Ellman and the slave trade

On 14 October 2004, the MP, Louise Ellman, said this in the House of Commons:

"I was pleased to sponsor Early Day Motion 1010, which now has 147 signatures, at the request of the black community in Liverpool. It calls for national education recognising slavery as a crime against humanity and for the setting up of a national slavery remembrance day...

A national remembrance day is also needed to celebrate slaves' rebellions and the resistance that played such an important part in their emancipation. Indeed, it has been suggested that 23 August would be appropriate for a remembrance day because it was the date in 1791 on which the successful rising in Santo Domingo-now Haiti-took place."

That's Haiti, ladies and gentlemen, Louise Ellman is congratulating Haiti. Anybody out there want to take a holiday in Haiti? Murder, brutality, rape, corruption, cannibalism and voodoo, you name it, Haiti's the place for awfulness. So what happened in August 1791? Let's take a look at what a Haitian website called Discover Haiti used to say about it.

"A man named Boukman, another houngan, (a voodoo priest) organized on August 14, 1791, a meeting with the slaves in the mountains of the North. This meeting took the form of a Voodoo ceremony in the Bois Caiman in the northern mountains of the island...

A woman started dancing languorously in the crowd, taken by the spirits of the loas. With a knife in her hand, she cut the throat of a pig and distributed the blood to all the participants of the meeting who swore to kill all the whites on the island.

On August 22 1791, the blacks of the North entered into a rebellion, killing all the whites they met and setting the plantations of the colony on fire."

Do you get this? Ellman wants a national day instituted in this country, to be celebrated on a date which commemorates the mass slaughter of white people by black people. Is this OK by you?

The now defunct Discover Haiti site continued:

"Toussaint Louverture was the great leader who emerged... He managed to eliminate all his enemies until he was the only power left... By 1801, he was governing the whole island by himself and proclaimed himself governor of the colony.

Napoleon, wary of Toussaint's great power in the colony, sent 82,000 of his battle proven troops commanded by his own brother-in-law, seconded by able generals, a fleet of warships, canons, munitions and dogs in order to bring St Domingue under control. Two years of war ended in a stalemate. However, the French treacherously arrested Toussaint Louverture during a meeting in June 1802... 

With the arrest of Toussaint, Dessalines emerged as the new leader of the Haitian Revolution...

Haiti thus emerged into the world as the first black independent republic on January 1st, 1804. It's revolution against colonialism and slavery was the first successful black movement resulting into an independent state headed by blacks...

To complete his plan of freeing the country from any white domination... Dessalines ordered the killing of all Frenchmen remaining on the island".

Now, I don't suppose the odd English chauvinist would mind if twenty thousand or so Frenchman got the chop in 1781 but most of us? No, Louise, I don't think most of us would want to celebrate their deaths. Especially when most of them were innocent of any crime and the phrase 'all the Frenchmen' is a euphemism for all the white men, all the white women and all the white children.

Oh, and by the way, Louise, you're a bit of a feminist, aren't you? Well, many of the prettier women were subject to all sorts of degrading treatment before they were killed, as were some of the men and some of the children.

Before the revolution began, there was between 35 and 40 thousand white people living on Haiti. Thirteen years later, when the lovely, fluffy black slaves had all done killing, there were none at all. Most of these dead white people, by the way, were not plantation owners or cruel overseers, they were shopkeepers, artisans, general labourers, small farmers, civil servants and even indentured servants. Slaves in other words.

As for what happened after the 'killing of all Frenchmen,' well, Dessalines was shot and torn apart by a mob two years later, and then it was anarchy, anarchy all the way until the Yanks arrived to restore order in 1915.

As James G. Leyburn states in The Dominican Republic and Haiti: Country Studies:

"Of the twenty-two heads of state between 1843 and 1915 only one served out his president term in office, three died while serving, one was blown up with his palace, one presumably poisoned, one hacked to pieces by a mob, one resigned. The other fourteen were deposed by revolution after incumbencies ranging in length from three months to twelve years."

In 1957, Papa Doc Duvalier came to power. Ms Ellman will, undoubtedly, be able to remember him and his fearsome private army, the Ton Ton Macoute.

For a dispassionate appraisal of the perpetrators of the 'slave rebellions' that Ellman happily eulogised in the House of Commons, let's take a look at what an English journalist and adventurer, a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society no less, had to say about Haiti in 1900.

Hesketh Pritchard was on assignment for The Daily Express, which had just come into being that year. After his visit to the country, the first by any white, European civilian in almost 100 years, he wrote the book, Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti. In this book he says:

"Today in Haiti we come to the real crux of the question. At the end of a hundred years of trial, how does the black man govern himself? What progress has he made? Absolutely none.

When he undertakes the task of government, he does so, not with the intent of promoting the public weal, but for the sake of filling his own pocket...

Corruption has spread through every portion and every department of the Government. Almost all the ills of the country may be traced to their source in tiranny, the ineptitude, and the improbity of those at the helm of state...

Can the negro rule himself? Is he congenitally capable?... Today, and as matters stands, he certainly cannot rule himself".

