How Jaffna Catholics aided the British Empire’s Exploitation of Indian Cooli Slaves! (Part III of III)

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAAs referred to, in the prorogue, I am outlining a straight forward story using material borrowed directly from other historians. Obviously I do not need to reinvent the wheel! I have only done one thing to such oodles and oodles of research; edited, simplified and placed it in a logical sequence so as to get peek at a comprehensive portrait of the period!

In fact this report pursues an unswerving thread. It’s a tale concerning manipulation, greed and avariciousness by a ‘Nation of Shop keepers”’; to say the least; ‘mindboggling’. But I will let the facts speak for itself! It tells the naked truth of how the British hood winked the world for closed to two centuries. Indeed the British Empire did stop exploiting the Africans as slaves; not due to some compassion or pity. For heaven sake no! But for a more down to earth reason; in order to break the backbone of the other slaving nations. In such a manner they became the top dog in this game of power.

For, in fact, they had a trump card up their sleeve. Simply put ‘Indentured labour’. But let us call a spade a spade; these ‘Indian cooli indentured labour’ were really slaves. These are the poor dolts who replaced the African slave labour in their plantations on the sly. And these salves were thoroughly exploited in order generate their power and wealth. While other slaving nations went down the hill, theses enlightened British were exploiting Indian cooli indentured salves; and becoming the sole world power!

This is an incredible tale. It tells us a tale about an’ Empress of India’ who shunned showing her ankles, while thousands of prostitutes were roaming the back streets of London to sell their body for tuppence. It tells us how Chinese were sold opium and Christianity by using gun boat diplomacy. It speak volumes of used methodology to quell sedation in their colonies. Indeed though they lost the USA as a colony, British Empire still milking the American cow! In fact I believe British bureaucrats are still directing the foreign policy of that country.

Indeed British are good at giving advice to Lankans how to be Nice to the Tamils but they caught the last King Kandy, 1813 a Tamil, like an escaped convict! In all this Jaffna Tamil Catholics were the lynch pin for the whole sordid history. Indeed Tamil cooli slaves needed to be herded processed and exploited and these uncle Toms help counted most! Indeed the British Empire could not be an empire without the production of Sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa, and spices which were produced at a terrible cost to Indentured slave labour!

1887 was pivotal year for the British Empire. Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India in that year with the Parliament passed the Royal Titles Act. It was also when Empress celebrated her Golden Jubilee with pomp and pageantry.

Since her accession, in 1837 the Empire had swallowed up colonies as far apart as Canada and the Caribbean, India and Australia, Africa and Asia and among them we find the pearl of the Indian Ocean, Ceylon.

The Empire was so extensive that sun never set upon the British Empire, the English crowed!

In fact they had been pass masters at pitting one nation against other , sly, devious, manipulative and owing a divide and rule policy by which they grabbed one quarter of the surface of the earth, its people and their wealth.

Now the dour, white-haired mother of the nation presided over the largest and most prosperous empire the world had ever seen. Britain’s industrialists had capitalized on the Empire’s formidable resources in both manpower and material, so that by 1870 the Empire could boast that their foreign trade figures are four times greater than those of the United States (also a part of the colony till they broke loose).

Prostitution was tolerated, despite the fact that by the 1880s the problem was endemic, with estimated 80,000-plus women plying their trade on the streets of the capital. But they were an underclass, and deserving of society’s consideration’ as much as India’s disinherited `untouchables’.

Curiously in Victorian England even the prostitutes were divided by class. In the West End, the more audacious streetwalkers strolled proudly among the theatre and concert hall crowds wearing red bandanas and carrying a short cane.

Contemporary social commentator John Binny sketched a vibrant picture of the wretched women, he observed; during his explorations of the East End which in contrast to the west end was starkly different: ‘They live in the greatest poverty, covered with rags and filth, and many of them covered with horrid sores, and eruptions on their body, arms and legs, presenting in many cases a revolting in appearance. Many of them have not the delicacy of females and live as pigs in a sty . . . In the middle of the day they sometimes wash their skirt, the only decent garment many of them have ”” their underclothing being a tissue of rags.’

