The History of Drugs
How come they don't teach this History in the schools or show it on the History channel??? Very simply, Rothschild runs the world, which includes the schools, Talmud Vision, & the Drug Trade! The "War on Drugs" is a 100% jew con‑trolled government scam! When the cops arrest somebody, they always ask the person "Who is your supplier?� Well tell the cops here is the suppliers for the entire WORLD! The Rothschild Family, The British Royal Family, The Sassoon Family, with Rothschild the #1! Do you think the DEA, FBI, CIA, INTERPOL, or any agency will go after them? Don't kid yourself! IT IS ALL A JEW SCAM! MBJ
����������� Hong Kong Founded as Sassoon Drug Center.
������������� Hong Kong and The Sassoon Opium Wars.
The 99 year British lease on Hong Kong expired in July allowing the Red Chinese to take over. Hundreds of newspaper stories and TV reports have covered this event but not one revealed how England first gained control of Hong Kong! The truth lies buried in the family line of David Sassoon, "The Rothschilds of The Far East," and their monopoly over the opium trade. Britain won Hong Kong by launching the opium Wars to give the Sassoon's exclusive rights to drug an entire nation!
David Sassoon was born in Baghdad, Iran in 1792. His father, Saleh Sassoon, was a wealthy banker and the treasurer to Ahmet Pasha, the governor of Baghdad. (Thus making him the "court Jew" ‑ a highly influential position.) In 1829 Ahmet was overthrown due to corruption and the Sassoon family fled to Bombay, India. This was the strategic trade route to interior India and the gateway to the Far East. In a brief time the British government granted Sassoon "monopoly rights" to all manufacture of cotton goods, silk and most important of all ‑ Opium ‑ then the most addictive drug in the world!
The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905, states that Sassoon expanded his opium trade into China and Japan. He placed his eight sons in charge of the various major opium exchanges in China. According to the 1944 Jewish Encyclopedia: "He employed only Jews in his business, and wherever he sent them he built synagogues and schools for them. He imported whole families of fellow Jews...and put them to work."
Sassoon's sons were busy pushing this mind‑destroying drug in Canton, China. Between 1830 ‑ 1831 they trafficked 18,956 chests of opium earning millions of dollars. Part of the profits went to Queen Victoria and the British government. In the year 1836 the trade increased to over 30,000 chests and drug addiction in coastal cities became endemic. In 1839, the Manchu Emperor ordered that it be stopped. He named the Commissioner of Canton, Lin Tse‑hsu, to lead a campaign against opium.
Lin seized 2,000 chests of Sassoon opium and threw it into the river. An outraged David Sassoon demanded that Great Britain retaliate. Thus, the Opium Wars began with the British Army fighting as mercenaries of the Sassoon's. They attacked cities and blockaded ports. The Chinese Army, decimated by 10 years of rampant opium addiction, proved no match for the British Army. The war ended in 1839 with the signing of "The Treaty of Nanking."
This included provisions especially designed to guarantee the Sassoon's the right to enslave an entire population with opium. The "peace treaty" included these provisions: "1) Full legalization of the opium trade in China, 2) compensation from the opium stockpiles confiscated by Lin of 2 million pounds, 3) territorial sovereignty for the British Crown over several designated offshore islands.
������������������������ Sassoon's Use British Army
��������������������������� To Drug An Entire Nation
British Prime Minister Palmerston wrote Crown Commissioner Captain Charles Elliot that the treaty didn't go far enough. He said it should have been rejected out of hand because:
"After all, our naval power is so strong that we can tell the Emperor what we mean to hold rather than what he would cede. We must demand the admission of opium into interior China as an article of lawful commerce and increase the indemnity payments and British access to several additional Chinese ports."
Thus, China not only had to pay Sassoon the cost of his dumped opium but reimburse England an unheard sum of 21 million pounds for the cost of the war! This gave the Sassoon's monopoly rights to distribute opium in port cities. However, even this was not good enough and Sassoon demanded the right to sell opium throughout the nation. The Manchus resisted and the British Army again attacked in the "Second Opium War fought 1858 ‑ 1860.