Of course, if the PC crowd heard Hesketh Pritchard saying such things today, they'd have him arrested, charged and found guilty of 'incitement to racial hatred.' After which he would be banged up for 7 long years.

However, if you are of a mind to cut through all the spin and PC crap and seek, honestly, to get to 'the crux of the question,' well, Haiti isn't a one-off, is it? Take a look at what has been happening in Africa since independence. Uganda, Rwanda, Somalia, Angola, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, many millions of black Africans are now dead who would have lived if we hadn't been forced to leave the continent.

Not that I'm an imperialist. I'm a nationalist to my roots, Africa for the Africans, I say. It's just that the black African, generally, doesn't have much of a track record of good governance, does he? And, if any of you are foolish enough to point to South Africa as some kind of happy example of what a Mandela can do, well, more than 3,500 people from white, farming families have been slaughtered by black gangs in that country since 1994, Johannesburg usually tops the rape and murder capital of the world league and more than 20 per cent of the adult population of South Africa are infected with AIDS. Mandela's own son died of this illness.

Oh, and those who have the money to do so have been leaving his 'rainbow nation' in droves, about a million of them thus far. The Ellmans, the Blairs, the media darlings and the PC crowd never told you that when they were telling us all that we should be erecting a statue of St. Nelson in Trafalgar Square, now did they?

And so, to all the creepy Louises of this world and every last one of the elite destroyers who seek to conceal a truth that reflects badly on them and those they seek to promote, I wish you a long and happy retirement on the paradise island of Haiti.

As previously stated, the Discover Haiti web site no longer exists and the 'Rediscover Haiti' contains little historical information. However, many varied web sites and blogs have the original 'Discover Haiti' material posted within them so, if you select a phrase or two from the above and enter these into your URL, you can verify and expand what has been said here.

In the same October 2004 House of Commons speech, Ellman said this:

"We also need to educate all our citizens about the fact that, although transatlantic slavery made fortunes for individuals, helped to develop capitalist society and laid the basis for the wealth of banks such as Martins, Barclays and the Midland, it degraded and dehumanised millions of African people. Africans were cruelly and forcibly removed from their families and communities, stripped naked and held in leg irons below deck in cramped ships that took them to the Americas, where they were sold into slavery to create wealth for others...

Although it is important that we talk about philanthropy and reform movements in this country and elsewhere, we should never forget that the slaves themselves led rebellions and revolutions and were a vital part of their emancipation.

It is important to have a national remembrance day so that we can celebrate diversity and immigration... We have, for example, a holocaust memorial day, and educational materials produced by people with specific knowledge...

Remembrance day could also take the form of the development of a global citizenship education curriculum with pan-African educators, and programmes of action from the 2001 world conference against racism...

The Government (should institute a) national slavery remembrance day to remember and expose the past and to fight for a better future."

I shouldn't think Ellman will want a parallel drawn between the kind of lives plantation slaves were required to lead, for two hundred and fifty years or so, with the kind of lives poor, working-class Brits were required to lead down the mines, up the chimneys and inside the factories for three and fifty hundred years or so.

It's true, I should think, that the miners and the chimney sweeps and the factory workers, probably, didn't think of themselves as slaves, but, if you've ever read Dickens, you'll know that, from cradle to grave, the lives of many were owned and cruelly exploited by the bosses. Let's take a look at what those in the know had to say about the home-grown slavery of the day.

In 1830 the wage of an agricultural labourer was nine shillings. In the following years the wage was reduced to eight shillings, and then to seven.

In 1834, the workers were faced with the prospect that their wages might be reduced to six shillings. It was against this background that George Loveless started up a Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers.

In March 1834, the six men who came to be known as The Tolpuddle martyrs were arrested and George and his companions were sentenced to seven years transportation, 'not for anything they had done, but as an example to others.'

However, in March 1836, after much popular pressure, Lord John Russell, who had just taken over from Lord Melbourne as the Prime Minister, announced to Parliament that free pardons had been granted to all six men. George did not get back to England until 13 June 1837. James Loveless, James Brine and Thomas and John Stanfield came home on 16 March 1838 and James Hammett some time in August 1839.

George Loveless, then, can be seen as a Titan in the affairs of the working-class men and women of England. A little while after his return from Australia in 1837, he said this to a gathering of fellow labourers:

"England has for many years been lifting her voice against the abominable practice of negro slavery. Numbers of great men have talked, have laboured and have struggled until at length emancipation has been granted to the black slaves in the West Indies. When will they dream of advocating the cause of England's white slaves?"

Richard Oastler was the leader of the Ten Hours Movement, which aimed to reduce the working day of factory children to 10 hours.

Here is a letter this gentlemen wrote to The Leeds Mercury in 1830:

"Thousands of our fellow creatures are existing in a state of slavery more horrid than are the victims of that hellish system, colonial slavery... The very streets which receive the droppings of the Anti-Slavery Society are every morning wet by the tears of innocent victims at the accursed shrine of avarice, who are compelled, not by the cart whip of the negro slave driver, but by the equally appalling thong or strap of the overlooker, to hasten, half-dressed, but NOT half-fed, to those magazines of British infantile slavery - the worsted mills in the town of Bradford."

