Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Why are we so afraid to celebrate the British Empire's great achievements? Colonialism & capitalism have been the 2 greatest forces for lifting the world out of poverty & increasing both life expectancy & quality of life Yet today the British Empire is presented not only as wholly bad,...

RafHM's profile picture

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

71,836 subscribers

36,274 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The British Empire was one of the greatest achievements in all of human history It is welcome to see Indian historians standing against the propaganda and telling the truth, life became far better for them under the British
0:55

The British Empire was one of the greatest achievements in all of human history It is welcome to see Indian historians standing against the propaganda and telling the truth, life became far better for them under the British

Basil the Great

14,165 views • 8 days ago

Why oh why doesn’t our establishment accept that its only moral obligation is to the British state and the British people? Not to global welfare. Not to international liberalism. To us, and our country, and our self-government. That is it. The moment they do that, so many of the issues which plague our society become easier to manage. Immigration is no longer a question of benefitting the largest number of global citizens but about boosting the British economy while keeping British people safe. Foreign relations is not about promoting obscure minority rights in far off lands but about securing British interests wherever necessary. And most of all we drop the idea that every culture in the world is the same and therefore anybody can fit in here, and celebrate the fact that Britain has a highly distinct, highly evolved culture all of its own that we want to cherish and protect. What’s so difficult about that?
0:44

Why oh why doesn’t our establishment accept that its only moral obligation is to the British state and the British people? Not to global welfare. Not to international liberalism. To us, and our country, and our self-government. That is it. The moment they do that, so many of the issues which plague our society become easier to manage. Immigration is no longer a question of benefitting the largest number of global citizens but about boosting the British economy while keeping British people safe. Foreign relations is not about promoting obscure minority rights in far off lands but about securing British interests wherever necessary. And most of all we drop the idea that every culture in the world is the same and therefore anybody can fit in here, and celebrate the fact that Britain has a highly distinct, highly evolved culture all of its own that we want to cherish and protect. What’s so difficult about that?

David Starkey

117,549 views • 4 months ago

This Labour MP admits that there are "Native Brits and Non-Native Citizens." A good start. She also says that some groups are "seeking to rewrite the definition of Britishness as being based on ancestry alone." Right...Does she not realise that it was the British Nationality Acts of 1948 & 1981 that rewrote the definition of British to literally include anyone from anywhere in the world? The British People have ancestry from the British Isles dating back thousands of years. This is just a fact. Before mass-immigration, pre-1948, there was not a need to 'define Britishness'. Any definition that seeks to say 'anyone from anywhere in the world can be British' is genocidal as we are on the verge of becoming a minority in our homeland. Ancestry is everything. It is who we are as a People.
0:35

This Labour MP admits that there are "Native Brits and Non-Native Citizens." A good start. She also says that some groups are "seeking to rewrite the definition of Britishness as being based on ancestry alone." Right...Does she not realise that it was the British Nationality Acts of 1948 & 1981 that rewrote the definition of British to literally include anyone from anywhere in the world? The British People have ancestry from the British Isles dating back thousands of years. This is just a fact. Before mass-immigration, pre-1948, there was not a need to 'define Britishness'. Any definition that seeks to say 'anyone from anywhere in the world can be British' is genocidal as we are on the verge of becoming a minority in our homeland. Ancestry is everything. It is who we are as a People.