Palmerston declared that all of interior China must be open for uninterrupted opium traffic. The British suffered a defeat at the Taku Forts in June 1859 when sailors, ordered to seize the forts, were run aground in the mud‑choked harbor. Several hundred were killed or captured. An enraged Palmerston said:
"We shall teach such a lesson to these perfidious hordes that the name of Europe will hereafter be a passport of fear.�
In October, the British besieged Peking. When the city fell, British commander Lord Elgin, ordered the temples and other sacred shrines in the city sacked and burned to the ground as a show of Britain's absolute contempt for the Chinese. In the new "Peace Treaty" of October 25, 1860, the British were assigned rights to vastly expanded opium trade covering seven‑eights of China, which brought in over 20 million pounds in 1864 alone. In that year, the Sassoon's imported 58,681 chests of opium and by 1880 it had skyrocketed to 105,508 chests making the Sassoon's the richest Jews in the world. England was given the Hong Kong peninsula as a colony and large sections of Amoy, Canton, Foochow, Ningpo and Shanghai. The Sassoon's were now licensing opium dens in each British occupied area with large fees being collected by their Jewish agents. Sassoon would not allow any other race to engage in "the Jews business."
However, the British government would not allow any opium to be imported into Europe! Sassoon "Monopoly Rights" Wrecked Lancashire ‑ England's Textile Industry ‑ Made Roosevelt Wealthy Sir Albert Sassoon, the eldest of David Sassoon's sons took over the family "business" empire. He constructed huge textile mills in Bombay to pay slave labor wages. This expansion continued after World War One and ended up putting mills in Lancashire, England out of business with thousands losing their jobs. This did not stop Queen Victoria from having Albert knighted in 1872. Solomon Sassoon moved to Hong Kong and ran the family business there until his death in 1894. Later, the entire family moved to England because with modern communications they could operate their financial empire from their luxurious estates in London. They socialized with royalty and Edward Albert.
Sassoon married Aline Caroline de Rothschild in 1887 which linked their fortune with that of the Rothschilds. The Queen also had Edward knighted. All 14 of the grandsons of David Sassoon were made officers during World War One and thus most were able to avoid combat. Franklin D. Roosevelt's fortune was inherited from his maternal grandfather Warren Delano. In 1830 he was a senior partner of Russell & Company. It was their merchant fleet which carried Sassoon's opium to China and returned with tea.
Warren Delano moved to Newburgh, N.Y. In 1851 his daughter Sara Married a well‑born neighbor, James Roosevelt ‑ the father of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He always knew the origin of the family fortune but refused to discuss it. The Sassoon opium trade brought death and destruction to millions and still plagues Asia to this day. Their company was totally operated by Jews ONLY! The corrupt British monarchy honored them with privilege and knighthood ‑ to the disgrace of the Crown! To this day the Sassoon's are in the history books as "great developers" of India but the source of their vast wealth is never mentioned!
The famous Sassoon family, probably the most influential Jewish family in England at the time, and one of the few really intimate with the Royal Family, established their wealth and power in the Opium wars.
"...David Sassoon began with a rug factory and banking establishment, but he soon recognized the opportunities in opium...deft maneuvering netted him the most valuable prize an Indian merchant could strive for - A Monopoly of the Opium Trade... David's sons were bright. There was Elisas, the first Sassoon to go out to the China Seas. He went over as early as 1844, in the wake of the Opium War which had given British traders the right to dump into China all the opium India and the Near East could grow. Selling the drug to 400,000,000 customers. Elias was spectacularly successful." (American Mercury, January 1940, p. 61)
Edward Sassoon, the second baronet (Albert Abdullah's son, born in Bombay in 1856) married Baron Gustave de Rothschild's daughter. He resided in London and became a major in the Duke of Cambridge's Hussars Yeomanry; his daughter Sybil married the fifth Marquis of Cholomondely; King Edward VII considered him a friend; and the burghers of Hythe sent him into the House of Commons. (American Mercury, p. 63)
��� "It was the time of the great opium trade. The poppy fields of India and the Near East yielded a golden harvest and British ships brought the sweet-smelling product to China's distant ports. David Sassoon was rich and powerful. (Shanghai: City for Sale, p. 275)
Most of the immense Sassoon fortune, in fact, had been made in the opium trade. They had shipped the precious drug from India to Shanghai, and they had cleared millions of pounds. The old firm of E.D. Sassoon had been prominent in Shanghai's famous opium combine.