A few years after the Civil War was won and the slaves of America freed, Horace Greeley, the founder of The New York Tribune, said this:

"We have stricken the shackles from four million human beings and brought all laborers to a common level not so much by the elevation of former slaves as by practically reducing the whole working population, white and black, to a condition of serfdom. While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."

William Cobbett was an English journalist and political reformer.

He fought relentlessly for the working-class and was not averse to a launching broadside or two against the political and financial elite, indeed, he was sent to prison for doing just this.

In 1802, Cobbett began publishing The Political Register. In 1816, he was forced to begin publishing it as a pamphlet. The government had raised the taxes on newspapers to 4d a copy, and this meant that the information contained in them was out of bounds to all but the most wealthy.

However, publishing The Register in this manner meant that Cobbett could broadcast what he knew to the common weal, as he was able to sell it for only 2d. As a result, the pamphlet soon had a circulation of over 40,000 copies and his views became well known and very popular.

Cobbett's output was required reading for the educated working-classes of the day and no one was more widely read by this section of British society. Cobbett was, thus, considered a threat by the establishment and, when he heard that he was going to be arrested once more, (he had been arrested and imprisoned for two years in 1809) he fled to the United States.

In 1821, Cobbett started his famous tour of Britain on horseback. Each evening he recorded his observations on what he had seen and heard that day. This work was published in 1830 and Rural Rides is his most well known and enduring work.

He was elected as MP for Oldham in 1833 and continued his attacks upon the government from the relative safety of the parliamentary platform. Luckily for the powers-that-be, he died in 1835.

So, what did Cobbett have to say about the English poor in his day? Well, in 1823, he sent a letter to William Wilberforce, the most famous of the anti-slavery campaigners, in which he said:

"You seem to have great affection for the negroes... I feel for the hard-pinched, the ill-treated, the beaten down labouring classes of England, Scotland and Ireland, to whom you do all the mischief that it is in your power to do; because you describe their situation as good, and because you do, in some degree, at any rate, draw the public attention away from their sufferings."

When Richard Oastler's Ten Hours Movement argued for a reduction in the working day for children, the government opposed the move, saying that it would be detrimental to trade. Cobbet commented thus upon the Establishment position:

"A most surprising discovery has been made, namely, that all our greatness and prosperity, that our superiority over other nations, is owing to 30,000 little girls in Lancashire. If these little girls work two hours less in a day than they do now, it would occasion the ruin of the country."

For the little girls of Lancashire, for the bent and crippled children of England's mills and mines, there was never a Wilberforce, and no anti-slavery pamphlets were ever circulated.

Let's have a look at what this great, brave champion of the underdog had to say about Haiti. The following essay was first seen in the 18 December 1823, edition of Cobbett's Political Register:

"The French Colony of St. Domingo (Haiti) was, perhaps, previous to the year 1792, the brightest spot the sun saw in the whole of its course; and, perhaps, the happiest spot, too. The whole colony was a garden; its products were immense; the slaves had nothing of slavery about them except the name. They were treated, almost universally, as men treat the best of servants.

The town of Cape François surpassed in riches, (in brilliancy, in gaiety, in joyousness any town or city of which we, in modern times, have any knowledge. The town and the whole colony, were the admiration of all who beheld them. To go to St. Domingo was not like going to a place of trade; it was to be lost amidst scenes of hospitality and delight.

Santhonax and Polverel, two 'philanthropists', were sent out by the National Assembly of France to this scene of riches and happiness; and in about three months from the day of their arrival, the beautiful plantations were laid waste, the proprietors and their families were either butchered or driven into exile and beggary; and the light of the sun was obscured by the smoke...

I dare say, thousands of negroe slaves, who had escaped with their masters and mistresses. Not one of them did I ever see, or ever hear of, who, though at perfect liberty to do it, attempted to quit those masters or mistresses.

And what has been the result?... The consequence as to the wretched negroes themselves. This consequence has been a series of massacres, continuing, with little intermission, for one-and thirty years and put a stop to, from time to time, only by a system of slavery ten times harder than that which existed before".

Elsewhere in his writings, Cobbett was moved to say:

"Domingo, (Haiti) Guadeloupe, and the other French islands, were rich, happy, and growing in strength and consequence, in spite of the three last distressing wars, before they heard of the new doctrine of the rights of man; but these rights were no sooner arrived at the islands than any spectator would have imagined that Pandora's box had been opened, and that hell had yawned out discord, murder, and every mischief; for anarchy, confusion and bloodshed, raged everywhere".

Cobbett's opinion of the Jews is recorded in his essay, The Protestant Reformation:

"The Reformation changed England from being the happiest country, perhaps, that the world had ever seen into a land the main body of whose people were poor and miserable, with Jews and paper-money makers the real owners of a large part of it. With the foundation of the Bank of England in 1694, there arose loans, funds, banks, bankers, bank notes, and a national debt...

The Jews did it, but then Jews were regarded as a sort of monsters, who professed to be the lineal descendants and to hold the opinions of those who had murdered the Son of God... In degraded wretches like these, usury was tolerated...