Though prostitution was not illegal in this greatest empire on earth, self-styled ‘purity’ groups’ were actively campaigning to drive the sex trade off the streets. They had succeeded in shaming Parliament into rising the age of consent from 13 to 16, and in the summer of 1887 Sir Charles Warren (Chief of Police) had been pressured into ordering the closure of 200 brothels in ‘The East End’.

Many older women resorted to selling themselves for as little as 4d to pay for a night’s lodgings. The more desperate settled for 2d, the price of sharing a crowded room slumped over a rope in a doss house. It was only marginally more comfortable than sleeping in the street.

Why were these white women plying the oldest trade known to man, was giving it away for such a paltry sum?

Binny described such wretches as being `bloated, dissipated, and brutal in appearance; others pale and wasted by want and suffering . . . they often indulge in the grossest indecencies. In fact they were practicing prostitution in order get two pence to pay for a bunk to sleep…

In fact the same year the Queen was crowned (1887) the empress of India, Jack the Ripper was in White chapel, slitting the throat of prostitutes in the capital and making world headlines.

Curiously Jack the Ripper’s and Queen Victoria shared the same metropolis in the same year of 1987. In order to escape the wrath of the Ripper and get a place to sleep, the prostitutes were selling their body for such measly price.

Whitechapel is described by the cotemporaries as ‘A horrible black labyrinth, think many people, reeking from end to end with the vilest exhalations; its streets, mere kennels of horrid putrefaction; its every wall, its every object, slimy with the indigenous ooze of the place; swarming with human vermin, whose trade is robbery, and whose recreation murder’.

Anyone would have thought that they were speaking of the ‘black hole of Calcutta’ and not about the metropolitan of the ‘THE CENTER OF CIVILISATION’.

`It was the best of times and it was the worst of times.’ (Wrote Charles Dickens in his, A Tale of Two Cities) appropriately for the capital of the free world was rotten smelling filthy place where a ‘Nation of shop keepers’ were looking to make a profit, day or night.

In fact they never caught Jack the Ripper, but interesting enough one of the theories making the rounds at the time was that the Ripper was; no other than one of Queen Victoria’s son. Jack the Ripper had few seconds’ to escape after each Ripping; and he had to have an accomplice watching out for him in order to make a clean get away. So this sounds reasonable!

Why did they not export these teaming masses of white women to its colonies such as Ceylon, Malaysia or Burma where they could have a good life and found decent employment?

Indeed why? Answer is simple! The English did not want to devalue the white women and show their uncouth, unwashed masses’ tackiness. After all the people in Ceylon were clean and well fed; even the beggars were washed and well fed…

Darwin’s theory had been just published (1859) around the time. Which matched the empire building mood of the English? The ‘Survival of Fittest’ theory gave an impetus to the Empire building momentum if anything!

In fact Social Darwinism’s chequered history can be traced back to the chief Guru himself. Charles Darwin’s work, “On The Origin of the Species by means of natural selection, (subtitled and note) The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” laid the foundation for the questionable theories that were to follow in its wake; such as Arthur J. de Gobineau’s manifesto, “The Inequality of the Races,” or the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. These were all pure Darwinian spin offs. Naturally, “Survival of the fittest” paved the ideological path for “race struggles” and ‘class struggles’ in societies.

Unwittingly Darwin had applied his biological selection process to the historical social process. What emerged soon was “Eugenics.” Eugenics can be defined as applied Darwinism. The founder of it was Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin, and the author of several highly influential works on heredity, especially “National Inheritance” (1889).

Indeed knowledgeable historians easily deciphered the concoction: Darwinian biology led to the evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism to God’s patronage and blessings for the fittest; and indeed a pseudo-science called “Eugenics. All built on a solid “scientific” edifice for “racial prejudice”, “racial discrimination” and “racism” was natural. Such vague, unscientific and polydimensional conceptions justified elitism, hate, racism, tribalism, war, holocaust, colonization, and a mystical economic destiny for the favoured nations.