Shanghai-landers were familiar with the name. The Sassoons had drawn much money out of Shanghai; if Sir Victor was to bring all that money back to the Settlement, there was a certain measure of retributive justice in his move. (Shanghai: City for Sale, pp. 274-275) No one knew how much money Sir Victor carried in his hip pocket when he landed in Shanghai (1931). Some said eighty-five million; others, three hundred...He invested. He bought. He bought everything that could be had for money and plenty could be had for money, in Shanghai...He took over the vast Nanking Road holdings of Silas Aaron Hardon...He accepted the chairmanship in his family's old establishment, E.D. Sassoon & Co., Ltd., bankers, merchants, industrialists. He controlled the Yangtze Finance Company and International Investment Trust." (Shanghai: City for Sale, p. 277)
This Victor Sassoon arrived in the United States and issued a series of belligerent challenges to the Japanese, and indicated a strong desire to involve the United States in a program, which could not fail to protect his Far Eastern interests, while simultaneously endangering our peace and that of China. The New York Sun, February 2, 1940, gave an interesting account of the Sassoon family and of Victor Sassoon in particular: "...This old-established firm also has been deep in the swirl of international politics and knows its way around the British financier, arriving in San Francisco from the Orient, says, 'You Americans have got Japan absolutely cold, and all business people in Japan know it.' He was talking about the voiding of the trade treaty and Japan's dependence on American imports.
��� During most of the nineteenth century, the Sassoon built a vast fortune in India, principally in cotton, jute, textiles and shellac. In 1929, political unrest in India caused Sir Victor to shift base, as the family has done, through the centuries, in Toledo, Venice, Salonika, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Safed and Bagdad. He put over some big, fast deals in silver, branched out in real estate and is now known as the wealthiest white man in the Far East. His interests include banks, mills, textiles, hotels, wharves, liquor-importing companies, laundries, bus lines and night club."
Dr. Thomas Healy was a distinguished scholar, teacher and Dean of Foreign Service School of the old Georgetown University in the Nation's Capital, before it became a stronghold of the Jews and Communists, related: "They (English Jews) demanded not only more trade on terms more advantageous to themselves, but demanded even a vicious contraband trade. Thus we come to the most sordid of historic narratives - the Opium War of 1839 - as a result the Western World forced its will and desires upon China and, over her prostrate form, extracted those 'sacred' treaty rights, about which the statesmen have said so much lately.
Few Americans realize that, while opium is always associated with the Chinese, actually China used little or no opium until its use was forced upon them in huge quantities by the British Government and its agents (read that Jewish agents) in India.
The growing and sale of Indian opium was a British Government monopoly, which poured a golden stream of profits into the British Treasury. The British agents foresaw even greater profits if the defenseless Chinese were made to absorb more Indian opium.
The Chinese Government, fully realizing the degenerative qualities of this drug, bitterly protested. It attempted to bar its importation, sale and use. The British ignored the ban, whereupon the Chinese Government, in desperation, seized large quantities of British opium stored in Canton warehouses. Promptly Britain's Royal Navy went into action and the Opium War was on. Cries of indignation have rent the air over recent events in the Far East, with most of the crying done by London and Washington...There was no declaration of war by the British Government. There was no official explanation given to the public, other than that the Chinese had flaunted the British prestige, property and flag...
Dictating the Treaty of Nanking, 1842, closing the Opium War, Great Britain compelled the Chinese to pay an indemnity of $21,000,000 of which $6,000,000 was reimbursement for the destroyed opium, destroyed by the Chinese when the British insisted on forcing it into China against the latter's will...It was only through the debauchery of China in the Opium War that Britain directly, and the united States indirectly, obtained their 'sacred' treaty rights to establish themselves in the great port of Shanghai against the wishes of the Chinese people.
The crowning point...was the fact that the Treaty of Nanking never touched the immediate cause of the war, the illegal importation of opium! The Chinese were made to pay for the war, but the illicit imports of the deadly weed continued to flow unabated, to the moral and physical decay of millions of Chinese, and to great financial profit of the British Government (now you know the children of America have been paying the price for decades of the British Jews desire for profits!).
