border fence


Through various channels of discourse, be they academic, political, literary, artistic, including all form of media, we are quite frequently bombarded by the sorry state of racial harmony in contemporary America. Here we will take a look at race relations imposed on America by the British empire during colonial times, and examine how potentially similar the goals of the colonialists were in those days to the goals of the internationalists and globalists today.

race riotsOur corporate media regularly lambasts the stupefied and uninvolved middle class public with images of angry black men rampaging through the streets upset by some racial inequity, perceived slight, or a specific precipitating event which generally sparks an explosion of rage against the white man’s system. And tomorrow, they’re coming to your town!

Have you ever wondered why it is that the black residents of a neighborhood are permitted to riot and destroy their own areas but are never seen rioting outside their own zone in more affluent areas?

These racial hostilities occur with regular intervals; the races pitted against one another in unwinnable civil wars that seem just a bit too convenient. They fill the broadcast days with juicy live streaming bilge all day, every day. Emotions flare. ferguson riots

Interviews from angry residents, from standoffish police, from those opposing the protests in the station news room. Endless discussions with experts, academics, politicians, celebrities, espousing endless provocative polarizing opinions. Police in riot gear, tear gas, people screaming enraged, lootings, shootings, social media on fire. Anger, discord, division… Divide and conquer once again; you’re with the police or the rioters.

When and how were the seeds for our publicly hostile race relations with those whose skin is a different shade planted in OUR nation?

This discussion will in no way be a comprehensive analysis of the entire history of the western slave trade, but I only intend to clear up that the slave trade was more than a financial imperative of the British crown, it was in fact a social engineering project devised by the elites of the British Empire.

The British government had the full intent to create a sort of fifth column in the colonies, sew internal dissent, discord, and create an agitator sub-class, many of whom would resent and loathe their white overlords from the time of their arrival until the time of liberation, and far beyond. But this was exactly the point.

slave revolt

Nat Turner’s 1831 Virginia slave revolt and other similar events, with their consequential racial hostilities was the intended result of British policies during its rule of America

The devious planners had the foresight to fully understand that slavery must be abolished one day, and furthermore, had within its sights the maintenance of a constant state of racial conflict and agitation so as to internally divide the colonies by race, by class (those who profited from and supported slavery and those opposed to it), and by region, not to mention religion.

We have seen in prior posts that the Brits were masters of the “divide and conquer” strategy, in the American colonies the British empire could maintain control of the broken segments of the American colonies far easier than if the slave trade were to end, as at least a portion of the colonies had wanted even by the end of the 18th century, and possibly prevent a colonial uprising intended to end their subjugation to the Crown shortly thereafter.

In the event of a colonial rebellion, the slaves could be enlisted to assist the British with promises of freedom and vengeance.

By 1776 African slaves composed approximately 20% of the population within the 13 British colonies. As early as 1772 Virginia asked Britain to cease shipping slaves into the state; reasons cited were humanitarian and economic, because the numbers of slaves had grown so significant, the legislature feared mass rebellion. However, in 1770 King George issued the following edict to the governor of Virginia, by his own hand:

…upon pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.King George III

It is well established that some states had already voted to end slavery prior to the Revolution, only to have those laws overruled by the crown. The motivation for those states was mostly pragmatic, in that the proportion of slaves was becoming threatening and race relations apparently raised potential for violence, although certainly in part the motives were humanitarian on the part of some individual actors.

Requests to the crown to cease the importation of slaves into some colonies had gone unanswered. Shortly after the Revolution, seven states had abolished the institution by 1804. But what motivation could the Crown have for rejecting the attempts of the states to cease the human trafficking?

We are generally told that the only motive was profit. In fact you would need to scour literature few and far between to reveal the more important motivation: to maintain power and reduce the chance for colonial independence.

First we should examine the so-called altruistic/humanitarian motives of the British rulers in banning slavery in their own colonies. After Abolition: Britain and the Slave Trade Since 1807 by Marika Sherwood (I.B. Tauris, 2007) posits the factual evidence regarding continued British involvement in the slave trade post the 1807 ban on British slaving, through various loopholes, continued derivation of economic benefit, and willful blindness to slaving by other nations, even Britain’s own slavers operating under false flags, with the confiscated ships at times sold back to the same slavers from whom they were confiscated.