The people looked back with aching hearts to former happy days, and the nobility and gentry began to perceive with shame and fear that already their estates were beginning to pass quietly from them into the hands of the Jews, Quakers, and other moneychangers created by the 'no-popery' war.

But it was now too late to look back."

In 1827, Cobbett wrote an open letter to the Nobility of England. In this he said:

"When you reflect that your grandfathers would as soon have thought of dining with a chimney sweep than dining with a Jew or with any huckstering reptile who has amassed money by watching the turn of the market; that those grandfathers would have thought it no dishonor at all to sit at table with farmers, or even with laborers, that they would have shunned the usurious tribe of loan jobbers, and other notorious changers of money as they would have shunned the whirlwind or the pestilence. Gentlemen, You have been warned."

In 1833, Cobbett responded thus, to the House of Commons Bill seeking to emancipate the Jews:

"Suppose it was proposed to us to admit a race of cannibals to these powers, should we have a right to do it? Jew has always been synonymous with sharper, cheat, rogue. This has been the case with no other race of mankind."

If anyone dared to say today what Cobbett had the courage to say a couple of centuries back, he wouldn't be thrown in jail, he'd be cast into a fiery furnace!

Before we move on, let's have a look at what issue no. 1 of Heritage and Identity has to say:

"Why was it then that fifty years after the abolition of black slavery, the enslavement of white children in Britain was still acceptable? Moreover, why is it that in our present age this issue is rarely discussed, and certainly not with the vigour and enthusiasm with which African slavery is debated? The fact that child slavery was on the doorstep, and that it was possible to eradicate it quite easily, seems incredible to us now.

The British Empire put the full force of its Royal Navy, Army and Diplomatic Service into enforcing the eradication of the African slave trade. The British put pressure on other European nations, risking wars and trade embargoes, to bring in a world-wide ban on slavery. But the same Government, clergy and political reformers would not lower the working day of a child of 7 in Britain to 10 hours!

The cause of African slavery was championed, whilst that of the child slaves of Britain was virtually ignored, because of an early form of political correctness. The 'bleeding hearts' of the day preferred to campaign for abolition of slavery because it was more socially acceptable: because it was taking place somewhere else. Considering the attitudes of their ilk today, it is unsurprising that they would campaign for one but ignore the other.

When one reflects and considers the suffering of our ancestors, our kith and kin, and the way their plight was ignored, then you have to say that we are the ones who should be angry. Conquerors have enslaved their enemies since before the dawn of time, the native Britons were enslaved by the Romans, then by the Saxons who, in turn, were enslaved by the Normans. We move on.

There may be things that have been done by the British that have been wrong, but they are far outweighed by those things that have been right. Our ancestors suffered more than any plantation labourer. Let no-one lecture us with the pious guilt of the 'chattering classes.' Don't preach to us, Liberal, when it was your kind that emancipated the African slave while leaving our own children to work 16-hour days in the factories!"

Do you think, if Louise Ellman was to read any of the above, she would include the child slaves of England in her anti-slavery prospectus? We don't think so, do we?

Apart from these unheard-of slaves, there was bonded and indentured servitude. Millions of white Europeans were transported to the various parts of the New World to work and slave for the Mr. Bigs of the time and it wasn't necessary for them to have committed a Tolpuddle Martyr-like crime either. You could get sent away from family and friends just for being poor or because your English master required your presence elsewhere on the planet. The lives of such uprooted folk was often very hard and unrewarding and they had little control over their own destiny. You will never hear the PC crowd speak of these.

And then there were those free, white European citizens who were captured and enslaved by North African pirates. About 1.25 million of them, according to research carried out by American professor, Robert Davis, and presented in his history: Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800. You can bet your bottom dollar that Ms Ellman won't want these white, Christian slaves mentioned either.

I'll tell you something else Ellman won't want mentioned. She won't want it known that the Jews were vastly over-represented in the ownership of the slave ships and their contents. She will fight tooth and nail to see that you never find out that, as a tribe, the Jews profited far more than any other from slavery.

You don't believe me? OK, let's take a look at what a few Jewish historians have to say:

1n 1993, Bernard Susser, a Jewish Rabbi, published the historical document, The Jews of Devon & Cornwall, in this he says:

"The most important Sephardi settler in the South-West, because of the part which he and his collateral descendants played in local and national affairs, was Manasseh Masseh Lopes. Lopes was born in Jamaica in 1755, where his father Mordecai Rodriguez Lopes had made a fortune from sugar plantations...

He came to Devon in 1798, when he bought the manors of Maristow, which became his principal seat, Buckland Monachorum, Walkhampton, Shaugh Prior, and Bickleigh; and in 1808 he added the manor of Meavy, in all some 32,000 acres...

When Manasseh or Massey, as he elected to be called, was created a baronet in 1805, there was an exceptional remainder to his nephew Ralph Franco. (From this Sir Ralph were descended Lord Justice Lopes (Henry Charles Lopes); later Lord Ludlow, Lord Roborough, (Sir Massey Henry Lopes) and the future Viscount Bledislow.

Massey was first elected to parliament in 1802 for New Romney, and he subsequently represented Barnstaple, Grampound, and Westbury...