On the other side of the coin we find the British has been planting a new kind of Christianity looking centuries ahead. Tamils and specially the Indian Tamils were taken for a long ride, simply by feeding their inferiority complex. In order to do this they have invented a ‘Dravidian Christianity’

It is an opportunistic combination of two myths: the “Dravidian race” myth and another that purports that early Christianity shaped the major Hindu classics!

The discredited Aryan race theory and counterpoint is the “Dravidian” race theory. Both constructs are equally damaging and have been proven false. The “Dravidians,” the theory goes, were the original inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent and were driven to southern India by the invading, lighter skinned and racially different “Aryans.”

But it was a scholar-evangelist from the Anglican Church, Bishop Robert Caldwell (1814-91), who pioneered what now flourishes as the “Dravidian” identity. In his Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Race, he argued that the south Indian mind was structurally different from the Sanskrit mind.

Curiously enough an Anglo saxson English Aryan was concerned enough to give this information to Tamil Dravidians!

The project is to co-opt Tamil culture, language and literature and systematically cleanse them of Hinduism. Christian interpretations and substitutes are being injected into the most cherished symbols, artefacts and literary works of Tamil Hindu culture.

The narrative used is that St. Thomas, the apostle, visited south India and taught Christianity to the great sage, Thiruvalluvar, who was inspired by Christianity, but unable to capture St. Thomas’ message accurately.

Western churches send billions of dollars to Tamil Nadu, the epicentre of the project to harvest Indian souls. While the sheer scale of intellectual fraud and prejudice is breathtaking, the church’s political clout has enabled it to permeate university research, education, museums, politics and film. The state government is even supporting the production of an epic feature film on St. Thomas that will popularize this myth.

Curiously the story of the British Army in the 19th Century is the story of the Empire’s wars. The army fought Chinese, Afghans Abyssinians, Maoris, Zulus and Sudanese, Boers, Canadians and Sinhalese. The imperial role of the army moulded more than attitudes to Empire: it also melded the character of the army itself. In the first place, its organization was totally unlike that of continental armies in the 19th Century. It hardly existed as an ‘army’ in the sense of a large field force organized into divisions and corps, under a single chain of command headed by a general staff. Instead it was scattered throughout the Empire. Where a battalion might be in a remote coaling station, a couple of battalions elsewhere pacifying some dissidents, a brigade would be engaged thousands of miles away on some punitive expedition.

Above all the ones who did the fighting is armies imported from far distant colonies to quell the local sedations and uprisings.

In fact they never used local units to suppress local sedation but brought outside forces such as fight Kandyn wars they brought troops from Malaysia, mind they did not trust even the Indian troops. Such vital point was not lost on Gandhi!

Indeed three wars were fought with china during the 18 centenary with humiliating defeat to Chinese. Two wars in order to make Chinese addicted to opium and make a huge profit; Called ‘The Opium Wars’ and the third one to impose Christianity white man’s superiority down Chinese throat and called the Boxer rebellion!

The Opium Wars, also known as the Anglo-Chinese Wars, were the First Opium War from 1839 to 1842, and the Second Opium War from 1856 to 1860. These were the climax of disputes over trade and diplomatic relations between China under the Qing Dynasty and the British Empire.

Opium has been known in China since the 7th century and for centuries it was used for medical purposes. It was not until the 17th century that the practice of mixing opium with tobacco for smoking was introduced into China by Europeans.

The import of opium into China stood at 200 chests (annual) in 1729 when the first anti-opium edict was promulgated. This edict was weakly enforced, and by the time Chinese authorities reissued the prohibition in starker terms in 1799, [the figure had leaped; 4,500 chests were imported in the year 1800. The decade of the 1830s witnessed a rapid rise in opium trade, [and by 1838 (just before the first Opium War) it climbed to 40,000 chests. The rise continued on after the Treaty of Nanking that concluded the war.

