Did the British Raj civilise India?
To the vast majority of Hindus in the UK, who are also vociferously proud of their Indian roots, the answer to the question of whether the British Raj was good for India would be an immediate and resounding ‘NO’. British rule is irrevocably associated with brutality, economic exploitation and a ‘divide and rule’ policy that caused lasting schisms between sections of Indian society that continue to haunt India today.CLICK HERE TO READ REST OF ARTICLE
July 24th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
If you accept the position of all the British historian’s depiction of British Raj, it will appear that their rule of India was similar to the grace of the gods over barbarians. The fundamental question rules the historicity of the underlying truth - why did the British go to India as a harmless trader and within a few years positioned them as a ruler? Was it simply benevolence and/or improving the civility of the natives?
July 26th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
The British raj was in my opinion important for India, in terms of development. Mistakes were made e.g. the naivety shown when India was split into India, East (Bangladesh) and West Pakistan but when it came to improving infrastructure the Raj was beneficial.
What I think is more important is we do not let the British (I consider myself British) take credit for the current boom and future success of India as a superpower, that is purely made in India by Indians.
July 28th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
It is important to realize that while they created a minimal infrastruce such as railways, it was only for resource extraction for the benifit of the UK. It was nothing against the humiliating economic, social and religious exploit of what was India. Unlike what some naive and ignorant Hindus say, we would have been better off without colonialism.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:09 am
Britishers were far better than the Muslim rulers. Remember we were literally under barbarians for 800 years(most of India) so it was comparitively better to be under Britishers than under Muslims.
Under Islam all our institutions, universities, temples and more than that we were carried of as slaves, atleast under British that did’nt happen, atleast they gave something in return while Muslims took and took never to return anything….
July 31st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Ranganath, I see what you’re saying, though the argument could I suppose be made that whilst the Muslim rulers did untold damage to India, the damage inflicted by the British, whilst much more subtle and far less acutely severe (perhaps), was nonetheless at least as damaging, if not far more so since it left an ongoing legacy and heritage that India has still been unable to shake off. A parallel could be put forward comparing a tragic leg amputation with an incurable leukaemia - which is more damaging to the individual?
July 31st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
In the end both Islamic and British colonisers were just as bad. They both degraded Hindus and india in different ways and we would have been better off without them. None was better then the other.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Park X - minimal infrastructure?? You suggest railways as one of them. Indias train network is one of the busiest in the world, always overcrowded, brings in significant revenue and work (train operators, chai wala etc) and without it there is no way that India would have its current boom.
Without the British rule there would be no railway in India. its been over half a centuary since the end of the British Raj yet the railways have not been upgraded - to me a clear sign that India would not have a railway today if it was not for the Raj.
As i hinted eralier things are changing - once again in terms of railways there is a new metro system being planned in Mumbai after the success of the one in Delhi but no significant change on the mainline railway.
You also say “Unlike what some naive and ignorant Hindus say, we would have been better off without colonialism.” - why are we “naive and ignorant” if our arguements can be justified.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:39 am
“Without the British rule there would be no railway in India.”
Right the white man is the only one who knows how to build railways but funnily countries like Japan that have escaped colonialism have a first class railway system.
“You also say “Unlike what some naive and ignorant Hindus say, we would have been better off without colonialism.” - why are we “naive and ignorant” if our arguements can be justified. ”
Naive and inforant because they only look at a few railways and bridges and think its all progress while ignoring how much money was looted from India, the very fact that India’s world trade fell so dramatically during the British rule is an indication of this fact and also what about the millions who died in famines, or are they all expendable for railways?
To claim that the British rule was good for India is rubbish, British rule had its good points (such as the railway system which by the way was only built for looting things better and faster) and some other things but the disadvatnages outweighed whatever good there was.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:53 am
Harish Duggirala, you make some good points in your posts, but why do you always sound like you are soooo angry? Chill out.
As for my own views on this topic - the famine statistics in the original article speak for themselves.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:01 pm
H, I see the point you are trying to make. Certainly a tendency to blame all problems on others and the past is not entirely healthy. I wonder, however, how much of the post-colonial apathy in India is part of the legacy of subjugation that I spoke of earlier.
On a related note, I agree that study of history is important for a number of reasons (though I stand by my assertions in the Krishna historicity thread). However, I feel that questioning whether things would have been better or worse had a particular historical event not happened is dealing in hypothetical scenarios - yet another unwinnable (and, it may be suggested, largely pointless) argument, albeit potentially interesting as a purely intellectual exercise (in which case, following on from Seijal’s comment, why get so heated about things?!) Surely, it is far more poignant in the context of this discussion to ask the question, ‘where do we go from here?’
August 1st, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Satya - totally agree with your last line “ask the question, ‘where do we go from here?’ “. My point was the Raj did lay good foundations and India need to take this a step further (note my earlier post).
Also I am not denying that the Raj was all good, I am not blind to the way they took advantage of the people of India. Yet I still beleive there were benefits to the Raj.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:01 pm
“Yet I still beleive there were benefits to the Raj.”
But the way you say it comes across as if you are saying that British rule was good overall for India, like for example you said without the British there would be no railway in India, what are we to make of that?, sure I agree the Raj had its plus points but when we look at the overall picture we see that the negative points outweigh the positives by far.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Actually H
The Railway tracks the British left are still being replaced in many places as they had 5 different guages depending on who got the contract for a certain section of track. Most of the railway network had to be given a standard gauge size after 1947. To this day some sections are being replaced.
August 4th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
So they built railways. So what! They deliberately destabilised,underdeveloped and created famines in India. They created a system of education which took away our traditional values. They forced christianity down our throats- still are- and taught us to hate and be ashamed of ourselves. So ashamed that the Indian media never supports or defends Hindu causes but rushes forward to defend those of the invaders and pillagers of India. They stole everything from India. The British Raj still has the jewels of India in Queen’s crown. Our valuables- ancient scriptures, precious stones,carvings etc are displayed in their museums. They brought their hideous bureaucracy aand othe bad habits. And imagine the muslims were even worse than this.
August 4th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
In the context of an earlier discussion, I note with interest the statement by Radhika: “And imagine the muslims were even worse than this.”
Reference the “system of education which took away our traditional values”, Koenraad Elst’s piece on Macaulay is available at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html
August 12th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
It would be incorrect to state that the british built India’s infrastructure. I don’t recall a single british occupier involved in any infrastructural projects hands on - it would be more accurate to say that the british delegated these projects, which were ultimately carried out by Indians from top to bottom
More importantly, the advancement of india had been surpressed by the muslim occupiers for 800 years, followed by the british occupation. To judge India’s true capabilities, we have to look at India during a period in which she was free from occupation. The current economic boom is reflective oof this
August 14th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Further to the final sentence in the above comment by Rohid, I would like to raise a few questions.
1. Various arguments may be made that India is not actually “free from occupation” even now. For example: does India still suffer from a ‘colonial hangover’; is ‘globalisation’ merely a euphemism for ‘colonialism’ of a different sort, in which case is India now colonialised by largely American MNCs; particularly given recent issues around the nuclear agreement with the USA, is India not still diplomatically and politically being held hostage by more powerful nations…and so on. And so I put it to you, is India truly now “free from occupation”?
2. What price is India paying for the “current economic boom” and is it worth it?
3. Is an ‘economic boom’ and end in itself or is it something that is desirable so as to achieve something more fundamental, such as a better life for the people of India? If the latter, is this actually happening? I ask this particularly with reference to: (a) the last general election, in which the BJP, in a gross error of judgment, celebrated this very same ‘economic boom’ and was punished for it by the masses who have apparently seen very little, if any, evidence of any such thing; and (b) Pt Deendayal Upadhyaya’s statement some years back that “the measure of economic progress and the success of economic planning is provided not by the man at the higher rungs of society but the one at the bottom.” By this latter criterion then, does the boast of a “current economic boom” still ring true?
August 14th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
1) “the last general election, in which the BJP, in a gross error of judgment, celebrated this very same ‘economic boom’ and was punished for it by the masses”
an over simplistic statement, not taking into account other factors contributing to their election defeat.
2) The economic boom is good, in my opinion, because India needs a bigger pie to distribute. An egalitarian distribution of a small pie would only serve to live everybody poor. A bigger pie is an important requirement before the quality of life of the masses can be improved.
August 16th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I agree entirely; the BJP’s election defeat was the result of a combination of factors - my point was not that this was the only reason, or even the main reason, for their election defeat, but that it was a significant factor.
I agree with the final sentence above, but does this not restate my case that an ‘economic boom’, so to speak, is merely a means to an end and not the end in itself?