In spite of his conversion to Christianity, local tradition in the Jewish community of Plymouth asserts that he asked for a rabbi on his deathbed. After his death, his family is reputed to have given a scroll of the Torah which belonged to him to the Plymouth Congregation. A scroll of Esther was found in his belongings as late as 1970".

So, according to Rabbi Sussner, Mordecai Rodriguez Lopes made enough of a profit from his Jamaican plantations to establish his family amongst England's aristocracy, where some of them remain to this day.

In the 1969 volume of collected essays titled, The Jewish Experience in America: Selected Studies from the Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, the Jewish historian, Ira Rosenwaike, says this:

"In 1820... in Charleston, Richmond and Savannah the large majority of the Jewish households contained one or more slaves; in Baltimore, only one out of three households were slaveholding; in New York, one out of eighteen... Among the slaveholding households the median number of slaves owned ranged from five in Savannah to one in New York...

75 per cent of the Jews of the South owned Black slaves while 36% of the White population owned slaves."

Major Mordecai Manuel Noah, (1785 - 1851) was the most distinguished Jewish-American layman of his time.

The first Black American periodical, The Freedom's Journal, was launched in response to Noah's racist propaganda. This publication described Noah as the Black man's 'bitterest enemy' and William Lloyd Garrison, the leading White abolitionist, called him the 'lineal descendant of the monsters who nailed Jesus to the cross.'

Here are a few of the things that this Jewish gentleman is known to have said way back then:

"To emancipate the slaves would be to jeopardize the safety of the whole country."

"There is liberty under the name of slavery. A field negro has his cottage, his wife, and children, his easy task, his little patch of corn and potatoes, his garden and fruit, which are his revenue and property. The house servant has handsome clothing, his luxurious meals, his admitted privacy, a kind master, and an indulgent and frequently fond mistress."

"The bonds of society must be kept as they now are."

Isaac Mayer Wise was the leader of the American Reform Jews in the latter half of the 19th century and has been described as 'the most active and renowned rabbi in the United States.'

Wise wrote of the Californian Indians thus:

"Though not total savages, they are very primitive and ignorant... They do nothing besides loafing and begging.... They catch trout in the river, and then sell them to buy ammunition, shoot rabbits, birds, eat various roots and wild plants, also snakes, frogs, dogs, cats, and rats, and say 'Me work no.' In conversation with several of them I found that they have no particular home and are heathens."

Not so politically correct, then, I think you'll agree. In the 1997 book, Esau's Tears. Modern Antisemitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert Lindemann said that Wise actively supported the enslavement of blacks, arguing that black people were no more than 'beasts of burden.'
Lindemann also said that Wise thought Abraham Lincoln was an 'imbecile.'

In an essay titled, American Jewish Historians, Colonial Jews and Blacks, and the Limits of Wissenschaft: A Critical Review, published in the January 2000 edition of Jewish Social Studies, the Jewish scholar Jonathan Schorsch was critical of the pre-eminent Jewish historian Salo Baron, saying:

"When forced to talk about Jews as slave traders, such as in the British West Indies, Baron feels the need to insert an apology, though that is not always the case when he discusses non-Jewish slave trading. Thus, for example, while Cortes, the famed conquistador of Central America, is condemned for heinous crimes against indigenous people, partner conquistadors of Jewish descent, like Bartolome de las Casas and Hernando Alonso, are not faced squarely, and are morally pardoned."

Schorsch also takes influential Jewish historian, Jacob Rader Marcus, to task for a similar uncritical stance. Discussing a Jewish family that owned slaves in Haiti, Schorsch says:

"The silence of even so sensitive and progressive a historian as Marcus can be astounding. Discussing the Jews of Saint-Domingue, where he has just informed the reader of one wealthy Jewish clan that owned a plantation employed 280 slaves, Marcus cites the discovery that 'anti-Jewish prejudices was not absent on Saint-Domingue even among the Negroes'."

During a 1982 conference in Brazil, Schorsch mentioned 'the Jewish slave traders on the island' of Curacao. Finally Schorsche affords us a telling statistic:

"In Port Royal, Jamaica, in 1680, about 16 per cent of Jewish households had no slaves; in the non-Jewish community, this figure was over 47 per cent. Likewise 73.7 per cent of Jewish households had between one and four slaves; in the non-Jewish community the figure was 41.8 per cent."

The Jewish author, Ralph A. Austen said this in volume 9 of the Tikkun:

"There weren't many Jews in America between 1492 and the 1860s and quite a few had been involved in the slave trade."

On page 179 of the illuminating 1991 history, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, we find Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht's 1983 essay, The Fate of the Jews. A People Torn Between Israeli Power and Jewish Ethics.

In this essay she says:

"Just as a disproportionately large number of Jews were slave owners, a disproportionately large number of Jewish merchants sold slaves as they would any other goods. Several of these merchants were prominent in their communities: an acting rabbi, the president of a congregation."

On page 8 of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book which, by the way, was compiled, in the main, by black scholars, we read this:

"The most prominent of Jewish pilgrim fathers used kidnapped Black Africans disproportionately more than any other ethnic or religious group in New World history and participated in every aspect of the international slave trade."

