Trashing the Truth, Part 5 - Opium
If you are not familiar with the history and circumstances of the forced importation and distribution of opium in China, and of results of that evil trade, you might want to read these two articles as background:
The Jewish Monopoly on Opium Still Fuels Chinese Resentment Today; Click Here.
Jewish Opium and British Imperialism: The Wanton Destruction of China's Yuanmingyuan Click Here.
The following text is taken from exchanges on an online newspaper comments forum. Some of the commenters, including those below, were identified by themselves or others as being Jewish. It is for this reason they are presumed to be following Hasbara instructions and policy regarding China.
Be that as it may, the commentary makes its own case and reference to Hasbara does not change the context or circumstances - and certainly not the attitude.
"The opium trade was not forced."
Of course the opium trade was forced. There is no shortage of documentation of "uppity Chinese elites" being lined up and ordered to smoke opium or be shot - by British soldiers.
But the intent is to say, "We didn't force the Chinese to smoke opium, so it's not our fault. The Chinese adopted it willingly, perhaps even eagerly. All we did was fill a market need." No blame there; let's move on.
I am unaware that many courts today would accept such a blithe "not-guilty plea" from cocaine and heroin dealers.
"Opium was legal in the US to smoke until 1914. It was legal over-the-counter medicinally with camphor until the 1970s. I assume the same was true in the UK where women drank their tea with laudenum well into the 20th century."
Now we're told that opium was legal in the US and the UK. True or not, the claim is irrelevant since opium was illegal in China, and it is China we're discussing here.
But the suggestion is that if these two enlightened countries permitted it, and they survived, how bad can it have been?
So if China did have a bad experience with it, that must be due to some inherent weakness or fault of the Chinese themselves, or perhaps their culture. Again, no blame here. Let's move on.
"The Qing had a bad habit of killing diplomats and British merchants' property."
This one is almost obscene in its dishonesty. Seizing and destroying tonnes of illegal narcotics is reduced so cleanly to "destroying the property of British merchants", and executing foreign enemy drug dealers is reduced to the bad act of "killing British diplomats".
Perhaps more importantly, he forgot to mention that the "British merchants" who had their property destroyed, were in fact Jews. It's true they may have once lived in Britain and may have carried British passports, but they were Jews, not Englishmen.
But we move further to blaming the victim for his own misfortune. We're given a broad statement, totally irrelevant to the debate about Jews trafficking in narcotics in China, and are instead led into accusations about China's character and behavior.
"The British reacted harshly by today's standards, but they would have done the same to the US, had Washington been foolish enough to sieze and destroy British merchants' property and kill British diplomats."
Now we're told that maybe "the British reacted harshly by today's standards". I would say so. The British and French (and perhaps the Jews) looted and destroyed the Yuanmingyuan, the greatest destruction of cultural treasures in the history of the world.
I doubt any of us can imagine that Britain might have sailed to the US with all its military, and destroyed every cultural and historical artifact in the country, as punishment for a few deaths - diplomatic or otherwise - and the seizure of a shipload of illegal narcotics.
The best example of this is Thailand. They managed to fight off European colonialists because they avoided Chinese arrogance. . . history has not been kind to those who wish to play by their own rules.
Then we move further along to identifying more of the victim's flaws and weaknesses, to complete the process of detailing his own responsibility for his misfortune.
We are immediately left with the question as to why Thailand managed to reject colonial harm but China didn't. That would surely seem to indicate some kind of weakness. And then the weakness is revealed to us - Chinese arrogance.
Aha. So there we have it. The only reason China was semi-colonised and socially eviscerated by the Jewish narcotics trafficking was that they were more "arrogant" than the Thais. If only they had known.
And to complete the process, we are told the Chinese are entirely responsible for their own misfortune by resisting the Jewish importing of opium, because history has never been kind to "those who wish to play by their own rules".
As to the opium wars, the Indian dimension adds to this sorry piece of history. However, I am still of the opinion that the prime movers of events were British in the British East India Co., the Jardines, Mathesons, etc.
"The Indian dimension" consists of the fact that the Sassoons forced Indian farmers to abandon their former primary crops and plant opium poppies for shipment to China. But his version doesn't incriminate the Jews; rather it just adds to "this sorry history".
Then, having already put the blame squarely onto the British and maybe the Indians, our Jewish friends add to this rogue's gallery the British East India Co. (also Jewish-owned), Jardine-Matheson and unnamed others.
"As well as all the Chinese involved in pushing the drugs once landed. Nobody had clean hands."
Our sympathiser, totally without supporting evidence - since none exists - claims the Chinese themselves were eagerly selling, and other Chinese were eagerly buying, the opium. So how can you presume to blame me? All the blame goes to the victim.
This is a tempting claim to make and one that is impossible to refute. After all, we cannot prove that something didn't happen. And when we consider that the British, on Sassoon's demands, forced open 80% of China to the opium trade, it sounds reasonable that a few Chinese would have been involved somewhere.
However, the Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that Sassoon declared opium to be purely "a Jewish business" and refused to permit anyone else to be involved. Besides, Sassoon used the Chinese Kaifeng Jews as his distribution agents - because they were Jewish, and he felt he could trust them
With this, we have more or less completed our process of totally blaming the victims for their "self-inflicted" misfortune.
However, that is all water under the bridge."
And, as the grand finale, we're told, that is all water under the bridge. That's history. It's over. It happened a long time ago. Why try to relive it? Let it go. Time to move on.
I'm curious to know how our Jewish friends would respond if we suggested that they apply this good advice to themselves, that their "holocaust" is just "water under the bridge", and it's time to forget and move on.
We have gone from historical statements of the Jews destroying China by the trafficking of the most powerful narcotics, to a condemnation of China BY the Jews. That's typical.
So there we are. To the extent anything happened at all, it was all China's fault. And if you want to blame anyone, blame the British or the Indians, or Jardine, Matheson. But don't blame the Jews like the Sassoons, the Kadoories, the Hartungs, because they weren't even there. And even if they were there, they were not Jewish but British. No blame. Let's move on.
You will note that nowhere in these repugnant comments did the poster actually deny the exclusive involvement of Jews in China's opium trafficking. And of course, the facts cannot be denied.
Instead, all the efforts were simply to cloud the main issue, to introduce so many irrelevancies as to hopelessly confuse readers, to deflect discussion of the topic by raising red herrings and side issues, to denigrate the Chinese, and blame the victim for the crimes perpetrated against him.
And of course, to fully exonerate the Jews for these inhuman crimes.
An article mini-series in 7 parts: