Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





The BBC’s Justin Webb On 'anti-Americanism'
Tuesday, 08 May 2007 12:29
by Media Lens

“The shining city upon a hill” was how John Winthrop, one of the early Pilgrims, described America, his new homeland. Winthrop was making reference to the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus had addressed a large crowd:

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:14 — 16)

This vision of the United States as a God-ordained shining example has attained truly mythic proportions. John F. Kennedy sampled the same biblical metaphor in a speech just days before his inauguration in 1963. Ronald Reagan made it a focus of his farewell speech in 1989. (‘Farewell address to the nation,’ January 11, 1989')

The “city on a hill” was also repeatedly invoked by Justin Webb, senior BBC Washington correspondent, during his recent three — part BBC Radio 4 series, ‘Death to America’. (Broadcast on April 16, 23 and 30, 2007)

The series was billed as an examination of “anti-Americanism” — an interesting phrase to which we will return — in which Webb would question “the common perception of the United States as an international bully and a modern imperial power”.

Webb began emotively, describing how his own recently departed mother had been a protester, an “energetic duffle — coated figure who wanted to ban the bomb, stop wars of all kinds and suffering anywhere”. (‘Death to America,’ BBC Radio 4, April 16, 2007; see also Webb’s article, ‘anti-Americanism examined,’ BBC news online, April 12, 2007)

But as a youth, Webb began to notice a curious bias:

“The protests against nuclear weapons, for instance, concentrated on American weapons. The anti-war rallies were against American-led wars. The anti-death penalty campaign focused on Texas."

“A pattern was emerging and has never seriously been altered. A pattern of willingness to condemn America for the tiniest indiscretion — or to magnify those indiscretions — while leaving the murderers, dictators, and thieves who run other nations oddly untouched.”

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

In his quest to understand “anti-Americanism”, Webb journeyed variously to France — “where”, we were informed, “it all began” — and to Venezuela and Egypt. Webb noted of Venezuela that “the nation's leader Hugo Chavez compares George W Bush to Hitler”. Unmentioned was the fact that Chavez had been responding in kind to then US secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, who had himself likened +Chavez+ to Hitler. (‘Julia Buxton responds to Times article')

In setting the scene, Webb described a strain of French thought that regards the upstart American nation with disdain:

“The kind of anti-Americanism fostered by French intellectuals down the centuries revolves around intense dislike of what America "is" — not what it "does". (Original emphasis)

Webb was then ready to base his task on the following assumption:

“It is time that we understood that this attitude, this contempt for what democracy can do, is at the heart of at least some of the anti-Americanism we see in the world today.”

A Smokescreen Of Ignorance

Turning to the United States’ neighbours to the South, Webb observed:

“Latin American dislike of the United States and its leaders is a grittier substance than the smooth and heady French cocktail... This is not metaphysical hoity — toityness. Latin America’s brew contains real sweat, real tears. Tears from a past where the southerners were the servants; the northerners, the masters. This is, after all, Washington’s backyard.”

Note the familiar cliché of Latin America as “Washington’s backyard”. This homely description nestles comfortably into the establishment presumption that the region is rightfully part of the US sphere of influence: an ideology that extends back to the imperialist Monroe Doctrine of 1823. And while Webb was careful to mention “real sweat, real tears”, no mention was made of the real +blood+ spilled under US — sponsored wars, tyranny and oppression. (For details see our Media Alert, ‘Vision of the Damned,’ June 10 and 15, 2004:

Webb continued:

“You've got to wonder if there is any end to the capacity of the rest of the world to blame the United States for its problems. Nowhere is that more the case than in Latin America, where out of roughly 500 million people, 200 million live on less than $2 a day.

“Is it all the fault of the imperialists from the north? Or is just a little of it the result of local attitudes to poverty, local attitudes to honesty in government, and local attitudes to the rule of law?"

“In other words, in Latin America as elsewhere in the world, is anti-Americanism a smoke screen, a very convenient smoke screen, whose noxious fumes hide the reality of local failure?” (Webb, ‘Anti-Americanism in Venezuela,’ BBC news online, April 20, 2007)

In an email to one of our readers, Webb emphasised the same point: namely that the “failure of Latin economies cannot just be the result of US intervention”. (Email from Justin Webb to Neil Laurenson, April 25, 2007)

There has certainly been a “failure of Latin economies” for the bulk of the population, but not for the US — based corporations that have long exploited the region for private profit — an issue we will examine in detail in Part Two of this article.

Webb bulldozed through decades of horror and misery in stating glibly: “The US has behaved badly” in the past, but it is still “a shining city on the hill” and “in their heart of hearts, everyone here knows that.”

In contrast to this remarkable comment, consider the testimony of John Pilger who has also recently visited Venezuela:

"Chavez and the rise of popular social movements, from Colombia down to Argentina, represent bloodless, radical change across the continent, inspired by the great independence struggles that began with Simon Bolivar, born in 1783 in Venezuela." (Pilger, 'America's new enemy,' New Statesman, November 14, 2005)

Bolivar understood the nature and intentions of the new colonial master to the north who had kicked out the Spanish:

"The USA," Bolivar said in 1819, "appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." (Ibid.)

The plague rampaged for the next two centuries with popular, reforming governments stamped out and replaced with US client states — torture regimes — in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere in the region. By the end of Ronald Reagan's two terms of office there were 300,000 corpses in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala as a result of US — sponsored wars and oppression. In a recent interview about the making of his new film, 'The War on Democracy', set in Latin America, Pilger said:

“Our filming was concentrated in the barrios where the continent’s ‘invisible people’ live in hillside shanties that defy gravity. It tells, above all, a very positive story: that of the rise of popular social movements that have brought to power governments promising to stand up to those who control national wealth and to the imperial master. Venezuela has taken the lead... This is not to suggest that complete independence has been won. Venezuela’s economy, for example, is still very much a ‘neo — liberal’ economy that continues to reward those with capital. The changes made under Chavez are extraordinary — in grassroots democracy, health care, education and the sheer uplifting of people’s lives — but true equity and social justice and freedom from corruption remain distant goals.” (‘The U.S.’ War on Democracy,’ interview with John Pilger, Pablo Navarette, May 1, 2007)

The BBC correspondent next travelled to the Middle East. This is a region that has long been coveted by US power. In 1945, State Department officials described Saudi Arabian energy resources as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”, with the Gulf Region considered:

“...probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment”. (Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, Hamish Hamilton, 2003, p.150)

"In the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, a war fought to maintain control of this “prize”, a United Nations team visited Iraq and reported that “the recent conflict has wrought near — apocalyptic results upon the infrastructure... Most means of modern life support have been destroyed or rendered tenuous...” (Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, HarperCollins, p.599)

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser for Jimmy Carter, declared that the “benefits” of the war were “undeniably impressive”:

“First, a blatant act of aggression [by Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait] was rebuffed and punished... Second, U.S. military power is henceforth likely to be taken more seriously... Third, the Middle East and Persian Gulf region is now clearly an American sphere of preponderance.” (Ibid., p.599)

In the 1990s, Iraq was further brutalised by a cruel regime of US — UK — led sanctions that led to the deaths of over one million Iraqis, half a million of them children under five. Denis Halliday, the senior UN diplomat in Baghdad, resigned in disgust in 1998, describing the impact of the sanctions as “genocidal”. His successor, Hans von Sponeck, similarly resigned 18 months later.

For Justin Webb, none of this merited a mention. As Harold Pinter put it in his Nobel acceptance speech:

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.” (Pinter, ‘Art, truth and politics,’ The Guardian, December 8, 2005)

Instead, Webb began his final radio programme from the Middle East thus:

June 2005. US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice flies to Cairo and at the American University makes a speech that will go down in history:

“‘For sixty years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East; and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people.’”

Webb then told his listeners in all seriousness:

“I believe the Bush administration genuinely wanted that speech to be a turning point; a new start.”

One simply has to ask: On the basis of what evidence, exactly? That Webb could simply take at face value — with no evidence required — Rice’s claims of a massive, unprecedented U-turn in US foreign policy; that Washington would now engage in “supporting the democratic aspirations of all people” when the whole drive of American policy has been precisely in the opposite direction since the end of the Second World War, is truly breathtaking. And that he could blithely pass over what US-supported “stability” in the Middle East has actually entailed — such as the suffering of the Iraqis, and the appalling treatment of the Palestinians under an Israeli state massively supported by the US — tells us precisely where Webb stands.