On page 180 this is said:

"According to one survey noted by Jewish scholars Lee Soltow and Ira Rosenwaike, 75 per cent of Jewish households surveyed in the American South owned slaves, more than double the average 36 per cent for all southern households."

In his 1974 book, Jews and American Politics, Stephen Isaacs says:

"Not a single Jew has been identified among the abolitionists in Charleston, South Carolina, which had been home to the largest Jewish community in the United States at one time."

Isaac Deutcher tells us this in his 1968 book, The Non-Jewish Jew and Other Essays:

"The Jew somehow feels that in the Great Democracy he is 'the other,' Negro, a white-skinned one. And how very often he gets his own back on the black Negro: in the Southern States more often than not it is the Jew who is one of the most fanatical upholders of white supremacy."

In his 1988 history, Broken Alliance. The Turbulent Times Between Blacks and Jews in America, The Jewish author, Jonathan Kaufman, describes a prominent New York rabbi, citing a speech he made in 1861, the year that the American civil war began.

"Rabbi Morris Jacob Raphall... brought the full force of Jewish learning to a defense of slavery, preaching a lengthy sermon that defended its biblical roots and noting that 'Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects to his own most holy name... all these men were slaveholders.'

Raphall was no fringe figure. He was one of the most prominent rabbis of his day; the year before he had been chosen to be the first Jew to open a session of the House of Representatives with a prayer."

In an essay titled, The Slavery Controversy and Judaism, Judah Rosenthal continues the anti-Raphall theme:

"Rabbi Raphall delivered a sermon entitled 'The Bible View of Slavery.' Raphall attempted to prove 'that according to the Talmud there is no difference between a lost ox, donkey, or slave, and that the Talmud recommends turning over a fugitive slave to its master. The discourse of Rabbi Raphall which appeared in print caused a public stir. 

It was reprinted many times in the pro-slavery press. It produced a sensational effect coming from a popular rabbi who had the reputation of being a biblical scholar".

Here's what the 1853 report from The American And Foreign Anti-Slavery Society has to say:

"The Jews of the United States have never taken any steps whatever with regard to the slavery question. As citizens, they deem it their policy to have every one choose which ever side he may deem best to promote his own interests."

So, when Ellman calls for 'our citizens' to be 'educated' via a 'a global citizenship education curriculum' with 'pan-African educators' (black folk) telling us how to be, think and do, do we think that she will want any of those pan-Africans to tell the WHOLE truth? Do we think that any of the information cited above will be included Louise's Brit-bashing propaganda?

Do we think that she'll be happy to point out that slavery exists even now in parts of Africa and Asia and that thousands of women are shipped to Israel every year, with the promise of a decent job awaiting them, only to find that, once there, they are raped, enslaved and used as brothel-fodder for the faithful? Almost all of these mostly Christian women and girls come from eastern-Europe.

You think I'm exaggerating? You think the holy Moes with the long, black beards and the yarmulkes and the long black coats are above that kind of thing? I'm not.

On 16 June 2000, in an article written by two female Israeli journalists, The Jerusalem Post reported thus:

"Israel is the center of the international trade in White female slaves. In Israel it is perfectly legal to buy and sell human beings and to own slaves, provided they are not Jews. Young girls from Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Hungary, and other eastern European countries are lured to Israel with promises of high-paying jobs as secretaries or teachers.

'When they come to Israel their passports and travel papers are taken away, in order to prevent them from leaving. They are raped and beaten. Trafficked women are treated as objects, as commodities to be bought and sold by pimps for thousands of dollars or held in debt bondage, forced to work to pay off large sums of money.

Their 'owners' imprison them in locked houses or apartments with barred windows. They can rarely leave the apartment and are prevented from going out unaccompanied. They are frequently abused, especially if they refuse to have sex with a customer or try to escape...

In brothels, massage parlors, and sex clubs throughout the country, these women 'slaves' are subjected to violence, degradation, and terror. According to a report released last month by Amnesty International entitled 'The Trafficking of Women to Israel,' the country is rapidly becoming a major destination for sex trafficking and slavery.

In Israel prostitution is not illegal. Nor is there legislation against trafficking or slavery. Police officials complain that in the absence of legislation their options are limited...

According to sociologist Esther Herzog, director of Shin - 'The Movement for Equal Representation for Women' - in 1999 the police arrested more than 400 women but only 28 pimps. And even these minuscule numbers, she says, are probably inflated.

Since there is no law here against trafficking in human beings or slave trading, it is impossible to know how many of the above cases were related to trafficking, and how many were connected to prostitution-related offenses, such as pimping or operating a brothel.

There is no law in Israel against trafficking in human beings or slave trading-and consequently there is a flourishing trade in White slaves in Israel today."

On 8 December 2002, The Associated Press reported thus from Jerusalem:

"About 3,000 women, mainly from the former Soviet Union, are sold each year into Israel's sex industry, which takes in about $1-billion annually, a parliamentary report said Sunday, slamming the country's justice system for being lax on punishments.