Lucy White

64,064 views • 1 month ago

🇬🇧 Perfidious Albion: They Created Zionism & Wahhabism. Their 1904 Rule Explains Ukraine. This is the Hidden Empire. To understand the war in Ukraine, you must first understand the 500-year project of the British Empire. It is not a story of kings and colonies, but of finance, ideology, and a single, ruthless geopolitical rule. Harley Schlanger, president of LaRoucheOrg, connects the dots in a way you’ve never heard before. According to his research, the empire’s modern form began not with a battle, but with a bank. “1688 was the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ where the Dutch moved in and pretty much taught the British a lot of what the Dutch learned from the Venetians, namely how to set up a central bank, a private bank. The Bank of England was modeled on the Bank of the Netherlands.” This was the birth of the Empire as a financial machine. The drive for resources and land was forever fused with the power of private central banking. But this system faced a fatal challenge. “In the midst of this 500-year period, there was an extremely important break, namely the American Revolution. And we should never forget that the American colonies fought the first successful anti-imperial revolution.” This was the original sin in London’s eyes. Schlanger states plainly: “The British never accepted it and have continued in one way or another to try to figure out how to undermine the United States and the American Republican tradition.” The war for independence never ended. How do you maintain an empire in the modern age? Through psychological warfare. The British, Schlanger reveals, built the tools for this at Oxford. “The British have an enormous storehouse of history that they rely on at Oxford… the Ashmolean Museum. This is where Zionism was created. This is where Wahhabiism, the perversion of Islam, was created. This is where they use studies of ideology, national ideologies and a kind of identity politics for nations.” This research was formalized into a strategic doctrine. We misuse the word today, but Schlanger corrects the record: “Geopolitics was a specific doctrine developed by the British at the end of the 19th century and put into a form in 1904 by a man named Halford Mackinder… It was a strategy of how the British could use their power of the deep sea navy to control international trade, currency, terms of trade and so on.” And here is the single rule at its heart—the rule that explains our world right now: “At the heart of it was the idea that the British could never allow an alliance between central European countries and Eurasian countries. And that is what we’re seeing today fought out over Ukraine over the whole question of China and so on.” The war in Ukraine is not a random conflict. It is the latest, most violent application of a 120-year-old British imperial rule. It is a war to prevent the rise of an independent, powerful Eurasia—the greatest existential threat to the financial-ideological empire born in the Bank of England. This is the hidden history of the world order.
2:58

🇬🇧 Perfidious Albion: They Created Zionism & Wahhabism. Their 1904 Rule Explains Ukraine. This is the Hidden Empire. To understand the war in Ukraine, you must first understand the 500-year project of the British Empire. It is not a story of kings and colonies, but of finance, ideology, and a single, ruthless geopolitical rule. Harley Schlanger, president of LaRoucheOrg, connects the dots in a way you’ve never heard before. According to his research, the empire’s modern form began not with a battle, but with a bank. “1688 was the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ where the Dutch moved in and pretty much taught the British a lot of what the Dutch learned from the Venetians, namely how to set up a central bank, a private bank. The Bank of England was modeled on the Bank of the Netherlands.” This was the birth of the Empire as a financial machine. The drive for resources and land was forever fused with the power of private central banking. But this system faced a fatal challenge. “In the midst of this 500-year period, there was an extremely important break, namely the American Revolution. And we should never forget that the American colonies fought the first successful anti-imperial revolution.” This was the original sin in London’s eyes. Schlanger states plainly: “The British never accepted it and have continued in one way or another to try to figure out how to undermine the United States and the American Republican tradition.” The war for independence never ended. How do you maintain an empire in the modern age? Through psychological warfare. The British, Schlanger reveals, built the tools for this at Oxford. “The British have an enormous storehouse of history that they rely on at Oxford… the Ashmolean Museum. This is where Zionism was created. This is where Wahhabiism, the perversion of Islam, was created. This is where they use studies of ideology, national ideologies and a kind of identity politics for nations.” This research was formalized into a strategic doctrine. We misuse the word today, but Schlanger corrects the record: “Geopolitics was a specific doctrine developed by the British at the end of the 19th century and put into a form in 1904 by a man named Halford Mackinder… It was a strategy of how the British could use their power of the deep sea navy to control international trade, currency, terms of trade and so on.” And here is the single rule at its heart—the rule that explains our world right now: “At the heart of it was the idea that the British could never allow an alliance between central European countries and Eurasian countries. And that is what we’re seeing today fought out over Ukraine over the whole question of China and so on.” The war in Ukraine is not a random conflict. It is the latest, most violent application of a 120-year-old British imperial rule. It is a war to prevent the rise of an independent, powerful Eurasia—the greatest existential threat to the financial-ideological empire born in the Bank of England. This is the hidden history of the world order.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

