ADKO

wilber

6 min read

This article argues that the abolition of slavery in Britain and America was not driven by humanitarianism but by economic interests and the desires of the ruling elite. The author contends that in America, the Civil War was a “racket” that enriched the wealthy while burdening taxpayers, and that freed slaves were merely shifted from plantation slavery to wage slavery in factories owned by the same capitalists. The article then examines the abolition of slavery in Britain, suggesting it also occurred when it became economically advantageous.

The author traces this argument through the genealogy of Kamala Harris, highlighting her ancestor Hamilton Brown*, a wealthy white sugar planter and slave owner in Jamaica. Brown received significant compensation from the British government after the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and the Slave Compensation Act 1837, funded by a loan from Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Moses Montefiore which was repaid by British taxpayers over 178 years. The article criticizes this act, stating that former slaveholders were compensated as victims while freed blacks received nothing. It also notes that the benefits of this compensation were passed down through elite families, including that of former Prime Minister David Cameron.

The article then scrutinizes William Wilberforce, the prominent leader of the British abolition movement. The author questions his motivations and legacy, suggesting he was not the moral crusader he is portrayed as. Evidence presented includes:

  • His election to Parliament at a young age, suggesting family connections and a lack of serious commitment.
  • His alleged spending of over £8,000 to secure votes, indicating corruption.
  • His equal prioritization of ending the slave trade and “reformation of manners” (enforcing public morality), and his involvement in societies for preventing cruelty to animals and suppressing vice, which the author argues were tools of social control.
  • His support for government censorship measures like the “Gagging Bills” and the Six Acts, and his opposition to workers’ unions.
  • His aristocratic upbringing and extensive family ties to powerful banking families, including the Bank of England through his Thornton relatives.
  • His involvement with the Sierra Leone Company, presented as a for-profit colonial venture disguised as charity.
  • His alleged Jewish ancestry and involvement with the London Jews’ Society, promoting Christian Zionism.

The article connects Wilberforce to Prime Minister William Pitt, noting their shared school days and Pitt’s extensive war financing by Rothschild and Montefiore. It highlights Pitt’s concurrent roles as Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggesting unchecked power fueled by war and debt. The author posits that Pitt’s agenda was driven by banking interests.

Further genealogical analysis links Wilberforce to numerous aristocratic and wealthy families, including the Dickenses, Washingtons, Forsters, Melvilles, Wolffs, Rockefellers, and various peerage titles. It is suggested that this web of connections, including to Rothschild who bailed out the Bank of England in 1825, indicates that Wilberforce was a beneficiary and defender of the existing oligarchical system.

The article concludes by questioning the narrative of sexual coercion in the formation of Kamala Harris’s ancestry, arguing that intermarriage between white aristocratic families and enslaved people was a deliberate strategy by the ruling elite to place their own relatives in positions of influence within the black community. This strategy, it is argued, has been used for centuries by “rich white (Jewish) relatives” to maintain control.

Here is a list of subjects, names, references, locations, companies, etc.:

Graph View