The Emancipation Act of 1834 was similarly a law passed for appearance sake by Parliament, and slavery continued in much of the British colonies until late 19th century, and thereafter another form of slavery continued whilst re-titled as indentured servitude.

There is ample evidence of the nefarious propagation and derivation of various benefits by the British ruling elite from their involvement with slavery, and the lack of motivation in actually halting slaving within their own colonies.

History of the United States, From the Discovery of the American Continent by George Bancroft (London: G. Routledge & Co. Farringdon Street, 1855) is one of the very few books to detail the fears of Parliament caused by the spirit of independence quickly arising in their American colonies, in mid-18th century, the plan was formed to subdue this independence streak.

jonathan mayhew

Jonathan Mayhew

New Jersey was deemed in a state of revolt by Parliament, the printing press begun in Massachusetts troubled them as well, neither did they react favorably to Ben Franklyn’s plan to establish a new school in Philadelphia.

In Boston, the populace was fiercely independent and in the process of analysis as to the unchecked human power over other members of the species, with such names as Jonathan Mayhew stoking the fires of rebellion against “tyranny and priestcraft”, and resistance to “the first small beginnings of civil tyranny, lest it should swell to a torrent and deluge empires.” He derided the inherent right of any man to rule over any other: “the divine right of kings and non-resistance are as fabulous and chimerical as the most absurd reveries of ancient or modern visionaries.” P.43.

At a Parliamentary meeting of the Board of Trade in 1750, when the fires of the Revolution were only smoldering coals, it was resolved that such measures would be commenced as “would restore and establish the prerogative in its utmost extent throughout the colonies.” P.44. The plan was formed to foment conflict in race relations in the American colonies.

From the same book, page 45, we read:

…New developments were easily given to the commercial and restrictive system. That the colonies might be filled with slaves, who should neither trouble Great Britain with fears of encouraging political independence, nor compete in their industry with British workshops, nor leave their employers the entire security that might prepare a revolt, liberty to trade…to and from any part of Africa… was in 1750, extended to all the subjects of the king of England…

Furthermore, reason to bolster the argument of a true conspiracy to deluge the colonies with slaves so as to create racial discord and acrimony was the fact that during the Revolutionary War, slaves who fought for the English were granted freedom through an official proclamation, although ironically those very same slaves were brought over by the English slavers in the first place.

In addition, one grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence was that king George “excited domestic insurrections among us,” while the next grievance shows a keen understanding of the motivations of the crown, Thomas Jefferson writes:

exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and purchase that liberty of which he (king George) has deprived them, by murdering the ople on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges to commit against the LIVES of another.

Segregated black units were formed by the British, as entry into regular units was denied on the basis of distrust and/or racism.

Finally, we know that many of those freed slaves were taken back to Britain, Nova Scotia, and other locations, however, some of those freedmen were soon to be repatriated to Africa because they were not particularly wanted in England, although some were permitted to remain.

Hopefully the above demonstrates with sufficiency that the British empire used slavery as not merely a profitable enterprise, but indeed, a social engineering tool, and truly cared nothing for the welfare of slaves, or the humanitarian aspects of slavery.The key to understanding our present race relations is to examine the seeds that were planted centuries ago.


Historic “Death by Opium” cartoon

Because after all, the Crown was, at the very same time that its human trafficking enterprise was in full swing, supplying tons of opium into China to addict, pacify and control that population and weaken the Chinese resolve.The British understood divide and conquer well.

We must realize that money is always secondary to the British ruling elite, of it they can never run out, money is a tool with which it rewards its sycophants and buys loyalty, just as is true today; Power, in all its forms, is this dragon’s greatest motivation.

How are the events of centuries past concerning slavery related to current events of mass immigration, and illegal immigration, in particular? Can we spot the parallels? The patterns of the modus operandi of the money masters, the legislative elites, and the religious overlords; of all the tiers of the global ruling elite? Stay tuned.


Leave a Comment