This war nauseated most historians, including British men of letters. Justin McCarthy declared: 'Reduced to plain words, the principle for which we fought in the China War was the right of Great Britain to force a peculiar trade upon a foreign people, in spite of the protestations of the Government, and all such public opinion as there was, of the nation.' The great British statesman, Gladstone, declared: 'A war more unjust in its origins, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know and have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous traffic; and if it was never hoisted except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror.'...
Many American (Jewish) traders had a profitable role in the opium traffic. A group of American merchants formally petitioned Congress to assist Great Britain, France and Holland with a naval demonstration. Our merchant group discreetly refrained from endorsing the illicit, degenerating opium traffic, but nobly insisted that other Chinese ports should be 'opened,' and their trade there protected! This was probably the first time that a formal request for military co-operation by the United States with Great Britain and other Western powers was proposed to achieve what was camouflaged as a common Far East objective. The same proposition has been made again in the past few months and doubtless will be made again.
The merchants' petition was discussed in Congress, March, 1840. The Hon. Caleb Cushing, who soon after negotiated our first treaty with China, declared: 'But God forbid that I should entertain the idea of co-operating with the British Government in the purpose, if purpose it has, in upholding the base cupidity and violence and high-handed infraction of all law, human and divine, which have characterized the operations of the British, individually and collectively, in the Seas of China...I trust the idea will no longer be entertained in England that she will receive aid or countenance from the United States in that nefarious enterprise.' Thus was China 'opened' to the trade of the Western World. Thus were the 'rights' to reside and trade in Shanghai and other Chinese ports obtained. Thus was the first proposal for Anglo-American military co-operation in the Far East turned down by the United States. The first Opium War led to more wars. In 1857-58, Great Britain was again one of the belligerent. This time she was aided by France. This war was known as the Second Opium War or the Arrow War...
And, once again, as in the first Opium War, there grew up a persistent drive in the United States and in Britain to inveigle America to join Britain and France in military operations in China.' Foster quotes from our own official documents to show that the British wee much disappointed when we made a compromise, peaceful settlement of a separate quarrel with the Chinese. The British secretly had hoped for U.S. aid in the war they were planning against the Chinese...
The United States Government formally answered the British Government that military expeditions into Chinese territory could not be undertaken with out consent of Congress; that U.S. relations with China did not warrant resort to war. Mr. Reed, United States Minister to China, in conveying these advice to the Allies, officially reported their chagrin and dismay as they had been 'encouraged in the most extravagant expectation of co-operation on our part, to the extent even of acquisition of territory...and that the English were especially irritable at their inability to involve the united States in their unworthy quarrel.'
A word here as to the British role in our acquisition of the Philippines is necessary to get a rounded picture of what Bemis calls, 'the greatest mistake in the history of American diplomacy.' The British were very much worried that Germany would take over the Philippine Islands.
As Germany was becoming a stronger rival of Britain in all parts of the world, this was the last thing the British wanted to happen. Furthermore, the British wanted the United States to take a physical place in the Far East, where it might support British policy to keep China open to Western Trade, which was predominantly British trade. If the British could maneuver us into not only an increasing trade stake but actual territory in the Far East, it would be much easier for Britain to obtain American co-operation in helping Britain preserve her Far Eastern stake, which was becoming more and more menaced by Germany and others...Simultaneously, Britain fought the Boer War, from 1899-1902, by which she annexed a large part of South Africa. War was narrowly averted between Great Britain and Germany, who favored the Boers. The Boer War was almost universally condemned throughout the world, except by the United States, the British reciprocated this friendly tolerance by being almost the only nation in the world that did not consider our war with Spain as an offense against civilization." (Why Meddle in the Orient, by Thomas Healy, pp. 17-28; 61; 68)
For this the British favored our annexation of the Philippines: "It is astounding, but, nevertheless true, that not until 1928, thirty years after the event, were the American people able to learn how the Hay notes were prepared. Documents recently published show that in substance these notes followed the draft of Mr. Alfred E. Hippisley (a Jewish British subject formerly connected with the Chinese Customs Service) who worked through Hay's confidential advisor on Far Eastern affairs, (The Jewish) W.W. Rockhill. The same two gentlemen were instrumental in formulating the later notes of 1900, leading to the implication of preserving Chinese territorial and administrative entity. (The Hay referred to was John Hay, American Secretary of State and father-in-law of Anglophile, war-mongering Congressman James Wadsworth, co-author of the Conscription Bill)
This incident emphasizes two things which Americans as a whole have not known: First, the British initiative in establishing what was presumably an American policy; second, the failure (which is not unusual) to acquaint the American people with all the facts until many years after the event...