The opium trafficked into China had come from East India Company‘s operations in Bengal, British India, produced at its two factories in Patna and Benares. In the 1820s, opium from Malwa in the non-British controlled parts of India became available, and as prices fell due to competition, production was stepped up.

These commodities were carried by British merchants to the coast of China, where they sold for a huge profit.

With the drain of silver and the growing number of people addicted to the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court who advocated legalizing the trade so the government could tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou, where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India, which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China (which were not offered to Chinese abroad), a most favoured nation clause, and diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.

These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties, and the Opium Wars represented the start of China’s “Century of humiliation“

The Boxer Rebellion, Boxer Uprising or Yihetuan Movement was a violent anti-foreign and anti-Christian movement which took place in China towards the end of the Qing dynasty between 1898 and 1900. It was initiated by the Militia United in Righteousness (Yihetuan), known in English as the “Boxers”, and was motivated by proto-nationalist sentiments and opposition to foreign imperialism and Christianity. The Great Powers intervened and defeated Chinese forces.

Foreigners and Chinese Christians sought refuge in the Legation Quarter. In response to reports of an armed invasion to lift the siege, the initially hesitant Empress Dowager Cixi supported the Boxers and on June 21 authorized war on foreign powers. Diplomats, foreign civilians and soldiers, and Chinese Christians in the Legation Quarter were under siege by the Imperial Army of China and the Boxers for 55 days. Chinese officialdom was split between those supporting the Boxers and those favouring conciliation, led by Prince Qing. The supreme commander of the Chinese forces, Ronglu, later claimed that he acted to protect the besieged foreigners. The Eight-Nation Alliance, after being initially turned back, brought 20,000 armed troops to China, defeated the Imperial Army, and captured Beijing on August 14 (Siege of the International Legations), lifting the siege of the Legations. Uncontrolled plunder of the capital and the surrounding countryside ensued, along with the summary execution of those suspected of being Boxers.

The Boxer Protocol of September 7, 1901 provided for the execution of government officials who had supported the Boxers, provisions for foreign troops to be stationed in Beijing, and an indemnity of 67 million pounds (450 million taels of silver) ” more than the government’s annual tax revenue, to be paid as indemnity over a course of thirty-nine years to the eight nations involved.

That is the period when British wrote in Chinese Parks ‘Chinese and Dogs not allowed’.

The transatlantic slave trade had begun during the 15th century when Portugal, and subsequently other European kingdoms, was finally able to expand overseas and reach Africa. The Portuguese first began to kidnap people from the west coast of Africa and to take those they enslaved back to Europe.

It is estimated that by the early 16th century as much as 10% of Lisbon’s population was of African descent. After the European discovery of the American continent, the demand for African labour gradually grew, as other sources of labour – both European and American – were found to be insufficient.

The Spanish took the first African captives to the Americas from Europe as early as 1503, and by 1518 the first captives were shipped directly from Africa to America. The majority of African captives were exported from the coast of West Africa, some 3,000 miles between what is now Senegal and Angola, and mostly from the modern Benin, Nigeria and Cameroon.

For at least two centuries the African slave trade had been a lucrative part of the English economy. In the late 1700s, English traders used to raid Africa’s west coast on the Gulf of Guinea. Each year they would seize tens of thousands of black Africans, ship them across the Atlantic to British colonies and sell them into slavery.
To save space aboard the slave ships, the chained Africans would be packed in as tightly as canned sardines. Without adequate food, water or sanitation, as many as half of them would perish during the trans-Atlantic voyage. But English itself was not a clean race and they could live with such disgusting smell. If an African slave was lucky enough to escape death at sea, he was destined for a life of captivity, endless toil under the whip and an early grave.

The total number of Africans taken from the continent’s east coast and enslaved in the Arab world is estimated to be somewhere between 9.4 million and 14 million. These figures are imprecise due to the absence of written records.

Anti slavery hero Wilberforce was leading the abolition movement’s parliamentary campaign.

Indeed much of Britain’s wealth was derived from the slave trade; and the powerful merchants who profited from it were not going to give up without a struggle.