In truth, Webb is the latest in a long line of journalists who periodically announce the great ‘change of course’. No matter the consistent depredations of state power, no matter the essentially unchanging structures of power and privilege dominating foreign policy, mainstream commissars are only too happy to declare a revolutionary and humanitarian change in direction based on nothing more than the words of the current Dear Leader.

Birth Of A Myth

Webb continued with his superficial analysis and loaded questions:

“So who are the Middle East anti-Americans?”, he asked. The tone was measured, reassuring, almost magisterial; echoing the style of John Simpson, the BBC’s veteran world affairs editor, perhaps deliberately so.

He answered his own question:

“They do exist, of course, and some of them, particularly those motivated by religion, are potential mass murderers. Most Americans would put them at the top of the list of threats to their nation and to them as individuals. Yet, in many ways, it’s the others, those who’ve not said goodbye to reason and humanity, who pose the bigger long — term threat [sic]. The bombers, after all, are a tiny minority and they can be arrested or suppressed or killed. These men and women, the peaceful haters you could call them, deny American legitimacy and deny too the fundamental decency of the American ideal; and they carry those thoughts on into future generations. They do so with a vehemence that takes the breath away.”

What followed was an Egyptian academic’s critical but articulate observations about US history and that country’s role in world affairs. But, for Webb, such radical views constituted “vehemence”: a familiar, pejorative framing whereby incisive critics such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Pinter and others are dismissed as angry, self-hating, or otherwise lacking in reason and relevance. (See our Media Alert, Brilliant Fools, December 19, 2005)

Webb spoke glowingly of America’s “core values”, about how it represents “a set of ideas about human conduct”, and of how “the heart of America’s unique status as a great power whose legitimacy, at least in theory, rests on the freely — given support of its own citizens and of those it assists.”

It has long been a standard convention in the mainstream to assert that the United States was forged as a nation dedicated to the democratic ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. US political leaders have long made reference to this ideology.

Consider, for example, a high — level internal document written in 1950, National Security Council 68, which grandly proclaimed the “system of values which animates our society” and which includes “the principles of freedom, tolerance, the importance of the individual and the supremacy of reason over will.” “The essential tolerance of our world outlook, our generous and constructive impulses, and the absence of covetousness in our international relations are assets of potentially enormous influence.” (Quoted in Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, pp.10 — 11)

Academics have also played a useful role in preaching this doctrine of US benevolence and grand ideals. According to Michael Howard, then Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford:

“For 200 years the United States has preserved almost unsullied the original ideals of the Enlightenment: the belief in the God — given rights of the individual, the inherent rights of free assembly and free speech, the blessings of free enterprise, the perfectibility of man, and, above all, the universality of these values.” (Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, Vintage, 1992, p.16).

Respected media commentators have also done their bit. James Reston of the New York Times, for example:

“I don’t think there’s anything in the history of the world to compare with the commitments this country has taken in defense of freedom.” (Ibid., p.18)

And Matt Frei — like Justin Webb, a senior BBC correspondent based in the US:

“America encapsulated the principles of the Enlightenment — Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — wrapped them in the pursuit of happiness, underpinned them with an inalienable right and turned an IDEA into a country. It took the missteps of the French and the English revolutions and it made them work.” (Matt Frei, ‘Washington diary: Land of ideas,’ BBC news online, May 2, 2007)

This was the ideological framework into which Webb’s radio series snugly fitted.

But the assumption of a benevolent state historically founded on a deep commitment to equality and freedom collapses under scrutiny. Consider, for example, what actually happened when the United States gained its independence from Britain. Historian Edmund Morgan summed it up:

“The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established.” (Zinn, op. cit., p.84)

And to what extent did the revolution, and the founding of this new nation, respect the equality and freedom of the original inhabitants, the native American Indians? Howard Zinn answers:

“They had been ignored by the fine words of the Declaration, had not been considered equal, certainly not in choosing those who would govern the American territories in which they lived, nor in being able to pursue happiness as they had pursued it for centuries before the white Americans arrived. Now, with the British out of the way, the Americans could begin the inexorable process of pushing the Indians off their lands, killing them if they resisted. (Ibid., p.86)

Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville observed bluntly that the United States was able "to exterminate the Indian race... without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world". (Noam Chomsky, Failed States, Hamish Hamilton, 2006, p.4)

As for the much -vaunted US Constitution itself, Zinn observes:

“When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.” (Zinn, op. cit., p.97)

All this, recall, is the “shining city upon a hill”.

Part II coming soon...
More from this author:
Dangerous Minds (14875 Hits)
by David Edwards "Our complex global economy is built upon millions of small, private acts of psychological surrender, the willingness...
Media Alert: Patriotism as Propaganda (8740 Hits)
by Dave Edwards On December 24, the Independent on Sunday‘s front page featured a portrait of a British soldier gazing pensively into the...
The Locus Of Responsibility (8831 Hits)
by David Edwards In his book Necessary Illusions, Noam Chomsky summarised the stark divide separating media treatment of state crimes: ...
Somalia - A Trip Down Memory Hole Lane (9326 Hits)
by David Edwards Following recent American airstrikes in Somalia, the words ‘Black Hawk Down’ have been mentioned dozens of times across...
The BBC and the 'Harmless' Heat Ray (7378 Hits)
by Dave Edwards General Mann: “That skeleton beam must be what they used to wipe out the French cities.” Dr. Forrester: ...
Related Articles:
Supporting the Troops? Senator Webb Puts Bush in the Cross-hairs (4863 Hits)
by Walter C. Uhler During President Bush's State of the Union speech last night and during Senator Jim Webb's Democratic Party response, two...
Offering a Response to Senator Webb - What America Really Needs to Hear (6650 Hits)
By Joshua Frank Shortly after President Bush’s State of the Union address last week Jim Webb, the freshman Senator from Virginia,...
The Shining City on a Hill - The BBC's Justin Webb On 'Anti-Americanism - PART II (5614 Hits)
by Medialens The BBC's Justin Webb On 'Anti-Americanism'(Part I is here) The Lexicon Of Totalitarianism It is worth...
The Surge - BBC’s Mark Urban And The Independent’s Adrian Hamilton On Iraq (7510 Hits)
by Media Lens On the May 14 edition of Newsnight, the BBC’s Mark Urban reported from Iraq that the US troop "surge" was an attempt...
In His Master’s Voice – The BBC’s Mark Urban does a hatchet job on Media Lens (4803 Hits)
by William Bowles I don’t know how many readers follow the exchanges between the BBC and other mainstream media outlets and Medialens...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (4)add comment

Tommy said:

The New Jerusalem we ain't. Thanks for the article.
May 08, 2007
Votes: +0

avatar singh said:

british or rather england has been exploiting not only the rest of the world but also usa for her ends.
31st jan.2007.

it is very important to realize and understand the trickery of the english race in manipulating usa to wage wars on behalf of britain which gains most from Iraq war and any war that usa imposes on the third world and even on Europe.

Here are some of the writings done years ago to give a global picture of what is REALLY happening in the world and by WHOSE agency.
The modus operandi of Britain is to make country and regions unstable and install british stooge with explicit instruction to bring the money -looted ones -to Britain from where it is not going to go anywhere else.
Some oligarch Jews (like thee criminal U.K.-based fugitive oligarch Boris Berezovsky)
were the stooge of British in Russia and they brought so many ill gotten money to uk. So did the Kuwaitis-who brought 4 billions of pounds within a week of first Iraq war problem in august 1990 -so has continued the massive loot of the rest of the world by the English .race through this money protection racket . It is money protection racket in the sense that those eliete’s money is protected only when it is made to be lodged in British London banks. The witness, who appeared on the Rossiya channel with his face hidden and was referred to as Pyotr, accused 61-year-old Berezovsky of killing Alexander Litvinenko because the former security officer knew how the exiled tycoon had obtained political asylum in Britain in 2003. This thief boris berezosvky is a terrorist as well who calls for violet end to Putin-the president who is one of the most loved of his countrymen compared to any in the world.
As someone said “We live in a world where criminals are good guys and patriots are villains: where Berezovsky is a liberal "human rights" activist and Putin is a moral monster.” that putin who is one of the most popular leader of any in the world.