The women, seeking to escape poverty at home, are usually smuggled in by traffickers who promise them legitimate jobs. Once in Israel, they are sold to pimps for between $3,000 and $6,000 each, the preliminary report said.
The women receive between $25-$30 per customer, of which the pimp takes between 80 and 90 per cent, the report said. The women work about 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week and receive an average of 10 to 15 clients daily, it added. Often, the women live in dismal conditions and sometimes they are physically abused or live in fear of their pimps.

Israeli courts generally reach a plea bargain with the pimps and sentence them to either a few months of community service or up to an average of two years in prison, punishments which the committee said are too weak to serve as deterrents.

It suggested that these crimes should have minimum prison sentences to deter the sex traders, who often jail, blackmail and enslave the women.
In July of 2001, a U.S. State Department report placed Israel on a black list of countries whose laws don't meet U.S. criteria for dealing with this crime and threatened economic sanctions.

Israel has reformed the law somewhat since then, but the committee said it is not enough to confront the problem effectively. In addition to changes in the law, the committee suggested an authority be formed to fight the 'war against trafficking in people'."

Will Louise want this information made known?

I doubt it. What do we really think she's really after here? Is she as obsessed by the history of slavery as she makes out or just the bits of it that reflect badly on us white types?

Do you think that, if she knew that the quintessential Jewish involvement in the Black African slave trade, from its inception to its demise, was about to be 'exposed,' alongside the misbehaviour of the white worthies of the time, she would have proposed the anti-Slavery Day guilt trip to parliament? Or is it just our children she wants feeling ashamed of who they are and what their own, great ancestors were? Is it just the descendants of all the little mill girls she's after guiltifying for things their predecessors never did?

Was that the point of the Commons speech she made in October 2004?

Just another brick in the wall, eh, Louise?

Ellman used the phrase politically correct phrase 'celebrating diversity' in her speech. Interesting concept this. I'm not too sure whether Louise would all that keen on celebrating diversity in Israel. I mean, she has signed an enormous number of pro-Israeli and pro-Jewish Early Day Motions since she entered parliament and yet she has never signed an EDM critical of Israel or, more specifically, the Israeli Defence Force, when they overstep the mark in their treatment of the Palestinians.

For that matter, she has never, as far as I am aware, signed an EDM that has encouraged the Palestinian people in any way. On the other hand, she has signed plenty that have condemned them. Not much diversity celebration here, Louise. One law for you, another for them and us, eh?

Hey, Louise! Do you think the ghosts of those who were blown to bits on 7/7 would be happy to celebrate diversity? Do you think that the mothers, the fathers, the brothers and the sisters and the wives, husbands and children of all of those who have been murdered by the foreigner in recent times would be inclined to celebrate this diversity?

I wonder if you would be rash enough to encourage the many hundreds of thousands of British women who have been raped by alien men to celebrate diversity? I wonder if those who have been attacked and mugged by black, Asian or eastern European gangs in this country should be encouraged to celebrate with them?

I wonder, should the Yardies, the black and Asian drug dealers and the Jamaican drug 'mule' be celebrated? Should the black and Albanian pimps be similarly celebrated, do you think?

I wonder if those who were infected with the AIDS virus by the black African man will be inclined to celebrate? And should the parents of the pre-pubescent girls of Keighley, Derby, Sheffield, Blackpool and Rochdale who were introduced to sex, group sex, buggery, drugs and prostitution by the Asian paedophile, be celebrating with them?

I wonder if those who have been ethnically cleansed from their own ancient neighbourhoods should be celebrating with those who ethnically cleansed them? I wonder if those British people who never got to manage a corner shop of their own because more than a hundred thousand of these are now owned and run by Asian shopkeepers should celebrate?

I wonder if those would-be British footballers who have been replaced by black and foreign players throughout the professional leagues in this country should celebrate? Indeed, I wonder if those Britons who never got their chance in the sporting arena because of the encouragement given to the first and second-generation and downright FOREIGN black athletes, should feel grateful for having been usurped? I wonder also if the creative, young pop act should be grateful now that so much of the scene is dominated by the same, aggressively promoted ethnic group?

Most of all, I wonder if the Jewish Board of British Deputies and the Supermarket owners, Dame Shirley Porter and Lord Sainsbury should be celebrated? The behaviours of Dame Shirley and Tony Blair's Science Minister have contributed largely, not only to the obliteration of so many retail outlets in this country, but also the decimation of the small farming and fishing sectors. This with a deal of help from government, of course.

As for the Jewish Board of British Deputies, every race law ever introduced into this country was prompted, at some level, by this self-serving, anti-indigenous body. Indeed, the Jew, Lord Anthony Lester, wrote much of the early law himself.

Until recent times, when various bits of this law have been used against the Muslim community, the totality of this unnecessary legislation was levelled at the white, British citizen who dared to kick up too much of a fuss about those who were colonising the land against his wishes.

The Board of Deputies was also instrumental in the creation of the Anti-Nazi League, an organisation whose sole purpose seems to be the silencing and vilification of those whose opinions they do not wish heard.