In fact Wilberforce was despondent. In 1791, the famous preacher John Wesley (1703-1791), then very close to death, wrote a famous letter exhorting Wilberforce to persist in his efforts to oppose what he (Wesley) called “that execrable villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature”, i.e., slavery.
Finally two hundred years ago, on March 25, 1807, the British Parliament outlawed the trans-Atlantic African slave trade. But it did not deal in slaves within the colony per se! Eventually, in 1833, Britain was to make slavery itself illegal throughout the empire. It needed 23 years to finally do away with slavery why?
From hind sight we can see how shrewd the English colonials must have been. In fact they were killing two birds with one stone. How?

Colonial British control of the Indian sub-continent by the late 18th century 19th century opened up an extraordinary possibility of manipulating grabbing wealth and power and at the same time good name for the empire!.

So they had laid their plans covertly! They fathomed the Indian Psychology perfectly. Indians had class, cast, language divisions and myriads of other differences. If they pacify the upper crust leadership the lower level mass can be exploited as slaves. They called it indentured labour, in order to provide employment to masses of people but in fact it was slavery by another name!

What is more they had their Uncle Tom Jaffna Tamil Catholic given education in north of Ceylon, how to read and write English and groomed as running boys? These were ready to sell their Indian Tamil cousins and act as Konkani middle men. So, on the sly they implemented an indentured slavery policy.

On the other hand ablution of slave trade was done with fanfare by the British. As they were the epitome of decency and enlightenment.

In such a manner British exported Indian slaves and pulled the rug from under from the rest of the slave trading colonials’ powers such as Span Portugal Holland, Denmark and USA.

Indeed by 1833 after reinstating their estates with Indentured slaves British declared that no one can transport slaves or use slaves in the plantations. In such a way they knocked out other slaving nations as they had the gunships to back up the claim.

Whether Wilberforce and the gang canvassed for it or not, they have charted their plans. In fact they needed 3 decades to get their Indentured slaves into position replacing the African Slaves. They found the estate Indians collies were ductile none violent hardworking obedient and dirt cheap.

In such a manner this nation of shop keepers propelled to the world power as people had to buy their tea coffee coco or spices from the prices they quoted.

South Indian indentured Slave labour was the decisive factor as to how English Raj became the top dog by 1800hundereds added to which sale of Opium to the yellow race and making them a race of addicts.

Finally in 1843 all slaves were freed. The lack of the slave labour which the British had installed on the tropical plantations (producing sugar, coffee, to bananas, tea . . .) quickly made itself felt, and international migrations of free labourers replaced the recruitment of slaves. Countries whose economy had depended on the continuous importation of slave such as Spain Portugal Holland Denmark USA and obviously the Arabs were in such a way nullified.

By 1840 South India, because of its favourable geographic position and the importance of its colonial ports, was to take on a very special significance within this new system of indenture, a form of debt bondage, by which perhaps two million Indians were transported to various colonies of European powers to provide labour for the (mainly sugar) plantations. It started from before the end of slavery in 1833 and continued until Recruitment to the French sugar colonies continued via the French ports in India without knowledge of the British authorities and by 1856 the number of labourers in Réunion is estimated to have reached 37,694. It was not until 25 July 1860 that France was officially permitted by the British authorities to recruit labour for Reunion at a rate of 6,000 annually. This was extended on 1 July 1861 with permission to import ‘free’ labourers into the French colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana (Cay

Colonial Indian indentured slave labour importing colonies
Name of Colony Number of Labourers Transported
Mauritius 453,063
British Guiana 238,909
Trinidad 143,939
Jamaica 36,412
Grenada 3,200
St Lucia 4,350
Natal 152,184
St Kitts 337
St Vincent 2,472
Reunion 26,507
Surinam 34,304
Fiji 60,965
East Africa 32,000
Seychelles 6,315
Total 1,194,957

Tamils and Indians have been rewarded for offering the British Empire Collie slave labour by presenting other peoples real Estates.

Today the following countries are controlled by the Indians and mainly Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils. Mauritius we recognized is a Tamil Catholic controlled colony and leading the fray against Sri Lanka in Geneva currently.