Our troops have been kept in China under authority of an international agreement that was never submitted to the Senate of the Congress, or the people of the United States...They were put there and continued there largely through dictation of the Executive branch of the Government, even though Congress may not have raised the question and has passed general appropriations for our U.S. military forces without special comment.
When the Allies were hard pressed by the German submarine warfare, Japan obtained secret agreements from Great Britain (February, 1917), France (March, 1917) Russia (March, 1917), and later Italy, that they would support at the end of the war Japan's claims to Shantung and certain German islands which are now Japanese 'mandates.'
For reasons of understandable delicacy, the Allies carefully concealed these agreements from the United States, although they openly explained their secret agreements in reference to the general reconstruction (?) of the map of Europe. As the Allies slyly intended to use us as the instrument for bringing China into the war on their side, they possibly thought it est not to embarrass us in advance with the knowledge that arrangements had already been made to give a part of the territory of one Ally, China, to another Ally, Japan...
In April, 1917, the United States joined the Allies in the conflict in Europe...Soon after we entered the World War we persuaded the Chinese Republic, which was badly battered by internal strife among the Chinese, to do likewise.'" (Why Meddle in the Orient, pp. 77-78; 87; 105-106)
"Propaganda in the Next War (World War II)" by Sidney Rogerson, published in England under the auspices of the British Government and edited by the noted military expert, Captain Liddell Hart, contained instructions as to how England (read that English Jews) can with this war (World War II - this was PART of the planning stages for World War II, which would expand the influence of the Jews and win for them Palestine as a so-called homeland - safe base of operations) and involve the United States.
He stated to do this: "...To persuade her (America) to take our part will be much more difficult (this time), so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists (Jewish propagandists) to achieve this, just as during the Great War (World War I) they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany." (Propaganda in the Next War, by Sidney Rogerson, p. 148)
Quoting a high government (Jewish) official in Amsterdam, Frazier Hunt, the famous correspondent says: "We are victims of our own busybody friends. England would like nothing better than to drag America into the war (World War II - Do you see, this war was planned by English Jews to enlarge their influence?) through the back door. If the Allies are able to involve America in the Far East against Japan it would remove from the Allies the responsibility for checking Japan in China and fighting her in the event she should join up with Germany. Feeding America the idea that Japan is planning an invasion of the Dutch East Indies fans bitterness which might break into flames."
In fact, the tone for action against the Boers was set by the Treaty of Nanking, singed in 1842, which brought the British a vast fortune as well as the port of Hong Kong, which to this day is the hub of dope distribution by the Chinese and the British. Lord Palmerston; who later played a crucial role in prosecuting the war against the Boers, openly admitted Britain's role in the dope trade in China in a speech which he made in January 1841.
It is necessary to digress for a moment, and deal with the infamous infrastructure of the British opium trade in China. By establishing the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the door was opened for British imperialism at its worst to sweep through China. Similarly, by establishing what was called "suzreignety" over the Boer Republics, the British showed that the imperialistic lesson they had learned in China could be equally profitably applied in South Africa, only this time, it was gold, not opium, which was the rich prize to be following the discovery of gold in the Transvaal, a steady stream of "Uitlanders" (foreigners) flocked to the Transvaal.
It was not long before the model of the Scottish Rite Freemason movement used in China was also put to good use by the British in South Africa. As in China, the mix was Italians, Jews, and of course, local Chinese. The dirty tricks operations of Lord Palmerston's China gang of ethnic Jews, the Order of the Zion of the London based "Court of Jews" was put to work in South Africa to ferment unrest and to demand "voting rights" and a voice in government; something the vastly outnumbered Boers could not permit.