I wonder if the Briton who has fallen foul of the race laws, the small farmers, the fishermen and those who did not wish the heart of their town and village destroyed to make way for multinational opportunism, would be happy to 'celebrate diversity' along with Louise Ellman. A lady, who is, of course, every bit as Jewish as Porter, Sainsbury and those who sit upon the Board of British Deputies.

Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, are just two of the many MPs who have 'celebrated diversity' outside parliament. This is what the ginger lush had to say to the Scottish Council Foundation in June 1999:

"Britain is now more diverse than ever, with diverse identities: to be British today is more to accept values of tolerance... rather than being about ethnic origin, religion or even language...

We are increasingly celebrating diversity... Supporting diversity means that we should be taking action through a coherent race relations policy when harmony in this area is undermined, and providing refuge for genuine asylum seekers.

We... are not restrained by tradition. The idea of Britain now encompasses the Londoner whose grandparents came to Britain from the Indian sub-continent... I am more comfortable in the new diverse Britain than I ever have been."

I'll tell you who this, sweet, easy-going Scottish Liberal wouldn't feel comfortable with. He wouldn't feel comfortable with me or, for that matter, most of you. He wouldn't feel the least bit comfy with anyone who didn't want to celebrate diversity as much as he does. In fact, in a society run by chaps like Charlie-boy, you can count on him 'taking action' against those who threaten 'harmony in this area.'


Those who 'threaten harmony' would, of course, be those who didn't clap their hands and wag their tails on cue. Us. Those who made our country such a desirable place to live, every last freeloader on the planet wants to live here. As far away as possible from the country they and their ancestors created.

On 3 March 2005, Tony Blair was celebrating diversity at a gathering of the New Labour Friends of India.

Whilst there, he warned his Asian audience of:

"The potential danger and a threat to our security and stability is in those who want to set apart races, faiths and cultures. Those who want to define their identity according to difference rather than according to what we have in common together, and who want rather than celebrating our diversity, to make it a point of conflict...

We are sending out a signal, a symbol if you like, of a different and better world to come".

As with the Lib Dems' most famous barfly, I guess Tony B was also talking about us here. You know, us, the long-suffering, silent majority who have never wanted their country overrun by all manner of different attitudes, behaviours, 'races, faiths and cultures' so very different from our own.

Oh yes, it's us who'd be after creating the 'conflict' all right. It's just bound to be us who are the 'threat' to the 'security and stability' of those who will inhabit Tony Blair's brave, new 'better world to come.'

Funny that. I mean, don't you think it's odd for our Prime Minister to be implying that the little-Englander is the problem, when it's not us who are blowing people up? It's not us who are doing the ethnic cleansing, it's not us who are seducing the 11-year-olds and it's not us marching through the streets demanding that the heads of non-belivers be chopped off.

On the other hand, if you were to check out the statistics available in the various British Crime Surveys, you would discover that the black and Asian man has always been far more likely to kill the native Englishman than the other way around. Which isn't exactly the impression that the Kennedys, the Blairs and the Ellmans have been doing their damnedest to convey over the years, now is it?

Why do you think that politicians such as these always seem so keen to pick on those who haven't done anything wrong? Why do you think that they always appear to be on the side of those who have done the British people so much damage?

When enough of us have figured this out, that's when we get our country back.

P.S. On 26 March 2010, The Jewish Chronicle told us this:

"Louise Ellman has been a vocal anti-drugs campaigner in the House of Commons, adding her voice to those calling for mephedrone to be banned. Six deaths in the last few months have been linked to the drug."

The Chronicle also told us this:

"Sean Ellman, who runs a chain of drug accessories stores has been found selling 'legal high' mephadrone, known as meow meow. The drug has been linked to six deaths... Ellman sold the controversial 'legal high' mephedrone – known as 'meow meow' – in his chain of drug accessory stores...

Ellman, 37, is the son of Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, and vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel."

Charges of breaching consumer laws were, subsequently, brought against Sean Ellman. However, he was released on a technicality after the judge ruled that trading standards officers failed to carry out appropriate tests.

On 3 May 2014, The Sunday People told us this:

“A SECOND legal high shop owned by the son of Labour MP Louise Ellman has been raided by police… It is claimed banned substances were seized, including ‘Fury Xtreme’, said to mimic the effects of the stimulant amphetamine, sold illegally as speed. Eight officers spent about three hours searching the shop, owned by Sean Ellman, 41…

A Sunday People investigation today reveals that its third store in Manchester breaks the law, selling synthetic cocaine to our undercover reporter and giving tips on how to take it… The assistant happily advised our man on which were most potent despite both being clearly marked ‘Not for Human Consumption’, describing a cocaine substitute named Ching as ‘quite edgy’.

He went on to say: ‘I’d say do Synthacaine if you’ve done it before. I’d say that Synthacaine would be right’… He also confirmed both drugs should be snorted, advice likely to be interpreted as a breach the Medicines Act…

A report in February warned users they were ‘dancing on a minefield’ after the death rate shot up by 800 per cent in three years. In the UK, 97 people were found dead with the substances in their system in 2012, up from 12 in 2009…

At Dr Hermans in Leeds, raided by police in March, a board outside gives browsers an idea of the drug para­phernalia on offer and crossed out, but still visible, are the words Legal Highs.”