Mauritius, Madagascar, Fiji. Surinam and Seychelles are countries presented as rewards for the Indian Tamils and the Jaffna Tamils for supplying of slave labour from early 1800 hundreds to mid 1900 hundreds!

Indeed one would have through that USA has fought a war to get out of its colonial status but the British bankers are milking s American cow still!

Ray Pensador Follow informs that: The United States could easily print her own money, and maintain control of both, the money supply, and interest rates. Instead, every (paper) dollar in circulation is borrowed from commercial banks (at interest), who are linked to the Fed, or Central Bank.

The Fed is a very secretive private institution. The Fed came into being in 1913 in the aftermath of market manipulation by JPMorgan which resulted in the 1907 financial crisis. The banking cartels basically bought off some members of Congress, and also bankrolled the campaign of President Woodrow Wilson, who promptly signed The Federal Reserve Act, which had been written in secrecy by the most powerful bankers of the time (Morgan, Rothschild, and Rockefeller).

In order to understand how much damage to USA and world at large by the creation of the Fed was; one only has to consider the following quote by Congressman Louis T. McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation during a speech in Congress in 1934:

Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed have cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III’s Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” — William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England in 1694

After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

“The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.” — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”, the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild’s chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton. Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation’s economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signalled their intention to go back to a state issued value based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government, “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.” Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, “Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!” The British Prime Minister at the time, Spencer Perceval was adamantly opposed to war with the United States, primarily because the majority of England’s military might was occupied with the ongoing Napoleonic wars. Spencer Perceval was concerned that Britain might not prevail in a new American war, a concern shared by many in the British government. Then, Spencer Perceval was assassinated (the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated in office) and replaced by Robert Banks Jenkinson, the 2nd Earl of Liverpool, who was fully supportive of a war to recapture the (American) colonies.

Financed at virtually no interest by the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, Britain then provoked the war of 1812 to reach debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. And the plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation’s money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.

Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, “Money would be more plenty.”

President Zachary Taylor opposed the creation of a new Private Central Bank, owing to the historical abuses of the First and Second Banks of the United States.

“The idea of a national bank is dead, and will not be revived in my time.” — Zachary Taylor

Taylor died on July 9, 1850 after eating a bowl of cherries and milk rumoured to have been poisoned. The symptoms displayed are consistent with acute arsenic poisoning.

President James Buchanan also opposed a private central bank. During the panic of 1857 he attempted to set limits on banks issuing more loans than they had actual funds, and to require all issued bank notes to be backed by Federal Government assets. He was poisoned with arsenic and survived, although 38 other people at the dinner died.

When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln’s efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers in England, who quickly responded.

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become educated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — The London Times responding to Lincoln’s decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War,

In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund newspapers that opposed government-issued money (Lincoln’s greenbacks).

Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln’s assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers. Tsar Alexander II, who authorized Russian military assistance to Lincoln, was subsequently the victim of multiple attempts on his life in 1866, 1879, and 1880, until his assassination in 1881.

James A. Garfield was elected President in 1880 on a platform of government control of the money supply.

“He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. — James Garfield

Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and died of his wounds several weeks later. Chester A. Arthur succeeded Garfield as President.

In 1896, William McKinley was elected President in the middle of a depression-driven debate over gold-backed government currency versus bank notes borrowed at interest from private banks. McKinley favoured gold-backed currencies and a balanced government budget which would free the public from accumulating debt.

McKinley was shot by an out-of-work anarchist on September 14, 1901, in Buffalo, NY, succumbing to his wounds a few days later. He was succeeded in office by Theodore Roosevelt.

Finally, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forming the Third Bank of the United States, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed to “The Federal Reserve” system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more “Federal” than Federal Express. Indeed, in 2012, the Federal Reserve attempted to rebuff a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the “trade secret” operations of the Federal Reserve.

“When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check; but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.” — From the Boston Federal Reserve Bank pamphlet, “Putting it simply.”

“Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a ‘dollar’ bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries.” — “Modern Money Mechanics Workbook” ? Federal Reserve of Chicago, 1975

“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.” — Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924

“States, most especially the large hegemonic ones, such as the United States and Great Britain, are controlled by the international central banking system, working through secret agreements at the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and operating through national central banks (such as the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve)… The same international banking cartel that controls the United States today previously controlled Great Britain and held it up as the international hegemony. When the British order faded, and was replaced by the United States, the US ran the global economy. However, the same interests are served. States will be used and discarded at will by the international banking cartel; they are simply tools.” — Andrew Gavin Marshall

World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly shifted to focus on Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States). Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power. So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime opponent of World War One, and not just defeated, but its industrial base flattened. Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war.

“Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain.” – Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)
“We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
“Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US – General Robert E. Wood)
“This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.” – Winston Churchill (- autumn 1939 broadcast)

Germany’s state-issued value based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organize a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers!

As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany’s economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candour, the real reasons for that war were made clear.

“The war wasn’t only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing one shot, but we didn’t want to.”- Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946)

“Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn’t profit anymore. …We butchered the wrong pig.” -Winston Churchill (The Second World War – Bern, 1960)

As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt’s “New Deal” which threatened massive wealth re-distribution to recapitalize the working and middle class of America. So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a “Secretary of General Affairs” who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labour unions. General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress. Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberately collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it. Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading with the Enemy act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally released in 1967 and became the inspiration for the movie, “Seven Days in May” but with the true financial villains erased from the script.

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent more of my time being a high–class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. “I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that the Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honours, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents.” — General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant, 1935

As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking. He understood why Andrew Jackson fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.

Kennedy’s United States Notes were not borrowed from the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics the United States had been founded on, and was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and one half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.

As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.

Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July of 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency to the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Absent the economic advantages of being the world’s “go-to” currency, Britain was forced to nationalize the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, ratified in 1945, in addition to making the dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obligated the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations that ratified Bretton Woods did so, on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.

But as America’s manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) anyone wanted to buy. Europe’s cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel’s constant belligerence against its neighbours caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the “Oil for food” program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq’s oil back on the world market only for US dollars.

Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value based trade currency, the Gold Dinar. Gaddafi announced that Libya’s oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world. So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Qaddafi (the object lesson of Saddam’s lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya’s oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for.

Now the bankers’ gun sights are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran’s oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank. Malaysia, one of the new nations without a Rothschild central bank, is now being invaded by a force claimed to be “Al Qaeda”, and with the death of President Hugo Chavez, plans to impose a US and banker friendly regime on Venezuela are clearly being implemented.

You have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures you that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven’t; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Augusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion, weapons of mass destruction. Assassinations are always passed off as “crazed lone nuts” to obscure the real agenda.

The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share – the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayer’s interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud.

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:

Rothschild Bank of London
Warburg Bank of Hamburg

Rothschild Bank of Berlin

Lehman Brothers of New York

Lazard Brothers of Paris

Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy

Goldman, Sachs of New York

Warburg Bank of Amsterdam

Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt

Adam Smith declared that Britain was ‘a nation that is governed by shopkeepers’, in the first edition of his classic Wealth of Nations (1776).

The influence ‘This nation of shop keepers’ extended in the west to the American continent, in the east to the ends of Asia, and in the south to the Australian continent, mainly places in which spices, cotton, tobacco and opium were either produced or sold

They control the Opium, oil banks and nations.


Duncan Spaeth, a professor of English at Princeton in the 1930s, when asked whether it was true that the sun never set on the British Empire replied in the affirmative. He added, ‘I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn’t trust an Englishman in the dark.’
In fact this Nation of shop keepers was getting rich and powerful by the day by exporting indentured slave labour. People could not see the big picture. Indian slaves could not protest and everything was hunky-dory in the British empire. And if any insurrection or uprising was quelled they did so by importing external forces. Until there came on the scene a Unique personality.