In fact Britain is running a protection racket in the world through the help of american army-(because Britain is a third rate country with fourth rate army so it cannot do it on its own).
What Britain does is let the other countries be made instable (Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc) then let the british stooge be installed there-those people who have no following in own country and with strict instruction to those stooges that they will bring the money to britan,-that is how London has enriched itself in last 15 years after fall of soviet union. Billions of soviet money have flown illegally to London and the british court -kangaroo court if ever there was any -have not let the money go citing “it will harm england’s balance of payment”?
That is why british media gets incensed if the traitors like soviet spies are not left safe in Britain -because then the whole business of protection money racket and money that Britain gets is in jeopardy. That is what explains influx of foreign money to London and how London has overtaken new York in stock market. Forget about service industry -british are the most ill mannered race what service can they provide except protection racket on back of american arms? Britain is looting even usa. Through it is usa which has worked hard (through illegal invasions ) to make other countries unstable so that Britain can get money from protection of stooge elites of those countries..
the modus operandi of Britain is to make country and regions unstable and install british stooge with explicit insturction to bring the money -looted ones -to Britain from where it is not going to go anywhere else.
Some oligarch jews were the stooge of British in Russia and they brought so many ill gotten money to uk. So did the kuwaits-who brought 4 billions of pounds within a week of first Iraq war problem in august 1990 -so has continued the massive loot of the rest of the world by the English race through this money protection racket . it is money protection racket in the sense that those elite’s money is protected only when it is made to be lodged in British London banks.
“In the aftermath of President Abraham Lincoln's defeat of the London-backed slave-holders' Confederate insurrection, the London-linked New York faction of U.S. finance unleashed a predatory looting of the physical assets of the territory formerly ruled by the defeated Confederacy. That operation, which was described then as "carpetbagging," is a term that pointed to the style of the personal baggage, in which the travelling, locust-like predators carried their personal effects.”

“ When this English edition of Professor Stanislav Menshikov's book has been printed, Russia's President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin will have delivered his landmark May 10, 2006 "state of the union" address. The President's address will have marked the probable close of what had been the demographically murderous, greatest carpetbagging swindle in history. The carpetbagging which Professor Menshikov's book describes, is the post-1989 looting of the territory of the former Soviet Union, a looting that, in fact, has also been the predatory ruin of most of the East European territory of the Comecon outside Russia then and now.”-from

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Here is LaRouche's Preface to the English edition of Professor Stanislav Menshikov's book, The Anatomy of Russian Capitalism. It is dated May 14, 2006.



by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

March 30, 2007

The first of the points to which I refer: is that a prudent commander must always understand who the real enemy is. The real enemy is often the clever one, the one often disguised as an ally.

So, Bismarck rightly fought a war of defense against the aggression of British puppet Napoleon III, but, rightly opposed, if unsuccessfully, the Prussian monarchy's foolish refusal to end the war at the point of Napoleon III's defeat. The Kaiser's error was in thus committing a fully enraged, future France to play the role of London's puppet in geopolitical warfare, World Wars I and II, against continental Eurasia.

So, Germany's foolish and duped Wilhelm II and the other nephew of Edward VII, Czar Nicholas II, allowed themselves to make war against each other, at the pleasure of a decadent Austro-Hungarian Kaiser, all this in service of London's intention to have Russia and Germany destroy one another, and themselves, in geopolitical World Wars I and II, organized from imperial London. To bring about the calamity called "World War I," the Kaiser himself cleared the way to war with Russia, through dumping the Chancellor Bismarck who was opposed to Germany's being trapped into supporting Habsburg follies in the Balkans.

The second of the two points, is that a prudent commander never permits his enemy to lure him, half-wittingly, into taking ground at a place and time which the adversary has shrewdly chosen for his relative advantage. For example: The only important, true enemy of Iran resides both in London, and, therefore, also, among the London-steered allies of U.S. Vice-President Cheney. Prime Minister Tony Blair's London is also, the actual enemy of the U.S.A. in Southwest Asia. What is now behind Blair is the actual enemy, of us, and of the people of Southwest Asia; Tony Blair's faction is the force either to be defeated, or made peaceful by gentler means.

On these two accounts, President Putin's policy respecting Iran's current response on the issue of Anglo-American efforts to extend the already ongoing general warfare in Southwest Asia, has been prudent, and some Iranian resistance to President Putin's counsel has been a potentially ominous, tactical blunder, the error of overlooking the dynamical character of the relevant, global strategic situation as a whole."


What happened in 1938 in Munich wasn't so much "appeasement" as it was "collusion". One of Adolf's qualities that appealed so much to the West was his fervent anti-communism. Britain, the United States and other Western governments were counting on the Nazis to turn eastward and put an end once and for all to the Bolshevik menace to God, family and capitalism.[11]



An Anglophile to the core, Wilson didn't care about the fate of the Russians. His concern was in keeping German forces split along two fronts. The payoff worked: Russia's provisional prime minister Aleksandr Kerensky kept the Russians involved in the war.

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected to the presidency chiefly on the strength of a slogan: "He kept us out of war." By 1917, the peacenik prez was leading the charge against Germany, jailing antiwar activists, and exhorting Americans to fight a "war to end all wars." In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the voters: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Behind the scenes, however, he was maneuvering to do just that – and by the end of 1941, we were fighting a two-front war, embracing "Uncle" Joe Stalin as a fellow "anti-fascist," and planning the internment of the Japanese-American population.

November 1997.

Exploitation of U.S.A. by England and her Agents.