185,656 views • 8 months ago

‘You don’t teach your children in schools a line of colonial history’ Shashi Tharoor destroys British🇬🇧 media over Britain’s colonial history Real wages in India🇮🇳 declined by 23.3% during the 350 years of British rule Under British rule, India's share of the world economy declined from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950 Britain stole $45 trillion in wealth from India during colonial rule Based on England's 16th and 17th century mortality rate, the British Empire caused 165 million excess deaths in India between 1881 and 1920. Extreme poverty increased from 23% in 1810 to more than 50% by the mid-20th century. According to historian Mike Davis, during 120 years of the British Raj, there were 31 famines. Before British rule, there had been 17 famines in the last 2000 years. The last famine caused by the British Empire, the Bengal famine, killed 4 million people. Shashi Tharoor
0:36

‘You don’t teach your children in schools a line of colonial history’ Shashi Tharoor destroys British🇬🇧 media over Britain’s colonial history Real wages in India🇮🇳 declined by 23.3% during the 350 years of British rule Under British rule, India's share of the world economy declined from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950 Britain stole $45 trillion in wealth from India during colonial rule Based on England's 16th and 17th century mortality rate, the British Empire caused 165 million excess deaths in India between 1881 and 1920. Extreme poverty increased from 23% in 1810 to more than 50% by the mid-20th century. According to historian Mike Davis, during 120 years of the British Raj, there were 31 famines. Before British rule, there had been 17 famines in the last 2000 years. The last famine caused by the British Empire, the Bengal famine, killed 4 million people. Shashi Tharoor

Going Underground

244,616 views • 3 years ago

🇻🇪 Venezuela's MADURO: "When you study the elites that govern the US & Europe, you get a British type. The British Empire was the most criminal empire in the last 1,000 years... They see the 'threat' of the emergence of a new world, and they are simply preparing to die killing."
1:25

🇻🇪 Venezuela's MADURO: "When you study the elites that govern the US & Europe, you get a British type. The British Empire was the most criminal empire in the last 1,000 years... They see the 'threat' of the emergence of a new world, and they are simply preparing to die killing."

COMBATE |🇵🇷

96,740 views • 2 years ago

Britain does not owe a SINGLE PENNY to the Caribbean nations When boxer & civil rights activist Muhammad Ali was asked what he thought of Africa, he replied: “I'm just glad my granddaddy got on that boat!” Africa was never going to become Wakanda, with or without colonisation The fact is, as horrific & awful as slavery was, the descendants of slaves today have a far better life than if their ancestors had never left West Africa. Globally, black Americans are the richest part of the black diaspora, with black Canadians and Britons following not far behind. The descendants of slaves in the Caribbean live around 10-15 years longer than in West Africa - and their GDP per capita is approx. 10 x higher. Thanks to their British colonial inheritance* the Caribbean states are stable, democratic, middle income countries. Many outrank regional neighbours (non-British colonies) on the UN Human Development Index - including countries such as Brazil or Mexico. If we were having this discussion in the 19th century, when slaves were alive, I'd absolutely support reparations. But by every measure, today, in the 21st century, the Caribbean nations and the descendants of slaves that live there are benefitting from the legacy of British colonialism. That's something to celebrate rather than denounce. A cause for pride rather than shame. *English language, common law, parliament, judiciary, education system, civil service, military, police, health etc. etc. Me on GB News 👇
4:48

