The Christian Solution

C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Contact Us   Document Library  
September 2018 AD

Blood Cotton
How Jewish Clothing Makers caused Slavery

Dinesh D"Sousa's new movie, "Death of a Nation", which is highly recommended by this site, goes a long way in explaining how Nazi Germany adopted ideals created in America, such as the Indian Removal Acts of Andrew Jackson, and the Jim Crow laws of the Deep South, which were then merged into Hitler's Nazi narrative of Jewish ethnic cleansing.

Where Dinesh falls short is to place the blame solely at the feet of the Democrat Party.

It is one thing for Dinesh to say, "Only Democrats owned slaves", but in establishing responsibility, who shall we say really endorsed, propagated and benefited the most from cheap cotton, hand-picked by slaves.

"The Big Lie", as Dinesh is prone to say, is that the plantation owners were the only evil in this story and the plantation owners were all Democrats, hence the only evil here are Democrats.

Compare cotton against Nike child labor and blood diamonds

Helps in our understanding to compare this story to the story of Nike and their use of child slave labor.

We may say to ourselves "life is cheap in Asia", and child slave labor there is their own cross to bear, but in fact, our Jewish MSM did not stop their news coverage at this point, as Dinesh and most everyone else does with the Deep South.

These star Jewish journalists wanted to know who in America took advantage of cheap assembly lines filled with barefoot children toiling over dangerous machinery instead of being in school? 

And the Jewish MSM caught their man.

Nike was found to be the culprit engorging itself by abusing the child labor of brown kids in  Asia.

What hurt the Nike co-founder and CEO the most is that he doesn't seem to be an untouchable Jewish business owner, being instead one of those white man don't you know; hence, our Jewish MSM has had no inhibitions to place blame on this bad liberal.

Helps our story to also compare the story of blood diamonds.

Jews have long enjoyed a near monopoly over the diamond industry, and yet, have never been rightfully blamed for their greed in using blood diamonds in the wedding rings they sell to unknowing Americans.

Who buys cotton?

Now relating everything back to our story. If you had not already guessed, the beneficiaries of cheap slave cotton before the Civil War or the beneficiaries of sharecropper cotton post Civil War, were the clothing companies in the North whom without shame used blood cotton to enrich themselves.

There never would have been a slave industry in America if only the users of cotton had refused to buy cotton produced by slaves.

Had the Northern textile companies and the Northern garment industry who bought the textiles had insisted that they would go overseas to buy cotton, then there would have been absolutely no incentive to own slaves.

Now for the Big Lie.

Why REALLY buys cotton?

I'm not going to say the problem was entirely the North anymore than others say the problem was entirely the South.

Cod fishermen from New England are Northerners, but they were not the problem here.

Lumberjacks in Maine are Northerners, but they were not the problem either.

The problem was not Democrats in the South as Dinesh says, nor Republicans in the South in what I just said about northern textile companies.

The problem was not Southern Christians saying quoting their Bibles to justify their actions when slavery was not condemned by Christ nor was the problem Northern Christians saying the slavery violated God's grace on all souls.

Here is the refutation of THE BIG AMERICAN LIE!

The problem was pretty much all Jewish!!!

The clothing industry of New York City was a Jewish enterprise. 

Since history is written by Jews, we have never been exposed to the simple truth.

No one, neither before the Civil War of 1860-1865, nor now, has ever blamed Jewish Levi Strauss in the California gold rush of 1849 for perpetuating slavery by using slave cotton in his denim jeans, as Nike was so accused. In fact, Levi Strauss still has an untouched sterling reputation.

Likewise, no one ever accused Joseph Spiegal after the Civil War of being a nasty evil Jew for filling his Spiegal catalog with dresses made from cotton picked by horribly abused black sharecroppers. We instead look fondly back on the Spiegal catalog days of early America, never thinking of the Jews who negotiated with slave owners to buy their blood cotton.

From top to bottom,
Jews were involved

...Excluding the Christian Plantation owners who had to take all the blame.

The black slave trade was predominately an entirely Jewish enterprise in America, as America's first Jews were slave traders from Recife, Brazil who were forced to immigrate to Dutch New Amsterdam (New York City) when the Portuguese took control of Brazil. They spread out and sailed from nearby Newport and Philadelphia, all the way  to Boston.

So the entire Jewish-owned black slave trade was to bring black slaves from Africa, to sell to Plantation owners in the American South, where those plantations could reap cheap cotton using the stolen labor of blacks, selling the cotton to Jewish buyers who would bring the blood-cotton back to their textile mills in New England and sweat-shop clothing manufacturing in New York City themselves filled with immigrants who worked cheap in near slave conditions, which they would finally send out the finished cotton goods all across America through Jewish peddler.

And may I add, those final peddlers becoming the first trans-American gossip line where American farmers in the West were told by these Jewish peddlers how much blacks were abused by their owners and how much they wanted to enslave the West, while on the other hand how much New Yorkers hated Southerners and wanted to help them stay free.

We know for a fact that it was mostly Jewish buyers visiting Plantations, and negotiating cotton sales over dinner in the Big House with the Plantation owner, as we have commented in the past how Jews tried to corrupt General Grant through how own father and sundrious other ways, trying to give Jews special status to buy cotton from lands he conquered while the Civil War was still raging, such that Grant felt obliged to issue General Order 11 which forbid Jews from being in the conquered South under martial law, ordering them back to their home in New York City.

Sadly, in the end, it was deeply involved fanatical Jews who brought us to war over their purchasing of blood cotton from slaves.

We have commented how John Brown, surrounded by Jewish fanaticsescaping from the failed atheist (i.e. anti-Christian) French Revolution and the failed atheist (i.e. anti-Christian) Marxist 1848 Revolution, tried to start a slave rebellion at Harper's Ferry, as was done in Haiti where black slaves unmercifully massacred their French slave owners as soon as they had the chance during the turmoil of the French Revolution and how John Brown's Harper Ferry attempt of slave revolt was proof and the final straw in the minds of Southerners that their lives and that of their families were on the line with Northerners so Judeo-propagandized against the South that they did not care one whit for their safety.

All said, the slave industry and the resulting Civil Was was predominately a Jewish one.

But what about The South's ability to sell cotton to others?

Now, one could give a decent rebuttal to my argument by saying that the South would have had slaves anyway, entirely without the New England textile industry, because they would have simply sold their goods to England, who it will be said started the importation of slaves even before this country was founded.

First off you would be assuming that Jews were not also running the clothing industry in London, which I seriously doubt anyone could make such a claim.

Second, you would have to ignore the history of our tariffs on the importation of textiles from England. Our textile industry wanted and did receive high federal tariffs on textiles from England.

The golden rule of tariffs is "Do onto others". A high tariff against England results in a equal and opposite high English tariff against America.

A) Clothing from England of course had high American tariffs, making English merchants uncompetitive against the American clothing industry, thus helping them ramp up production
B) American cotton to English textile mills had high English tariffs, making American cotton uncompetitive against other English colonies
C) This left the South with only one customer, the North
D) And the North, or rather, the Jewish clothing industry in the North, was very pleased with the arrangement
E) Which again means that Jews were responsible for slavery.

Note that the history of tariffs below outright lies to the reader. The South was not anymore angry they could not buy pretty dresses from Europe because of high tariffs anymore than ladies in the North were upset. Both ladies had to pay the same tariffs on imported dresses.

What the South was really angry about was that they could not sell their cotton on the world market, because Europe reacted with their own high tariffs on their cotton.

Tariffs in the United States
Nearly every northern Congressman was eager to logroll a higher tariff rate for his local industry. Senator
Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston's merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer. The culmination came in the Tariff of 1828, ridiculed by free traders as the "Tariff of Abominations", with import custom duties averaging over 25 percent. Intense political opposition to higher tariffs came from Southern Democrats and plantation owners in South Carolina who had little manufacturing industry and imported some products with high tariffs. They would have to pay more for imports. They claimed their economic interest was being unfairly injured. They attempted to "nullify" the federal tariff and spoke of secession from the Union (see the Nullification Crisis).

But what about slaves on Tobacco Plantations?

Another good question. Where there not also slaves involved in the tobacco industry? Why don't they count in your estimation?

Yes, America had an "inheritance" of slavery here, but tobacco ruins the soil and this industry was in decline by the time of America's independence.

Agricultural products do not preserve well for long trips and these products would never have become the monster product cotton would become after the invention of the cotton engine (i.e. Eli Whitney's cotton gin).

Only cotton became so large that its slavery became next to impossible to extinguish.

Cotton production soared
               500,000 pounds in 1793
           93,000,000 pounds in 1810

From 1/2 of 1 million lbs to 93 million lbs of cotton in 13 years.

This required massive amounts of slaves AFTER American gained her independence, and as we have said, the Jewish buyers of Southern cotton could not get enough of the evil fiber.

THE GREAT EVIL OF AMERICA was cotton.  Not the tobacco of pre-American days.

Wikipedia - Eli Whitney

And the cotton gin transformed Southern agriculture and the national economy. Southern cotton found ready markets in Europe and in the burgeoning textile mills of New England. Cotton exports from the U.S. boomed after the cotton gin's appearance – from less than 500,000 pounds (230,000 kg) in 1793 to 93 million pounds (42,000,000 kg) by 1810.[11] Cotton was a staple that could be stored for long periods and shipped long distances, unlike most agricultural products. It became the U.S.'s chief export, representing over half the value of U.S. exports from 1820 to 1860.

Paradoxically, the cotton gin, a labor-saving device, helped preserve slavery in the U.S. Before the 1790s, slave labor was primarily employed in growing rice, tobacco, and indigo, none of which were especially profitable any more. Neither was cotton, due to the difficulty of seed removal. But with the gin, growing cotton with slave labor became highly profitable – the chief source of wealth in the American South, and the basis of frontier settlement from Georgia to Texas. "King Cotton" became a dominant economic force, and slavery was sustained as a key institution of Southern society.

Jews use Slavery against Christian even today

So why are we so torn over slavery a massive 150 years later?  Because the descendants of these black slaves are still among us.

Having taken neither responsibility for slavery, nor forced to accept responsibility, Jews were then in a position to take advantage of the "guilt" they subsequently imposed upon Christians.

Young white Christians could be refused entry to good colleges because affirmative action allowed blacks to take those positions. Jews were a minority and were excluded of course. This helped Jews take over our institutions as the token blacks admitted, although Christian, were no competition intellectually against their Jewish peers.

Same goes for minority own businesses getting special Affirmative Action treatment against white Christian owned businesses. This and the fact that Wall Street brokers are mainly Jewish pushing "THEIR" board members into corporation boards to "protect" the money of their Christian investors of 401K and pension plans, helped Jews take over the major industrial might of this country. A control they would use to once again use essentially slave labor, this time in China.  Jewish businesses they could obtain loans from Jewish banks at prime rates.

By blaming all white Christians, even the ones who settled places like Nebraska and Montana, for Jewish slavery, instead of blaming Jewish garment owners, Jews can count on blacks to vote for them in the political sphere. As Dinesh agrees, blacks are once again on the inner-city Jewish plantations of the likes of Jewish Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago.

Where would blacks be today without slavery?

In fact, without slavery, America would have no blacks today. Our blacks would still all be enjoying their black relatives in African tribes in Africa, as they had done for thousands of years.

No thanks to Jews, but without blacks, America would never had been be a racist country, right?

Or perhaps that is the real reason American blacks support Jews so much. Deep down, they are aware that without Jews bringing their ancestors here as slaves, they would still be stuck in the hellholes of African nations.

And BTW, where is that "all American" Cotton-King company Levi Strauss right now?  Trying to take away your Second Amendment right.

You can read further at The Problem
You can read further at Guide to "Checks and Balances"
You can read further at The Solution
Write us at

Article located at:

Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State

The Christian Solution             First Release: March 15, 2008