The recent case of an English servant( au pair) by name of miss Woodward being convicted of man-slaughter of an American baby of American parents and yet allowed to walk away Scot free highlights those who did not realize earlier) the complete hold of England and her agents on the affairs of U.S.A. The same english media and her agents in America were doing free propaganda for the girl and even before and after the trial were declaring the convicted girl innocent. It is the same media (B.B.C. And others of same punk types) who have all through last 15 years been doing propaganda against Blacks, Hispanic and what not, and have fully pushed for tough measures against drug takings on the basis that with drug scare a lot of Blacks would be (and have been) put behind bar for more than 15 to 20 years on trumped up charge of possessing !5 dollars worth of Hassis. It is the same British (more specifically english) media and peoples who are pro-capital punishment (as long as victims are non-english) , pro hard line policing( only against non-english peoples), more pro tobacc0,more pro rotten british beef, more pro big british business( but anti-foreigners` business-whiplash against Japanese ownership of a few American concerns but complete silence of American firm being hostile way being taken by british and Canadian firms is one example), more pro pollution, more anti-environment, very pro-english financial institutions` hold on world economy (but against European finance getting strong--anti-European Single currency is for that reason), very anti-cultured( they call it pragmatism) and very anti-foreign countries (Usa, Canada, and Australia excepted as these are regarded by English press as their colony( they call it across the pond, or english backwater))), very anti-blacks, anti-whites of Europe, anti non anglo saxon whites of America and even anti-Scottish
British media--racist-- (BBC was giving vehement
propaganda against Scottish devolution). BBC even suggested that Wales referendum peoples who lost referendum (i.e. english sympathisers in Wales) should revolt against Wales referendum result). These all characteristics you find daily in and out in programmes of BBC, independent channels, satellite english channel, all enlish papers. there is no difference between tabloids and broadsheets in England ,they all are owned, produced, edited, written and read and edited by low life forms). In fact what they try to project to others especially Americans is exactly opposite of what they actually. They deride other cultural things (like French) but would try to impress Americans as torch bearer of culture. In fact in name of pragmatism ( really meaning slimy, low life) they deride all cultural things. They are hardly musical but would make the most of commercial success out of music. In fact when German style techno music started getting popular, because it would eat away british music industry’s carefully orchestrated profit and also because money would probably go to foreign bands, the BBC and all english media started orchestrated propaganda against that music scene falsely claiming that it was full of antisocial elements consuming drugs and doing crimes. That is how the techno music scene was killed in Britain. That propaganda was worse than Soviet propaganda against pop music. That is how one never hears of excellent pop girl group Tic-Tac while
British media-propaganda machine of english race-- BBC and all british media have done full steam propaganda to popularise the names of rubbish pop group like Oasis and spice girls. In fact the English race is only good in propaganda and the sale which results from it. But they would like Americans to believe that they are original thinkers and others steal their ideas to sell¬ The english are sellers, and commercial but because they know it is not a classy qualification, they started talking of class when in reality there has never been true aristocracy in England. they all are pirate cum shopkeepers. Make no mistake about it. It is the british agents in U.S.A. who (through complete hold of media, Hollywood and money) who have been active in spreading racial hatred against blacks, Hispanic, Irish, Italians, Germans, Greeks Russian, Polish Jews -in other words against all those Americans who are labelled ethnic Americans and who constitute more than 70 % of Americans outside anglo-saxon race. The same english which said on one voice to free the murderer girl is the same who goes which daily talks of desirability of tough law and order measures in U.S.A. It the same english media which does propaganda on behalf of biggest drug dealer in the world-B.A.T. And it is the same English sympathisers in States and English Govt. which brought about civil war in America to protect drug (tobacco) interests in U.S. It is the same B.B.C. which opposed in 1988 the sanctions against apartheid South Africa saying it will hurt British jobs. IT openly violated U.N.O. resolutions against South Africa for british interests. Such british interests must be destroyed as it is based on inhuman practices. In fact in the 1988 American election B.B.C. had invited the chief drug dealer of bat (who of course is an englishman) and there was another American there. During discussion of Ducassis' candidature the B.B.C. anchor man suggested to the American that the opponent of bush was hardly an American as he looked to dark and was Greek, the country of geek being too much near Africa. It really happened. This shows a few things. According to B.B.C. not only Blacks were not American but also all those who the english agents have labelled ethnic Americans. In fact B.B.C. openly said (in that program-usually B.B.C. does not reveal its evil intention so easily) that the American means actually anglo-saxons. Don't confuse that it includes Germans either. The same English agents (in America) who created a monstrous film like ``birth of nation`` are the same people who crated prohibition only because many German immigrants were drinking bear and they did not like it. It is the same england sympathiser crowd who went on killing blacks, Irish,
etc -
British propaganda against Europeans races-- The same crowd who pushed U.S.A. Into both World Wars because otherwise England would have lost. It is the same crowd who asked for tough immigration measures against foreigners but have given free reign to English people to come to u.s.a. and work theatre without visa requirement. Those restricted against (from other foreign countries) are not only much more highly qualified specialists in their field but also they have much better standard of living than the English people who come to States. Those foreigners are mostly from elite school and are educated up to Ph.D. level while these english people are all non- PhDs. and almost all school failed. Very few of these english people are university educated. In fact England is a nation of plumbers and fitters. It is a progression from piracy and shop keeping. It shows in their accent that almost all of english immigrants to states are from plumber and fitter class. But they pose otherwise. they have created an accent only to show to Americans that they can sometimes Talk posh but it is a put on. actually they become posh only after they have milked America and taken jobs which would otherwise have gone to Americans. Besides their so called posh themselves have graduated from Pirates-turned _so called gentleman class. The upper class of England always have been pirate cum shopkeeper class. England never had aristocracy in the same the word aristocrat means. Aristocracy is in Italy, in Spain, In Germany, in France and other European nations. But the one country -england which never had true aristocracy talks a lot about that to impress Americans. Example-in all European countries There is a word to describe a lower member( let us say a starting point) of aristocracy-A Man who is mounted on a horse. Chevalier in French and Caballero in Spanish means exactly that. A man on horse. So is it in all European languages. but not in english. The equivalent word knight is not derived from horse
.It has been artificially given the same meaning. The reason is simple. In England there has never been a class of blood’s (though they talk most of all people about it). Anybody could be and can be given entrance to their so called aristocracy. Mostly Pirates turned shopkeepers have been favourites to receive knighthood. It is not true of only pirate queen Elizabeth1 but is has been much before that bandit queen and it is true even today. The point is important. Because by giving false propaganda that they somehow have class they have gained entrance into Hollywood and shaped much of today’s American thinking. In fact enlish people declare themselves classy in england usually they have earned a lot a money in Hollywood. It is america which improves their class and not vice-versa as they would like Americans to believe. There is another word (or lack of it)
which shoes that English race never had class. In all European languages there is an equivalent word for` `Bonn Appetite``. Not in english. Because even after last 200 hundred years of ill-gotten money the English race never developed class to appreciate good food. In the same way english language( u.k.) has a lot of word for sensational and secretive kind but very few words to describe finer things in Life like Philosophy, arts, etc. The point being made is that English people must be prohibited from coming to States to get employment in lucrative jobs when their are more better qualified people in States and elsewhere. Because England is not only controlling American foreign policy but also it’s domestic and economic policy.
british infiltration into American Film industry-- How this state of affairs have come about? Why is a Hollywood film industry become an employment avenue for English parasites? Why for example even in a sci-fiction film is it necessary to employ 3 to 4 Enlish voice over? The provisos point about english race being one and only one in Europe without real blooded aristocracy was given for this very reason. Even TONY Curtis once said as to why is a high Roman supposed to speak in enlish accent and can not in american accent. These english parasites insinuated themselves in Hollywood and started this propaganda( first in background and later openly) that Romans, old Christians etc all need english accent. They did to evict the american from important positions and secondly to get the job themselves. Ho w this came about ? Because it has been so entrenched (thanks to english propaganda) that to unravel it we can see a few recent examples and than we will go to Past.
other industry----The same thing that the english race did in Hollywood ,it did recently in computer industry 2 years ago. When Cd-rom age came about 2 years ,there came about reasonably priced Encyclopaedias, lessons in Sciences like Physics, chemistry, geography and mathematics. Of course most of them were american. Initially the british did bring out high priced low quality( like most of british products) computer educational programmes. And the british media in unison urged the public to buy british products. First they said that british product though costly was better product. When that did not hold then the british media were saying that though american product was as good or even better ,who would buy american product because it did not give british bias rather american bias to things. They were saying that even about Physics and geography programmes. Later on they based that it had cute american accent and not stern british accents. they openly said that real english even in america should be what is spoken by anglo-saxon race in their homeland-that is england. In fact the british media were insistent that in britain one should buy american programmes only because it had american accent (irritating was the word used) and not till it was localized. Suddenly in a computer ,a global market where a particular accent in science matters nothing a new buzz word came into being-localization. The english media and their agents in america were active and pressurised the american company like Microsoft and etc to not only produce for u.k. market in england auto also for whole of non-U.S. market also to be produced in u.k. And they called ed u.k. edition world edition. Considering that in world only in last 50 years have people mostly learned english because of u.s.a. influence and they imitate u.s.a. accent ; it was a misnomer. But the real intention was to take job away from Americans and give the translation, and low tech but highly paid job to English race. In other words they grabbed american jobs. By the way if it was irritating and objectionable for an englishman to read and listen in american accent and bias then why is it o.k. for the rest of world to read and listen in shopkeeper’s accent? This thing happened in last 2 years so you can understand the process how the english shopkeepers and plumbers have taken away american` job in Hollywood and many others jobs. Many go there to be servants and pose as butler and au pair. Can’t Americans not do it? In fact of all the different groups that has made america the immigrants from England have been not only the least educated and least cultured but also the most poor. In fact even Russian Jews who came to america in beginning of this century came with more money than the immigrants from england. It is only by such propaganda that they insinuated themselves in high position and got rich. anglo-saxon race is the Lumpen proletariat of america. Only by default of others has it become rich but could never got class. Let us see how the english race managed to exploit and are exploiting u.s.a.
Total lack of class and culture amongst the english race Let us be frank. though in some places england would like to compare her selves descendent of Romans and Greeks it is more a descendent of Phoenicians. The latter were also pirates cum traders and had equally low culture, trade and money with exploitation being their only passion. Till end of Napoleonic war England has been pariah of Europe. It was always a nation of ugly looking people looking for and trouble among the great powers of( england was never that ) Europe and pirating and doing all criminal activities . In fact Richard ,before going for crusade, killed all the Jews in York and elsewhere so that he and his inklings would not have to pay to those bankers which was owed. This despicable creature has a monument in front of british parliament. He was a coward plunderer who spread the seed of anti Semitism in europe when he passed though Europe. Before that there was never a racism in Europe. But racism was a ploy to not to pay debts. Probably the Third world should learn from that and do to these despicable creatures wat tehy they showed the way. In During Turkish expansion ,while Christians of Europe especially as
Spanish and Austrian were trying to protect Europe, this Pariah of Europe, Elizabethen England were trying to encourage the Turkish empire. Of course it did have no effect because english were not important. Even fact England was one of the most poor country in Europe till very late time. It is only because the prime minister of Louis 15 said that France was not interested in expansion than what is her today’s` boundary, that England could get opportunity But even then it was not in guts nor power of england to expand. Only when the great powers were to fight then england have a chance just like when 2 lions fight it out and get injured then comes a hyena and takes the kill what was lions` originally. England is the Hyena of Europe. Her policy has been through spy network to let real powers fight it out so that it can enjoy the kill. Therefore first it pirated against Spain ,and 50 years later against Holland (who it had tried to help against Spain). Many of Dutch east India company ships were looted in English channel. At the same time it incited France against Spain and after Spain had been neutralized It incited Spain against France. The similar pattern would be repeated it it got empire by default and it would continue even after empire was practically gone after 1st world war and certainly after w.w.2. So we find england a pariah dog at the time of Napoleonic War .IT tried six times to assassinate Napoleon. Such a great man likes of who gets born once or twice in a thousand years. England’s propaganda against Napoleon was the same as it would be against Germany in 1st World war, against Hitler against Gandhi against Lenin and Stalin. Napoleon freed the Jews from ghetto which they got through racism introduced by the English by pirate Richard. Institutionalised racism is very english thing which basically means hatred for all things not belonging to english. Here also comes the role of Jews. Though Napoleon had freed the Jews, for some inexplicable reasons since then Jews put their fate in the hands of English and (suffered from it) What Hitler described as the characteristics of Jew is really very English attributes. In other word , being cheat and doing spying is the very english quality and nothing to do with Jews. It so happens that Jews started working for english cause and used those inhuman qualities characteristic of english race. Anyway after several attempts on Napoleons` life (they were fist terrorists) ,napoleon had to declare him selves Emperor to protect continuity of Republic and revolution. (sounds odd but this exactly how it happened). England had to concede 91801) to give up all ill gotten territories . So after napoleon becoming emperor, england got a chance for propaganda. While Napoleon was meeting the Russian Czar on a Royal barge, hidden underneath the barge was an Enlish spy who overheard everything. Rest is history. Through enlish lies and propaganda and spy work confusion was created which created mistrust between Russia and France and Napoleon attacked Russia and lost 80 % of Grand Armee. Then of course the Prussians and Austrians would attack and Napoleon would lose. The credit of military victory the english take-hyenas taking over from Lion. The similar pattern would be repeated 100 years in 1st world war and also in W.W. 2.. and beyond continuing now. In fact england hardly got anything by military fighting. England has not won a single war own her own. Even Boer war at a time of empire resource. IT is always by cowardly act of crating trouble between two strongest powers and making them fight till bloodied.40 years after Napoleonic war, when in France was installed highly unpopular monarch- a stooge of England- the same erstwhile enemies became friend to attack previous friend Russia in Crimea war. Whosoever is England’s friend is called ally and every generation it changes. After Napoleonic war, in order to make a comrade in loot, England would persuade stooge king of France that it was not bad after all to exploit other countries and ask France to take desert lands of north Africa. One needs accomplices in crime for safety. This pattern of involving a strong country in war till destruction would be followed in W.W.1. against. Basically Germany had grown too strong for England’s liking so it had to be involved in war with some other power. (never england -it will come later when going gets easy). So English spies started giving hint to Germans that if Germany attacked Czar’s Russia , it would be o.k. with England. Remember by 1885, Germany had industrial output higher than england` in spite of all captive market of England where it could sell high priced low quality rubbish goods (it still does the same today with stooge govts. of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).So Germany was given wrong signal and encouraged to attack Russia while england stated to make pact with Russia as well- That very Russia against it was inducing Germany to attack. To justify back stabbing england had this small clause of sovereignty of Belgium .Of course if it was simply a matter of sovereignty only , Belgium could simply give transit passage to German army and matter ends there. But that was an excuse to declare war against Germany who had been induced to attack Russia by england anyway. IT tells a lot about German army that inspire of 80 % army being at Russian front, The Enlish were loosing by 1917 and that inspire of all empire soldiers (million) , all the help of Americans and all spying work. Of course as was said earlier these cowards have won a single battle, let alone a war in last 100 year on their own strength. And they have won not a single war rr battle by fighting ever, only through cowardly cheating and double crossing. It is interesting that The same racists who were just like Hitler were in America and they were most vociferous in fighting racist Germany of Hitler. Of course they were not fighting for an ideal, they were fighting for England. In America 150 year after independence!

Democracy-a propaganda word-How world wars was started by England----
In fact this talk of democracy and freedom and secularism started soon after start of ww1 when England started losing the war. It begged other nations to help her in name of democracy and freedom. Think of it_ England which had enslaved so much of world population and killed and exploited them( they are still proud of it) asking in name of freedom! In fact what england means by secularism is worship of her kings and kings, by democracy is meant dictatorship of English shopkeepers and by freedom is meant freedom to exploit other nations and people. The same freedom for other nations is not to be granted. the same worship of other Royal peoples is not to be encouraged. Only for English royals or those who have been made stooge royals like those of Saudi-Arabia or Kuwait. Kaiser is to be a villain because He wanted exactly the same things for German peoples as the English wanted for themselves. After all Hitler was evil but what crime did Kaiser did? Soon before w.w.1 the Japanese had attacked and defeated Russia in naval battle. That was arranged and financed in London with help of German Jews who had settled in America. But after ww1,in the league of nations and in american immigration policies, the erstwhile friend-Japanese were not given respectable position on the prompting of Britain . That was the start of anti-Japanese propaganda by the british who in ww2 asked american to block all raw material supply for Japan. In other words ,much before American entry into ww2, U.S. had already done an act of war against Japan in order to help England maintain her ill-gotten colony. In between wars, the english sympathisers had already been doing what Hitler was to do in Germany against Jews. But those very american racist very the first to jump for action against Germany at outbreak of war. Of course from the first days of ww2,America had been giving all arms and help to britain .It was fighting war without declaration. There are unexplained phenomenon of W.W. “ .-of which no satisfactory explanation has yet been given because all explanations and propaganda has been by british-directed and of course british have to be given all possible benefit of doubt. These phenomenon are(a) Why Was Hitler surprised at british declaration of WW2?
(b) Why did Hitler not attack England (if he was supposed to do) and let england have more preparation for more than 1 years?
c) Even later when Hitler acted on western front, why did he allow Dunkirk? Why did he not finish the English army as he could have done? Why did he halt attack for 3 days to let the English cowards flee through Dunkirk?
d) Why was there such a little attack in western front? Why was there virtually no war in Europe or against England? For almost 3 years there was hardly any war in so called western Europe. Why did the war started only when England had enough time to muster resources and when 80 % of German army was on Eastern front?
e) Why did the second in command of Hitler-Hess landed in Scotland and immediately arrested? That was nearly the same time that America openly entered the war. Such a high position man like Hess do not fly to enemy country in time of war as a Spy. Germany could muster many other spy than sending the second in command of Fuhrer. What Hess had to say in prison was never allowed outside but after his death his son revealed British involvement in pact with Hitler was hushed up by british and american media. In fact there are many other incidents which directly point to England masterminding the 2WW. It does not mean that england was to fight. It is too coward for that. Just like before in W.W.1 , It orchestrated the war to let Germany and Russia destroy each other. Stalin recognized this immediately and made a pact with Germany to buy time.

How did England started the w.w.2. It happened like this. Though admirer of Hitler and his despicable views, England got worried of German might. (England always has inferiority complex versus Germans).England made a secret pact with Germany that it was all right for Germany to attack East And later Russia. England will in public make a few sound-bites but inside it will fully support Hitler and his nasty aims. England may offer token resistance for public consumption. Hitler believed it. He should have known better. In fact what Hitler described in ¬¬Mein Kampf¬ about Jews is not Jewish characters tics ,it is rather typical English characteristics_--I.e.- sly, Manipulative, selfish parasite on world, spy and ugly. (most of english and enlish race derived people look like misshapen potatoes (Churchill) or toad or dog( Which is also their national symbol.).
Anyway, Hitler was duped and when he went to Czechoslovakia, England had an excuse (as if it cared) to declare War. The w.w.2 is traditionally supposed to start from that date though war had already started in `38. Hitler was very surprised (as vouched for by his aids).Normally he should not have been surprised if his intention was to destroy england as was alleged. He was surprised because contrary to british secret assurance, England declared and went to war4 against Germany. But England ,though preparing for war, sent a message to Hitler that it was all for public consumption and Hitler can go ahead against Russia. That is why England was celebrating picnic in the summer of 40. Later when Hitler realized that some stern action was necessary against traitor (England-who had done secret pact) ,Hitler ordered His army to throw out from Europe the English army (supposedly the elite among the english army) But then even supposedly elite among the English army turned out to be coward. When The English army was at the point of annihilation, England sent urgent messages to Hitler, pleading for reprieve. Of course Hitler needed ally and his intention was simply to show to the English not to mess with German army and with secret pact. That is how these cowards flew through Dunkirk and later on made it as if were an heroic act. Later on when Hitler had success against Russia (he had no need to-If Germany wanted she could have destroyed England and occupied it without English being able to do anything about it except plotting). But as Russia was the main target and as England entering war was (to Hitler’s eyes simply for public consumption) immaterial (though England had it all pre-planned and is a classical case of back stabbing and double dealing characteristic of English race).

How world war 2 was started by britain-- If Hitler had wanted to act against England he would have attacked England instead of Russia at a time when the Japanese were defeating the English and giving the dose of same medicine to English race which it so much wants for others. Well, when England saw that Hitler and Germany are too much than it could chew, England offered to Germany another pact just before americans were induced to come to war openly. When americans, who had been in the war form day one (IF americans did not fight from start of 2ww. then neither did the cowards English) openly came to war, England again changed her mind and arrested Hess who had come to Britain at british govt request to finalize German-enlish pact in which Hitler was to take over Russia and leave britain have her empire. Hitler was again duped. So, as you see ,forget about Hitler being duped evil man (which he was), the England was very much of same view and actively collaborated with Germany in order to destroy Germany. In fact, when Jews in america were canvassing about start of concentration camps and danger to Jewish life in Europe, It was England and her govt, and media who pooh -poohed the whole thing and actively advised america not to do anything about it-even in public forum. America was( and still is) to fight for no group except the English and english-derived race.
Aryan and racist myth- an english invention-- In fact this mad thinking that Germans are Aryans and so superior is not even German thinking. Remember even today the most hate publications in the world are produced by those so called middle america( so beloved of BBC) who wrongly called themselves Aryans and hate ,besides others, the real Aryans in america who are Immigrants from Indian subcontinent. (And these real Aryans from India are much highly educated and cultured than these plumber cum shopkeepers lot of ugly looking baptist america going by the name (euphemecally) middle america (who usually get visitations from u.f.o.). When the German scientists (and some French) in employment of The Czarina Catherine the great were collecting (for St.Petersburg library) language (among other things) information in far-flung Russian empire, they stumbled across some Tchokhari language near . They found that some of the language resembled German. Later on they were told by French that similar language was the main language spoken in India-Sanskrit and all Sanskrit derived languages of whole India except in South India. Even in South India, the Brahmans spoke Sanskrit. That is how Germans came to know about Aryan language. In fact the shopkeeper’s race -english who already had been trader in India for 125 years, had no inkling about this similarity. Germans studied the Veda, Upanishads and what not and were very impressed by Indians achievement. The English said that Sanskrit was a new artificial invention created by Indians after Europeans came to India. This is how these low peoples` mind works. Anyway undeterred, the Germans studied Sanskrit very well and wrote a lot about it. Then belatedly some English people started studying it to find not knowledge but common Hindu laws and also to find fault with Hindu religion and scriptures. So there was a fundamental difference between Germans (even Italian Jesuit priest and a Frenchman in 16 the century had studied) and the English. Germans studied because it was and is a beautiful language with literature no other in the world, while the english (who after Napoleonic war got real power in her history through default) studied to prove that Sanskrit was a fraud creation. Then even all evidence showed contrary to english view, the english first said that Veda was written soon after Alexander invasion. then the date Veda was pushed back to 55 BC. then 1000BC then (only after Al-Amarna tablet and Bogzhoiki tablet) was it pushed to 1500 years and then 1800 years. In other word ,malicious intention of English race has been to first deny. then malign and make Aryan literature not so old and it really is. This is from a shopkeepers race like English who never had real aristocracy but always talk of heritage and tradition. A tradition of pirate cum shopkeeper turned land grabber and then so called gentlemen with no culture and taste and talking of low life as pragmatism. In fact the Germans said that the Hindus were the Aryan race and Germans were somehow related to them in language. Germans used Indo-Germans while rightly restricting the Aryan word to Hindus. (In all Hindu scriptures there is no word -Hindu; it is always ARYa to denote Hindu race and literature. ). Of course the English jumped into this naming process and said `me too`. That is how Indo-European word came into being.
Basic thing is that when before Alexander the Greek language was considered un barbaric by Indian grammarians (who knew everything about origin-roots of language). Even the Greeks called the old Persian -barbaric (in way of foreign) language. And that old Persians was akin to Sanskrit. IN Persipolis (which Herodotus did not know because as non-Aryan Greek would not be invited in Emperor Darayaush` or his descendents` ceremony )there still is a relief of how Medians (foremost among the Persian Aryans) looked like. WE know how Darayaush the Great and his descendents looked like. There is also coin of other Iranians and Indians in Gandhar region (which has always been populated by Indian descendents). Compare to the =median’s coin( found archeologically) medians, coin profiles with Parsees (who fled Iran in 600 AD.) and with Many Sikhs, Bahamans, And a lot of North Indians-And you know what Aryans looked like. Indira Gandhi, Jubeen Mehta , and such are the typical Aryan faces. In profile, Aryans a have what In Sanskrit literature is called Eagle or Parrot like bent nose. Sides of the nostrils are arched and Eyes have a particular sharp angle with nasal bridge. Aryans are usually very hairy as well especially in Facial department. Besides when the Babylonian scribe about Kassites invasions (who it has been proved were Indians-full stop) they wrote about coming from East. Just by saying that it was Afghanistan does not disprove anything-of course Indians (Kassites) had to cross Afghanistan to come to Babylonia; besides Afghanistan till 600 A.D. had always been in Indian sphere of influence -population wise, culture wise. In fact Aryans homeland was what is today’s UP. and Northern Bihar regions of northern India
up to Narmada valley (Hahehya) in central India from whence they spread gradually to Punjab and then Afghanistan and then Iran. Even Medians called themselves coming from East and the real name of Persians was Persu-A Sanskrit word. Aryans regarded East as sacred and would never have said the region west and north of Afghanistan as derogatory sense if that had been their homeland. In Rig-Veda the 10 kings battle happened ain Punjab but historical background is given not in Rig Veda ( which is a sacred religion book) but in Brahmans (which explains Veda) .Those 10 kings had been fighting for more than 5 generations and it was a battle of kings from Varanasi and Pratishthan (from Narmada). Therefore before that Rig Veda was formed ,The Aryans had already been kings of Central-northern (Madhya Desh). Besides Aryans were not that great in material achievements as compared to their chief enemies (when they attacked Babylon) Asur. What characterised Aryans was their Horse-chariot use. no martial heritage, human warfare, and human attitudes to other peoples. What they hated most was shopkeeper like attitude and people like Panis(Phoenicians0. The enlish race is direct descendant of those hateful Phoenicians-Pirate turned shopkeepers. In fact the Phoenicians had a colony in what is know northern Holland. The English race in form of anglo-saxons came from that very water logged poor region of Holland. The Greeks knew of Celtics and hardly about Germans. Celtics came from same branch as the Latin’s. the Romans were told by the Barbarians( Germans here) hat tribes they constituted of. In none of that is mention given of Angles and Jutes-the two class which made English race. as if even the barbarians were ashamed of these jutes and angles. But Lombardy, Franks were the main tribes. Because Goths were living near Black sea( Till Huns overran them) these Goths came in contact with some of the remnants of Aryan tribes and also probably some of Emperor Ashoke`s Buddhist missionary who were spreading Buddhist religion there (Buddha called his views simply as arya religion). With that was early Christianity mixed and some early Goths adopted Aryan Christianity. That is the only and earliest relation of a German tribe with word denoting arya. As some one said, from German language it appears that German language is an Indo-European language adopted by non-Indo-European race. WELL THE ENGLISH RACE HAS RELATIONSHIP WITH NOT GERMAN RACE BUT WITH Holland. THOGH IT NEVER TALKS ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WANTS TO ASSOCIATE ITSELF WITH MORE SUCCESFUL RACES. The only Aryan-derived race in Europe are Lithuanians. Irish also have got Aryan name in their country .in fact Irish, French and Latin’s all came from( evidenced by their earlier chronicles) from that what of Today’s Turkey where Indian in fork=m of Mittanis and Kassites and Hittes had established empire. In fact ,due to mountainous region many of the Kurds (descendents of uratu) have been able to maintain their Aryans face and features. One thing more. Many of the Rishis who composed holy of the holiest books of aryans-Ved were themselves labelled as dark-complexioned. and many of the Aryans kings-including ones in 10 kings battle in Veda have got Das surname (Name of non-Aryan slaves by western propagandists.). in fact if you look at world situation for last 500 years ,all these Aryan races have been enslaved by low grade
non-Aryan peoples. One thing more-there is no history of animosity between Aryans and Jews. The great Aryan king Kurush ( Cyrus ) freed Jews from Babylonian captivity. Jews have been well treated in only true Aryan country-India. What the Aryans hated was Panis (Phoenicians whose direct descendents (both mentally and racially) are the English race. In fact english are not an European race. They appropriate others` name Of course se but they are not. In Britannica encyclopaedia they write that Roman empire was nothing to do with Italy and Italians-it was world empire. Would they say british empire has nothing to do with English and britain?. They do not get tired of their 150 years empire but would not give the same credit to Italy. In many Roman ruins in Britain, they would mention in writing that the Romans soldiers were nothing to do with Italians. next to this writing is a few pictures of Romans men and women who certainly look like today’s Italians and certainly nothing like English anyway. Why do these bastards minimize others achievement. Because it gives them false sense of history and besides that is how they land up Hollywood role of Romans in americans film (And taking jobs from americans).Anyway, in 1900, one Griergson, surveyor -
general in India and a Sanskrit scholar wrote very revealing thing which has not been given as much importance. He said `` todays(19oo) many Englishmen have suddenly started calling themselves as Aryan and nothing can be further from fact. only Indians are Aryans.``
German Sanskritologist said that even the blackest Indian is more Aryan than the fairest Scandinavian. Incidentally most of the Germans are not blondes rather red-haired just like supposedly Irish. Point about Griergson` is that these Phoenicians-derived English race had aggressively calling itself Aryan and using it as a kind of racial superiority while exploiting the real Aryans in India. This happened much before Hitler and that explains despicable shopkeepers cum plumber` white superiority jibes in England and america both before and (more) after 2WW. In nutshell, these inferior people through media manipulation, spying and cheating crated 2ww. and caused so much misery with minimal loss of their life and interests. Those would believe such people usually get similar fate as later on it happened to Russia.

While WW2. was still going on, in @43 when the English started their spy work and propaganda against Russia( with whom they had made common cause against Hitler).The same way after cold war the same anti-communist propagandists of England would direct their propaganda against Capitalist Germany and European unity.
How english race has used the Jews for her own benefit------ It is very interesting that the same type of english people (who are anti-communists, anti-blacks, anti-Muslims, anti-Catholics) started the same sort of propaganda (like used against Russians and communists) against The Germans. the French and Europeans in general. First England did not want Germany united though during cold war it suggested that only Russians are against it). soon after German reunification and even before disintegration of Soviet union ,England changed the lie-tactics( through media and government) against Europe. There is one more thing. nato was supposed to counter Warsaw pact, with the latter gone there was no discussion as to nato should be wound up or not. Europe does not need nato. Europe can have and should have her own defence system as is the Germo-Franco_Italian_Spanish collaboration. that European defence pact must be strengthened rather than Germany supporting nato. Actually england needs nato to prop up its nasty influence in military matters. With the help of Usa and nato has england been able to prop up her influence. In fact england is ant-Europe and through nato it wants to keep a tab on European affairs and not let Europe get strong on her own. As england can not do this own her own it has let America involved in it (during empire days england hardly shared power with America but it needs America now). Germany or Europe does not need nato. In fact nato is the greatest enemy (through england) of Germany and Europe. How can england be so much anti-Germany, working so much against German interests and be a major partner in common defence pact? It is a ludicrous situation. England manipulates financial market (in last8 years through recession and what not London market has risen 3 fold while far Eastern markets-who are the main producers of consumer goods-has fallen drastically.). That is why it pumped up the value of pound before joining European system- of course it was unsustainable but for devaluation of pounds the Germans and some Jews (as said by british propaganda machine BBC and sky TVs) were blamed. As england does not want German or any other European country to get economically strong and be financially independent of London market, it opposed Single currency vehemently. Even a so called left-paper like Guardian was suggesting that if Schroeder (of German SPD party) were the chancellor than he would give more say (than others in Europe) to England-so it would have been good. In other word they want special treatment for themselves. Why? When they talk of sovereignty is england not the main country pushing, threatening and cajoling the third world to accept World bank and IMF( created by america for England’s interest) so called structural reform regardless of people's wishes. If other country’s destiny can be controlled by bureaucrats in IMF. then why not England's by European's bureaucrats? England is the most beaurocratic and centralised country in Europe with all the regional making machinery smashed by the government with the help of bbc and all other propaganda machinery. And that England talks of local development and beaurocracy of European commission. Single European currency is a must for Europe not only for European economic advantage and stability but also because it will smash England’s power of financial market manipulation.
what should Europe do now-in '97