Britain does not owe a SINGLE PENNY to the Caribbean nations When boxer & civil rights activist Muhammad Ali was asked what he thought of Africa, he replied: “I'm just glad my granddaddy got on that boat!” Africa was never going to become Wakanda, with or without colonisation The fact is, as horrific & awful as slavery was, the descendants of slaves today have a far better life than if their ancestors had never left West Africa. Globally, black Americans are the richest part of the black diaspora, with black Canadians and Britons following not far behind. The descendants of slaves in the Caribbean live around 10-15 years longer than in West Africa - and their GDP per capita is approx. 10 x higher. Thanks to their British colonial inheritance* the Caribbean states are stable, democratic, middle income countries. Many outrank regional neighbours (non-British colonies) on the UN Human Development Index - including countries such as Brazil or Mexico. If we were having this discussion in the 19th century, when slaves were alive, I'd absolutely support reparations. But by every measure, today, in the 21st century, the Caribbean nations and the descendants of slaves that live there are benefitting from the legacy of British colonialism. That's something to celebrate rather than denounce. A cause for pride rather than shame. *English language, common law, parliament, judiciary, education system, civil service, military, police, health etc. etc. Me on GB News 👇

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

422,425 views • 1 year ago

I am sick of hearing people moaning about the British Empire & that we should feel some sort of guilt. It makes no sense to compare today’s social standards to standards of the past. You want to talk about British Empire? Fine compare it to other empires. In the context of empires, the British Empire was arguably the most progressive in history. - abolished slavery - brought law & order to countries - brought democracy to countries - improved education standards across the world - improved women rights across the world Context is key. Study the impact of all empires before commenting on Britain’s.
0:56

I am sick of hearing people moaning about the British Empire & that we should feel some sort of guilt. It makes no sense to compare today’s social standards to standards of the past. You want to talk about British Empire? Fine compare it to other empires. In the context of empires, the British Empire was arguably the most progressive in history. - abolished slavery - brought law & order to countries - brought democracy to countries - improved education standards across the world - improved women rights across the world Context is key. Study the impact of all empires before commenting on Britain’s.

Sunil Sharma 🇬🇧

498,152 views • 1 year ago

We shall uphold our commitment to the security of the Falkland Islands. If necessary, we shall do this alone. Our purpose is that the Falkland Islands shall never again be a victim of unprovoked aggression. The final details will not become clear for a few days yet, but we know that some 250 British servicemen and civilians have been killed. They died so that others may live in freedom and justice. Those men did not risk their lives in any way to have a United Nations trusteeship. They risked their lives to defend British sovereign territory, the British way of life and the rights of British people to determine their own future...I do not intend to negotiate on the sovereignty of the islands in any way, except with the people who live there. That is my fervent belief.
2:07

We shall uphold our commitment to the security of the Falkland Islands. If necessary, we shall do this alone. Our purpose is that the Falkland Islands shall never again be a victim of unprovoked aggression. The final details will not become clear for a few days yet, but we know that some 250 British servicemen and civilians have been killed. They died so that others may live in freedom and justice. Those men did not risk their lives in any way to have a United Nations trusteeship. They risked their lives to defend British sovereign territory, the British way of life and the rights of British people to determine their own future...I do not intend to negotiate on the sovereignty of the islands in any way, except with the people who live there. That is my fervent belief.

Margaret Thatcher

14,153 views • 4 months ago

'WOULD YOU SAY THAT TO A JEW?' Britain not being forced to reckon with colonialism and slavery has helped sanitise British imperialism and dilute the historical scale of its destruction of societies. This video clip shows the cognitive dissonance of former British member of Parliament and GB News host Jacob Rees-Mogg, who argued with Imarn Ayton - Activist and Trainer that British imperialism was a force for good. He ignored the exploitative nature of colonialism, whereby the British empire imposed its systems primarily for its benefit, dispossessing colonised populations of natural-resource wealth. The claim that Britain ‘gave’ the Caribbean rule of law, democracy, and capitalism is a selective historical narrative that downplays colonialism’s impact on millions of victims. These communities had working systems before the British imposed theirs, with British hegemony influencing generations of Global South people to erase from their collective minds the archives of knowledge and tradition. By suggesting Caribbean nations should be grateful for British colonialism, Rees-Mogg minimises the devastating impacts of forced labour, resource extraction and systemic racism, creating inequalities still present to this day in formerly colonised countries. In 2023, as part of 'international reconciliation,' 15 Caribbean countries announced they sought $33 trillion in slavery reparations, with Britain alone billed for $19.6 trillion. Have a watch, and please share your thoughts. Video credit: GB News
1:26