Either way, my above questions still stand.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Within ten years from 1757, one third of the population of Bengal (today’s Bihar, Orissa, South Assam, West Bengal, Jharkand, Bangladesh) was wiped out due to a ruthless tax collection by the East India Company. The British increased the tax by five folds and made it independent of actual production. At the same time the British had abolished the public works department, which used to maintain irrigation during the Mughal time. In 1943, about 5 million people were forced to starve to death in Bengal when the food grains were either confiscated or purchased by the government agents to feed the British army in both India and the Middle East.
In between 1757 and 1943, at least 30 severe famine took place in India; most of these were man-made due to punitive taxes imposed upon the people to pay for the British imperial wars against China, Ethiopia, Sudan or Iraq or just to pay for the Turkish Sultan’s visit to London.
The annual death rate in India before 1920 was about 4.8% but this declined to 3.5% by 1947 and is presently about 0.9%( http://countrystudies.us/india/32.htm).
Using a baseline “expected” annual death rate value of 1.0% and assuming an “actual” pre-1920 value of 4.8%, it is possible to estimate that the avoidable (excess) mortality was about 0.6 billion during 1757-1837, 0.5 billion during 1837-1901 and 0.4 billion during 1901-1947.
Thus the British rule of India was associated with an excess (i.e. avoidable) mortality totaling 1.5 billion – surely one of the greatest crimes in all of human history.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Apart from taxations, three important factors caused devastating famines in India under British rule. First, India’s indigenous textile industries were destroyed by London’s high tariffs and the import of cheap British manufactured products, impoverishing millions of town dwellers, who were forced into the countryside to compete for dwindling land. Second, India’s traditional granary reserve system, designed to offset the impact of bad harvests, was dismantled. Third, India’s peasants were pressured into growing crops for export, making them dependent on fluctuating world market prices for their means of subsistence.
An extraordinary feature of the appalling record of British imperialism with respect to genocide and mass, worldwide killing of huge numbers of people (by war disease and famine) is its absence from public perception. There is no mention of famine in India or Bengal in the British textbooks of history. New historians in India are now putting the blame on the victims. Meghnad Desai in his article in Cambridge History of India puts the blame for the 1943 famine in Bengal on the Indian speculators; Amartya Sen suggested (in ‘Ingredients of Famine Analysis’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol XCVI, 1981) that people in Bengal in 1943 had eaten too much to create the famine.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:33 am
“If the history of British rule in India were to be condensed to a single fact, it is this: there was no increase in India’s per-capita income from 1757 to 1947.” (in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino famines and the making of the Third World by M. Davis, London, Verso Books, 2001) In fact, incomes may have declined by 50 percent in the last half of the 19th century.
“England has broken down the entire framework of Indian society. British steam and science uprooted, over the whole surface of Hindostan, the union between agriculture and manufacturing industry. It was the British intruder who broke up the Indian handloom and destroyed the spinning wheel. England began with driving the Indian cottons from the European market; it then introduced twist into Hindostan, and in the end inundated the very mother country of cotton with cottons. The third form of destruction was the destruction of the self-sufficient village society of India” (Karl Marx in Consequences of British Rule in India).
“Their fixed policy, pursued during the last decades of the eighteenth century and the first decades of the nineteenth, was to make India subservient to the industries of Great Britain, and to make the Indian people grow raw produce only, in order to supply material for the looms and manufactories of Great Britain”. “The British brought an unsympathetic and ruthless economic agenda to India” and that “the creation of famine” was brought about by British “sequestration and export of food for enhanced commercial gain.” (Ramesh Chandra Dutta in Economic History of India, London, 1887)
December 14th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Regarding the contributions of the British Raj in terms of railways, university or bicycles, we need to compare the countries in Asia who were never colonized (Japan, Thailand, former republics of the Soviet Union in central Asia and Asiatic Russia) with those who were colonized (Indian subcontinent, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma).
The first group represents developed countries with 100 percent education, high quality of infrastructure, fine universities, and general prosperity.
The second group represents high level of illiteracy, child labour, infant mortality, low quality of infrastructure, low level of universities, and general poverty.
India could have obtained new knowledge of Europe and new technology of the 18th and 19th century from any of the European countries, not necessarily from Britain, as the first group of countries did.
Britain had no monopoly of the new knowledge and technology as most of these were of European, not British, origin.