In Fact the rest of Europe should actively discourage england to join Euro, because then England’s financial power will be smashed and it will be good news for Europe and the rest of the world. Not only England want to eat rotten, viral infected meat but also wants to force feed the rotten thing to the Europeans. When Germany resists this nasty move on part of england to take rotten meat ,then Germany-already a villain in their eyes -becomes a super villain. As soon as the news leaked out of viral infected meats, the first reaction of bbc was not as to why it happened but ''Can Europe ban the export legally?-has it got the right?''. there was never a hue and cry about cruel treatment of cows who were forced fed on infected animal meats (cows are vegetarian). This sort of so called commercial farming is the thing which has been pushed down the through of rest of world through GAT. which was made to suit anglo00saxons' interest. France was right to oppose gat in this form. If the similar thing happened in any other country in the world then this the same british media including bbc would hope said a cruel, primitive practice for rotten meat with no regard for peoples health or animals@ welfare. In fact for showing so much cruelty to animals in this case it is not the animals which should be killed but the peoples (british farmers and their media propagandists). There was and is always a support for such disgusting affairs by the british peoples and it shows what sort of people they are. we will british meat even if it is rotten. in fact there was hardly a influx of foreign meats following disclosure. This phenomenon of using rotten british product is not confined to beef-it extends to everything . in fact protectionism at home and forced infiltration abroad is the name of game in england. And this is the country talking about liberalization. That is why british products, though rotten in quality are high in price. All this because of underlying protectionism. That is also why you will not only not get fresh ,healthy products but also you do not find variety in british life. In the name of traditional (to protect the internal market) britain sells to own people and a few foreign stooges, the same rotten cheese, the same low quality high priced car and same rotten but high price arms (Saudis and others are fed with it). Actually this clone like cancerous feature is very much english way of life. the english live in only 4 or 5 varieties of house, their furniture is the same 4 to five varieties their clothes are they same rotten un smart types and their food is the same rotten type with rotten ingredients. Then why do the english live? for extracting money for money sake. this ia feature of parasitic and cancerous race. the same thing they have exported to where they went. that is why all anglo saxons countries show lack of variety. and it is the english who accused Russians of imposing their culture destroying variety in soviet union. As to talk of this supporting own rotten meat and drug industry (tobacco) for the sake of jobs, why can not the third world support her own industry for their jobs and prosperity. at lest third world still produces better quality food and clothes and even car than the general british Joe is used to. When agitation was going on in South Africa in '86 against apartheid, the bbc reported in support of apartheid that otherwise in case of sanctions against s.africa it would be british profits and jobs which would be lost. Such peoples who benefit by others misery should be made jobless. In fact capitalism and so called freedom for them means freedom to exploit other nations and give them misery. For themselves english never practice free market-it is for foreign suckers. England is a protected and market for themselves and their rotten products. For example, Honda (which rescued B.L. and rovers are the same cars but rovers cost more because it is british car and because they sometimes put a thin veneer of wood in it. Bearing in mind the british homes have hardly got a furniture of solid good wood, the english are selling their cars not on engineering but on carpentry and tatty presentation. And as these shopkeepers never have class, they make a lot of noise about class too. in fact what british media says and what truth is 180 degree apart. For foreign goods (car, consumer items etc) the english would be very fussy and want to get at least price abut for british goods they would create all lies and excuses to pump up the price and sell. That ids why the advanced countries in Europe and far east are in recession and britain and other anglo-saxon countries (which except america is only primary producers of land-oil. timbers. etc-land stolen from others in last 250 years) are in boom. It is not even alive and let live. english like to wreck others ' prospect of prosperity or happiness. For example. england knew that it had no outside chance of staging soccer world cup. but it put forward proposal nevertheless at last minute at a time when Germany was well favourite for that. Why?-to wreck chances for Germany to stage one. So Germany lost not only that glory but also a lot of money to immense satisfaction of english press and people. unemployment in Germany could have eased up if it had got the offer to stage world cup, but no. And it is this Germany who agreed to british request to delay monetary union for 2 years (When britain is not going to be part of it even) . Had that monetary union come about earlier, German chancellor would not have been facing this problem as he is now. But then england has always survived on folly of these suckers who do not know who their real friend or enemy are. nato which ia really an agent for english interest (and broadly anglo saxon interest) should have been rejected by Germany and also euro-fighter in place of truly European (excluding britain of course) military alliance. but Germany lost that chance and new cold war (england has always done cold wars, it is too coward to enter in direct confrontation without first weakening enemy with lies and propaganda machinery like Bbc and others) has begun. For those who do not believe this let me give an example. Soon after fall of Berlin war, the editor of Sunday times (who is renowned racist, anti communist and anti poor, pro capitalist and later came out to be anti Germans and anti French as well) said on bbc that to protect nato and english interests in Europe ,may be americans should get out of Germany and than british garrison can stay there because americans would be resented as occupying foreign forces while britain can simply say that they are European as well and so stay. This from a man who is European hater and is one of leading propagandists against Germany (as he was against Russia).So there you are-cat is out. The english are a foreign intrusive element in Europe through nato. In fact england should not have been allowed in European community ,barring this england must not be allowed to join European single currency if one wants to insure stability and cohesive strength of Euro. It is very interesting that the same editor of Sundays times who rave about like a mad dog against Germans ,French, Europe in general and of course against blacks and socialists was also a sort of adviser to lady Diana. That lady diana@s most of the friends during her fame have been what can be described, for lack of better word, a representative of greedy '80s is significant. Diana was a representative of that greedy shameful period called 80s and her main friends were the same exploiters which made 80s'climate of greed and selfishness possible. Diana was mainly liked by lower class shopkeepers and plumbers class -in other word whose forefathers were Lumpen proletariat only a generation or two. She was neither aristocratic in taste nor her friends were. but the same Diana -a darling of greedy exploiters with no class_ is being pumped up by british people as some angel. This is all to give themselves importance. While bbc and british media always ignore others countries’ important and good news, the other countries should also ignore british media and operate the same voluntary blanket on british news( which in reality are not important anyway). There is no point in giving exposure and importance to the very propaganda machinery (british media) which though belonging to not even a 4th league in military is a dangerous adversary for spreading lies and demoralisation (they call it cold war-the only war they are effective at).Even you see what happened after cold war then you realize that what a shame the cold war was ad only for the benefit of britain. Since then soviet empire is gone but britain still boasts of evil empire called british empire which existed before soviet empire. If it was all right for Russians (as was advised by britain ) to exchange tanks for tractors, to exchange empire for so called freedom the why did not britain disband empire in 1880(the same level of power as enjoyed by Russia in 1970): why britain not stop forcefully imposing a sell of arms on Saudi Arabia? propaganda was that soviet union was governed by a select few without any say of parliament. Who were those western media peoples advising Yelstin to storm the parliaments and if possible kill the parliamentarians if they do not approve of yelstin plan to sell Russia to English tobacco and liquors interests and english pimps? Of course it were mainly english and anglo saxons who were advising yelstin to take all the measures to be sell Russia cheap. soon after storming of parliament yelstin, with the support of anglo saxon media brought a constitutional changes to give himself a dictatorial power. But then he is a western( read anglo saxon stooge) therefore he was hailed for that in western media. The result. There is only one thing selling in all earst while communist country---Anglo-american tobaccos product( drug), british and anglosaxon@whisky and liquors and prostitution. English never was, is or will be a language of culture but certainly it has become a language of prostitution and drugs (cigarettes) advertisement. Therefore through that mad, weak, ill man Yelstin these anglo saxons have made prostitutes of women, wife’s and girlfriends; have left the helpless children on the cold, cruel streets and left the olds (who worked hard for their pension able life) pauper forced to beg on the street. Even full war does not do that. Soviet union had better dropped hundred hydrogen bombs on England and then gone pauper at least it would have satisfaction of having levelled with the enemy. (In fact in cold war Russia did not need to target anywhere, if britain had the first possibility of being annihilated then war( because it was controlled by british and pro-british elements in states) would never have arisen. Cold war against Russia was started for the same reason as cold war against Germany has sta
May 08, 2007
Votes: +1

Ricky said:

The U.S. should be blamed for many things, but responsibility falls on others, too.
It's true that the U.S. should be blamed for many things, but we're not the first, and we won't be the last empire that takes advantage of its power in the world. It is true that many "liberals" (and I identify as a liberal) do overlook most murderous regimes in the world, while only harping on the U.S. Many believe in cultural relativism. Strangely, in many of the nations that they defend, they would be executed by those same people for making similar anti-government remarks.

I would mostly identify myself as a "liberal". I believe in gay marriage, I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-environment, and I'm an atheist. I hate Bush like most people. But at the end of the day, I don't fear to say that I hate Bush or that I'm an Atheist. If I did the same thing in Saudi Arabia - saying that I believe that gays should be able to marry each other, saying I don't like the leader of my nation, and saying that I don't believe in any god, I'd be stoned faster than you could say "Allahu Akbar".

So yes, I agree that the U.S. has caused untold misery across the world, with its wars, economic systems, support of horrible dictators, slavery, killing the Native Americans off, etc, etc. I also realize that since the U.S. is the most powerful nation, changing it will change the world more than unseating a dictator of some small nation that doesn't impact the rest of the world very much. Thus, I'm all for protests. But I'm also not going to say that the U.S. is the only nation in the world that has created the world's problems, or that the people living there (almost half of which, including me, have consistently voted against Bush) should all be uniformly blamed.
May 09, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Virtually NONE of the arguments you were trying to make figure into Webb's programme which you're referring to. A few of the phrases and words may have been present, but he did nothing to investigate notions of a "shining city on a hill" or anything of the sort. He looked into the personal anti-Americanism of individuals.

It's origins are nearly identical to your essay above and most of the posts on this wildly underperforming blog, except for the attempt made by the contributers here to construct explanations for their own generalized, non-specific detestation which tries so hard to find something *anything* upon which to hang its' hat.
May 31, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123