'WOULD YOU SAY THAT TO A JEW?' Britain not being forced to reckon with colonialism and slavery has helped sanitise British imperialism and dilute the historical scale of its destruction of societies. This video clip shows the cognitive dissonance of former British member of Parliament and GB News host Jacob Rees-Mogg, who argued with Imarn Ayton - Activist and Trainer that British imperialism was a force for good. He ignored the exploitative nature of colonialism, whereby the British empire imposed its systems primarily for its benefit, dispossessing colonised populations of natural-resource wealth. The claim that Britain ‘gave’ the Caribbean rule of law, democracy, and capitalism is a selective historical narrative that downplays colonialism’s impact on millions of victims. These communities had working systems before the British imposed theirs, with British hegemony influencing generations of Global South people to erase from their collective minds the archives of knowledge and tradition. By suggesting Caribbean nations should be grateful for British colonialism, Rees-Mogg minimises the devastating impacts of forced labour, resource extraction and systemic racism, creating inequalities still present to this day in formerly colonised countries. In 2023, as part of 'international reconciliation,' 15 Caribbean countries announced they sought $33 trillion in slavery reparations, with Britain alone billed for $19.6 trillion. Have a watch, and please share your thoughts. Video credit: GB News

African Stream

76,843 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: Chad is the latest African country to kick French colonizing army out of its territory. Senegal is also on track to do same. Pretty sure you must have heard. But I’ve been cautious about rolling out the drums, and I’ll tell you why. You see, France is a very very bad colonizer. They are the crudest and most vile of all colonizing forces of Europe because they made their display of inhumanity to colonies open - as open as can be. They have never be able to divorce themselves from the crude antics and machinations of the colonial era France, even in the 21st century. African colonies openly pay colonial tax, French military boots are on ground in nearly all colonies, currencies used in colonies are printed in France and controlled from the Bank of Paris, and so on. For the British, another innately wicked and dangerous colonizer, they’ve been very smart about theirs. They do literally everything the French do but through their British - imposed stooges and fronts in the governments of their colonies - it’s called INDIRECT RULE. They keep everything under the carpet but the result is the same as the French colonies, if not worse. Today, I have a feeling that after suffering a brutal defeat in the Sahel states, France may be adopting the British neocolonial model of control for the 21st century which implies eliminating physical presence of everything French in the colonies and using fronts entirely for their neocolonial operations. I suspect this is what they’re trying to do in places like Chad, Senegal and maybe one or two other French colonies, just so the masses are deceived into believing that those colonies have “seen the light.” I wanna see Chad and Senegal openly join the Sahel states and renounce the colonial pact, change and rename their currencies, cut ties with the Bank of Paris, stop paying colonial tax or committing foreign reserve to the Bank of Paris and having to go back to borrow the same money that belongs to them from France at an interest rate beyond human comprehension, take over the control of their resources that have been in the hands of France for generations and nationalize them all, I want them to cut all ties and keep only regular diplomatic equal opportunity ties and much more, before I roll out the drums. My two cents.
1:33