Even Afghanistan, which was never colonized by Britain, had fine university, wide spread education, a much higher living standard than either India or Pakistan, and excellent infrastructure, before it was destroyed by the Islamic Jehadis in 1992.
Legal and administrative system used to exist in India in both Hindu and Muslim period, these were not imported from Britain. Among the countries colonized by Britain, continuous democracy exists only in Sri Lanka and India; thus, it is not a virtue of the British Empire but of the characteristics of the people of India and Sri Lanka.
Democracy was not invented in Britain either. Japan has learned the democratic system and new technology from France and Germany, not from Britain.
That is the reason Rabindranath Tagore wrote, “The chronic want of food and water, the lack of sanitation and medical help, the neglect of means of communication, the poverty of educational provision, the all pervading spirit of depression that I have myself seen to prevail after over a hundred years of British rule make me despair of its beneficence.” (in “A Hundred Years of Rule”, The Manchester Guardian,Friday 2 October 1936)
Swami Vivekananda explained the effects of British education in these words, “Oh, India, this is your terrible danger. The spell of imitating the West getting such a hold upon you, that what is good or what is bad, is no longer decided by reason, judgement, discrimination or reference to the Sastras. Whatever ideas, whatever manners the white men praise or like, are good; whatever things they dislike or censure, are bad! Alas! What can be a more tangible proof of foolishness than this?”
Because of long years of foreign rule in India, from 664AD, when Arabs occupied Punjab, to 1947AD, our intellectuals are used to look at India through foreign eyes, whether Muslim or British or Pakistani. That is true about a number of people in India today – from the Prime-Minister down to the journalists, politicians of most political parties, economic and foreign policy makers, historians, and some writers of the Sangha Parivar
January 15th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
not only not in india but in anywhere was british rule other than evil shopkeeprs race’s inspired greed loot.
kill this naill fregussan who is an english spy inside usa.
August 2002
Mr. Mugabe does not want the english economic refugees to enjoy disproportionate amount of luxury while the rest of population is simpoly grinding to survive-so what is wrong with that thinking? It is wrong when it involves english parasites. These people had moved from Zimbawe to england soon after Independence bit when they found that englasih people live in shoe box sized houses with inflated trumped up prices and have much lower standard of living then thses colonialists moved back to zimbawe. oon after second world war america had forced Japan to do so called land reform(in order to break the power of japanese upper classes) and that was called reform. In many other countries like India the land reform was done for the sake of justice and that was hailed. Mr. Mugabe waited too long to do that sort of land reform and hwen he belatedly decided to do tthat then the english parasites and spes from english govet, to BBc and english media started barkinglike jackels. After all it is their people who are being affected this time. The english media ahd already neatralized elson mandela and installed a western stooge in south africa and made a lot of propganda agasint winnei mandela-simply becasue winnie had people;s suppoert-this is not wanted by the english meddlers. The similar thing they want everywhere-mr. Mugabe does not oblige them now so he is villain. their jeolosy about elections in other parts of world does not extend to U.s. a. or england-in fact their the false election of bush thru fraud and goonery it was the englsih media only (including bbc) which was very anxious that court does not overrule Bush election becasue as they siad bush was good for allies(read england) . no procession , no supprt for oppsiotion -on the contrary all englsh media was angry with m. gore for having pinpointed irrregularity in U.S. a. elction. all becasue the third rate country like england can live in reflected glory of Usa power.
In fact for last 20 years and more so in last 15 years the english have shown their true clour-after cold war it is clear that the impotent english have been trying to piggy back pon american strength(americans in majority are not anglosaxons)and thru america england treis to bully other nations-install dictators their and then those dictators without peoples supprt are asked to bring the money to england and buy house in london-that creates housing boom and this nation of plumbers(graduation from pirates to shopkeepers then plumbers now) feels very happy with inflated house prices and low qulaity housing and infrastructrue-the money from abroad comes to london stock exchange and fuels the stock price. The london stock price should be forced to be lowered to one fourth of its present price becasue the rest is all false pumped up price with no real value. wht does england produce that any country would want? the real indutrial nations of the worls -Japan, germany have been in recesssion for last 10years while this england has been booming after gulf war for no reason other than becasue it falsley persuaded other countries and their dicataors to bring money to london and starve the rest of worrld. For God’ sake the english plumber does not even eat healthy food.–atleast not non infected.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
this evil english nation is geneticaly a parasite nation.
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 differ