He was one man who understood what taking place. What’s more he understood that he need s plan which could not be discussed or explained to anyone just as British empire building plan of exploitation of collie laboured went unnoticed.

Mohandas Gandhi was born in the western part of British-ruled India on October 2, 1869. Queen Victoria’s crowing as empress of India was just 8 years away!

None violence was the corner stone. Of Gandhi’s plan!

And why? There should not be violent resistance to British rule. They should avoid giving any excuse to the British empire to bring external forces he noticed that they did under threat!

At the inception he should act so naïve, no violence and obedient to the British colonial outfit that they feel that he is one of us!

In fact at the start probably British did not see Gandhi as a threat. How can this half naked fakir be a challenge to the mighty British empires? Gandhi realized before going on to implement his other plans he should get popular in UK itself that use the British democratic system to break there on backs!

The British officials felt that there was no threat by him. They could take him out of the equitation at any time; Above all his popularity should reach the heart of the British empire. He should abide by the laws and rules. In fact if a judge said put him in jail for violation for some offence, he was ready going to prison for the English poorer classes felt sorry for the poor man! In fact he became so popular in UK that if something happened to him they found that they were unable to control the India proper. But above all never initiate them to bring in troops from outside. At the end weakened by WW II they had to let INDIA go free.

Keeping in mind above said we can clearly recognize his strategy. With a campaign to win rights for Indians in South Africa behind him, Mohandas Gandhi returns to his native India in 1915 to find a country growing increasingly restless under the century-long colonial British rule called the “raj.” While the British do not resort to the brutality used by most occupying forces, they limit basic liberties wherever the power of the raj is threatened. And, although Britain has granted self-rule to Canada and Australia, it drags its heels on self-rule for India. British viceroy Lord Irwin ignores most of the demands of the Indian National Congress.

By 1930, Gandhi decides that the time is right for civil disobedience directed at the heart of British interests. Recognizing the need for a unifying issue that speaks to all Indians, he finds one in the colony’s Salt Act, which forbids citizens from collecting or selling the vital mineral. The colonizers, he argues, are stealing a dietary staple from the people and then making them pay to get it back. By processing their own salt, millions of Indians can readily flout British rule.

In a shrewd pre-emptive move, Gandhi sends a public letter to Lord Irwin announcing his intent to break the British salt monopoly at the conclusion of a long people’s march to the sea where ordinary citizens will collect salt. At the same time, he implores Indian local officials to resign their posts, to drive a wedge between the raj and one of its key supports. He further advocates a boycott of imported British cloth in favour of homespun cotton ”” a strategy that is of added significance for Indians who have been thrown out of work by Britain’s machine-manufactured textile industry.

These actions invite brutal reprisals. A mass of demonstrators approaching a salt depot in Dharasana is viciously beaten; thousands are arrested, the number of participant’s swells and resistance stiffens. Overcrowding the country’s jails is part of Gandhi’s strategy to put a strain on British civil services, and the barbarism at Dharasana elicits worldwide support for the Indian cause. With India’s infrastructure under strain, and world opinion turning against the Crown, Lord Irwin agrees to one-on-one negotiations with Gandhi in February 1931. While the social and legal concessions that he grants (i.e., withdrawal of repressive laws and promises not to prosecute resisters) are more symbolic than concrete, the great Indian resistance of 1930-31 mobilizes the nation as never before to pursue independence, which it finally achieves in 1947

British conquest of the world is still in effect a pipe dream. They must be megalomaniacs even to dream of such scams. But how they managed to cheat the world for the past 200 years show the world that the English in the Dark is more dangerous. Yet the dream of giving Sri Lanka to Jaffna Tamil Catholics is impossibility now. My findings go to show how many nations lost their identity and suzerainty because they passively sat by. Earlier British controlled the League of Nations and divided up Palestine; Now people of this country is claver than Jaffna Catholic and their helpers English together; and they never can control UN now. I say get rid of Catholic agents controlling news media in Lanka and we can SAFLY SAIL THROUGH ANY CRISIS.

Source: Lankaweb