BREAKING: Chad is the latest African country to kick French colonizing army out of its territory. Senegal is also on track to do same. Pretty sure you must have heard. But I’ve been cautious about rolling out the drums, and I’ll tell you why. You see, France is a very very bad colonizer. They are the crudest and most vile of all colonizing forces of Europe because they made their display of inhumanity to colonies open - as open as can be. They have never be able to divorce themselves from the crude antics and machinations of the colonial era France, even in the 21st century. African colonies openly pay colonial tax, French military boots are on ground in nearly all colonies, currencies used in colonies are printed in France and controlled from the Bank of Paris, and so on. For the British, another innately wicked and dangerous colonizer, they’ve been very smart about theirs. They do literally everything the French do but through their British - imposed stooges and fronts in the governments of their colonies - it’s called INDIRECT RULE. They keep everything under the carpet but the result is the same as the French colonies, if not worse. Today, I have a feeling that after suffering a brutal defeat in the Sahel states, France may be adopting the British neocolonial model of control for the 21st century which implies eliminating physical presence of everything French in the colonies and using fronts entirely for their neocolonial operations. I suspect this is what they’re trying to do in places like Chad, Senegal and maybe one or two other French colonies, just so the masses are deceived into believing that those colonies have “seen the light.” I wanna see Chad and Senegal openly join the Sahel states and renounce the colonial pact, change and rename their currencies, cut ties with the Bank of Paris, stop paying colonial tax or committing foreign reserve to the Bank of Paris and having to go back to borrow the same money that belongs to them from France at an interest rate beyond human comprehension, take over the control of their resources that have been in the hands of France for generations and nationalize them all, I want them to cut all ties and keep only regular diplomatic equal opportunity ties and much more, before I roll out the drums. My two cents.

J. C. Okechukwu

48,008 views • 1 year ago

How The U.S. Bankrupted The British Empire - The Secret Bill for WWII. We are taught that Britain "won" World War II. Financially, they lost everything. While the history books focus on the victory in 1945, they rarely mention the secret economic collapse that followed. On December 31, 2006-more than 60 years after the war ended-the British government quietly made a final wire transfer of $83 million to the United States. This was the last installment of the Anglo-American Loan, a desperate $4.33 billion lifeline negotiated by John Maynard Keynes to save a bankrupt nation from starvation. The "Special Relationship" wasn't free. The abrupt end of Lend-Lease, the forced convertibility of the Sterling, and the "dollar gap" destroyed the British Empire's financial dominance and ushered in decades of austerity. To understand why India was bled dry of its resources and finances and left bankrupt, you have to watch this documentary in full and then I will post part two.
22:48

How The U.S. Bankrupted The British Empire - The Secret Bill for WWII. We are taught that Britain "won" World War II. Financially, they lost everything. While the history books focus on the victory in 1945, they rarely mention the secret economic collapse that followed. On December 31, 2006-more than 60 years after the war ended-the British government quietly made a final wire transfer of $83 million to the United States. This was the last installment of the Anglo-American Loan, a desperate $4.33 billion lifeline negotiated by John Maynard Keynes to save a bankrupt nation from starvation. The "Special Relationship" wasn't free. The abrupt end of Lend-Lease, the forced convertibility of the Sterling, and the "dollar gap" destroyed the British Empire's financial dominance and ushered in decades of austerity. To understand why India was bled dry of its resources and finances and left bankrupt, you have to watch this documentary in full and then I will post part two.

JIX5A

168,152 views • 8 months ago

What accounts like this fail to mention is that punkah-pullers pre-dated the British, and were used by the Mughals and the pre-British Indian elite. They like to paint the British as uniquely exploitative and evil, but the reality is that there's pretty much no exploitation and evil the British engaged in that they didn't already engage in prior to British arrival. (Bonus points if you can spot the dude with three legs 🤭. Another shoddy AI job 🙄)
0:25

What accounts like this fail to mention is that punkah-pullers pre-dated the British, and were used by the Mughals and the pre-British Indian elite. They like to paint the British as uniquely exploitative and evil, but the reality is that there's pretty much no exploitation and evil the British engaged in that they didn't already engage in prior to British arrival. (Bonus points if you can spot the dude with three legs 🤭. Another shoddy AI job 🙄)

Holly Grayle

173,484 views • 1 month ago

“When the British colonized the North in 1900, what did we, the British, do? the British enabled Islam to spread in Nigeria, and the British stopped the spread of Christianity because Lugard kept missionaries out of the North. He only let missionaries go to the parts that were not under Muslim rule, like the Jos Plateau. So, the Christian Church in the Middle Belt thrived in areas that had never been conquered by the Hausa Fulani.”
2:20

“When the British colonized the North in 1900, what did we, the British, do? the British enabled Islam to spread in Nigeria, and the British stopped the spread of Christianity because Lugard kept missionaries out of the North. He only let missionaries go to the parts that were not under Muslim rule, like the Jos Plateau. So, the Christian Church in the Middle Belt thrived in areas that had never been conquered by the Hausa Fulani.”

Ozor Ndi Ozor

112,578 views • 8 months ago

STEVE BANNON: The Communist Party is the exact opposite. The Chinese Communist Party, the One Belt One Road Initiative is really just taking the model of the British East India company of predatory capitalism and just putting it in reverse. --- They're looking for elite capture, and they do that through a predatory form of capitalism that quite frankly the British East India company and the British perfected in the height of colonialism. President Trump is anti-colonialism. He wants nations of the earth to be able to work with each other in a basis that's based on reciprocal interest and this is why he's a Nationalist.
3:11

STEVE BANNON: The Communist Party is the exact opposite. The Chinese Communist Party, the One Belt One Road Initiative is really just taking the model of the British East India company of predatory capitalism and just putting it in reverse. --- They're looking for elite capture, and they do that through a predatory form of capitalism that quite frankly the British East India company and the British perfected in the height of colonialism. President Trump is anti-colonialism. He wants nations of the earth to be able to work with each other in a basis that's based on reciprocal interest and this is why he's a Nationalist.

Bannon’s WarRoom

22,507 views • 4 months ago

Churchill never had interest in going to war with Germany, until a group of Jewish Bankers known as “The Focus” convinced him to do so. He sold out the British empire for shekels and legacy. And the truth is he destroyed the British Empire, and all of Europes sovereignty.
7:48

Churchill never had interest in going to war with Germany, until a group of Jewish Bankers known as “The Focus” convinced him to do so. He sold out the British empire for shekels and legacy. And the truth is he destroyed the British Empire, and all of Europes sovereignty.

Uncommon Sense

249,140 views • 1 year ago

Left: Suelle Braverman says that Britain's former colonies should "pay the British back" Right: Prime Minister of Visit Barbados Mia Mottley slams the notion, says some British politicians are using this as a distraction to the chaos on UK politics, and she does this responding in the most dignified graceful way 👏 "Certainly the notion that we should pay the United Kingdom for oppressing us, for enslaving us, and for treating us as chattel. " "And that is the difference. Slavery existed before, but this was the first time that human beings were defined as chattel. And I've been very clear all along that the 1661 slave code of Barbados, which predated the Code Noir, which the French have just revealed less than two months ago, all distinguished themselves and all of the slave laws that followed the 1661 slaves Slave port of Barbados. " "By the treatment of human beings as chattel. We are not asking for charity. We're asking to be able to ensure that justice can be done. In 1834, the British Parliament did not need to be persuaded of that fact with respect to the loss of property because we were chattel and the compensation of the slave slave owners of £20 million. " "I would like to advise that those who have not yet read sufficient to understand the history do so before making comments that really do not reflect well on them. " "With respect to the movement, this is a global movement. Now. We just came from Accra in Ghana, and as the United nations passed the resolution that Ghana brought in March of this year. " "We have seen Pope Leo make comments in this year of our Lord. We have seen President Macron recognize that the conversation for reparations, just as His Majesty King Charles, when he was Prince Charles at the opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, stated clearly that reparations was a conversation whose time had come. " "I have no doubt that there are British parliamentarians who want to distract people from the domestic politics of the United Kingdom at this point in time. But the Caribbean should not be used as a prop in those circumstances. Thank you. "
2:41

Left: Suelle Braverman says that Britain's former colonies should "pay the British back" Right: Prime Minister of Visit Barbados Mia Mottley slams the notion, says some British politicians are using this as a distraction to the chaos on UK politics, and she does this responding in the most dignified graceful way 👏 "Certainly the notion that we should pay the United Kingdom for oppressing us, for enslaving us, and for treating us as chattel. " "And that is the difference. Slavery existed before, but this was the first time that human beings were defined as chattel. And I've been very clear all along that the 1661 slave code of Barbados, which predated the Code Noir, which the French have just revealed less than two months ago, all distinguished themselves and all of the slave laws that followed the 1661 slaves Slave port of Barbados. " "By the treatment of human beings as chattel. We are not asking for charity. We're asking to be able to ensure that justice can be done. In 1834, the British Parliament did not need to be persuaded of that fact with respect to the loss of property because we were chattel and the compensation of the slave slave owners of £20 million. " "I would like to advise that those who have not yet read sufficient to understand the history do so before making comments that really do not reflect well on them. " "With respect to the movement, this is a global movement. Now. We just came from Accra in Ghana, and as the United nations passed the resolution that Ghana brought in March of this year. " "We have seen Pope Leo make comments in this year of our Lord. We have seen President Macron recognize that the conversation for reparations, just as His Majesty King Charles, when he was Prince Charles at the opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, stated clearly that reparations was a conversation whose time had come. " "I have no doubt that there are British parliamentarians who want to distract people from the domestic politics of the United Kingdom at this point in time. But the Caribbean should not be used as a prop in those circumstances. Thank you. "

Farrukh

34,265 views • 1 month ago

Britain Didn't Conquer India - The East India Company Did! We are taught that the British Empire conquered India. That is a lie. India was conquered by a private corporation: The East India Company. This is the story of the most ruthless "startup" in history. Starting with a small office in London, they built a private army twice the size of the British military, toppled the Mughal Empire, and turned an entire subcontinent into a source of shareholder dividends. From the Battle of Plassey to the Opium Wars, discover how a group of merchants became the warlords of Asia. When we think of the British Empire, we imagine the Union Jack, the Royal Navy, and Queen Victoria. But for the first 250 years, the British government didn't own a single inch of India. A private company did. This is the story of the East India Company (EIC) the world's first multinational corporation. It wasn't an army of the King; it was a joint-stock company with shareholders, a board of directors, and a headquarters in London. At its peak, this single corporation commanded a private army twice the size of the British military and ruled over 200 million people. In this video, we expose how a group of merchants with a license to trade spices accidentally (and then ruthlessly) conquered the Indian subcontinent. We breakdown the corporate raiding, the private mercenaries, and the bailouts that make modern Wall Street look like a charity.
19:38

Britain Didn't Conquer India - The East India Company Did! We are taught that the British Empire conquered India. That is a lie. India was conquered by a private corporation: The East India Company. This is the story of the most ruthless "startup" in history. Starting with a small office in London, they built a private army twice the size of the British military, toppled the Mughal Empire, and turned an entire subcontinent into a source of shareholder dividends. From the Battle of Plassey to the Opium Wars, discover how a group of merchants became the warlords of Asia. When we think of the British Empire, we imagine the Union Jack, the Royal Navy, and Queen Victoria. But for the first 250 years, the British government didn't own a single inch of India. A private company did. This is the story of the East India Company (EIC) the world's first multinational corporation. It wasn't an army of the King; it was a joint-stock company with shareholders, a board of directors, and a headquarters in London. At its peak, this single corporation commanded a private army twice the size of the British military and ruled over 200 million people. In this video, we expose how a group of merchants with a license to trade spices accidentally (and then ruthlessly) conquered the Indian subcontinent. We breakdown the corporate raiding, the private mercenaries, and the bailouts that make modern Wall Street look like a charity.

JIX5A

50,452 views • 8 months ago