Michal Kaminski, The Tories and Polish Anti-Semitism 43


Iain Dale has an interesting interview with Michal Kaminski. I think Iain should be congratulated for asking all the right questions, rather well. It is not his fault that Kaminski was dissembling wildly in his answers.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/10/exclusive-my-interview-with-michal.html

I knew Kaminski slightly when he was a young political activist in the late 1990s. I was at the time First Secretary in the British Embassy and much concerned to identify the new political leadership, untainted by Communist mindset, which might bring Poland into the European Union. I should say that the Embassy had a group of young Second Secretaries who were absolutely brilliant in this. William Elliott, Anna Clunes, Andy Smith and Dominic Meiklejohn were amazingly talented; I tried to take credit for their work!

Life is complicated sometimes. Kaminski certainly was anti-Semitic. He was also a very personable and polite young man. Let me try to explain this paradox.

When Alexander Kasniewski defeated Lech Walesa to become President of Poland in 1995, Kaminski was one of the right wing activists involved in lobbying the media to publish stories stating that Kwasniewski’s grandmother was Jewish. That accusation became the focal point of the entire election campaign. The Kwasniewski camp felt unable to reply that the ethnicity of Kwasniewski’s grandmother was immaterial; in fact, they went to great lengths to produce documents and witnesses to show that she was not Jewish. That fact is crucial to an understanding of the depth of anti-semitism in Poland. Even Kwasniewski felt unable to face it down electorally.

Living in Poland for four years, I was continually shocked by the casual anti-semitism I encountered. One day I was going to lunch with Kasia Krause (now a diplomat at the Polish Embassy in London). I said to the kindly old Polish lady in the Embassy who fixed my appointments:

“Oh Kasia, that’s great, she’s really lovely”.

The old lady replied

“You do realise she is Jewish, don’t you?”

It would be a lie to say that I encountered casual anti-semitism every day. But I did so often enough to be severely worried – and often from very nice people who did not otherwise have weird opinions. Anti-semitism was absolutely endemic in the Polish Catholic Church, and still is. There has been no serious attempt to eradicate it, despite the odd rap on the knuckles for Walesa’s priest Father Jankowski or the rabid crowd at Radio Marija – Kaminski’s most important media support. It is worth noting that whilst within the Polish Catholic Church, the conservative Polish Pope John Paul II had always been considered a far liberal.

I should add that a young black British businessmen reported to me that being spat at was an almost daily occurence.

The strange thing is that I adore Poland, and Poles, and Polish culture. I was ever so happy in my time there. There are reasons for the development of this deep-seated racist strain which are historic. There is a limit to how far you can blame individuals for adopting attitudes which are widespread in their culture; and without understanding you cannot change attitudes. Which brings me back to Kaminski. Much as he tries to hide his past, for the present I do not think we should rule out that he really has changed his views, after being exposed to wider cultural influences (like Iain Dale!)

There undoubtedly remain, however, many really nasty anti-Semites in the political grouping in Poland around Kaminski. I still think the Tories will regret this alliance. It is a wonderful irony that Kamiski is a strong advocate of the Lisbon Treay, which rather obviates the reason for the Tories to have shot themselves in the foot with their weird alliances.

A key part of Poland coming to terms with its anti-semitism will be an acknowledgement of what Polish people did to Jews in or just after World War II. Iain Dale’s questioning about the Jedwabne massacre is actually important. This was one of a number of massacres of Jews by Poles, but there were also hundreds of individual murders of Jewish survivors who inconveniently resurfaced, and perhaps tried to reclaim their property.

Poland must come to terms with all of its history, not just the heroic bits. Poland suffered terribly for three hundred years of near continuous foreign occupation. It was moved about physically on the map, sometimes disappearing, and emerged an artificially placed and artificially ethnically homogenous nation. Of course it was screwed up and nationalistic. Of course Kamnski is screwed up and nationalistic. Poland is slowly getting better. Who knows? Maybe Michal is too.


43 thoughts on “Michal Kaminski, The Tories and Polish Anti-Semitism

1 2
  • Harry the Haddock

    What is this emerging love affair with God’s Own Blogger? It’s not natural.

  • Piotr

    Cue Charles “Bullshit” Crawford to explain, over the course of 12 paragraphs,how there’s no anti-semitism in Poland at all and, even if there is, it’s probably justified by the presence of Jews in the Communist Party.

  • anticant

    The 20th century role of the Catholic Church in fostering anti-semitism and extreme right-wing politics not only in Poland but in Germany, Spain and elsewhere is copiously documented – witness Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII)’s infamous Concordat with the Nazis.

    And not just anti-semitism but homophobia as well.

  • JimmyGiro

    If racism wasn’t natural, or indeed ‘functional’, then evolution would have simply eliminated it.

    Apart from anomalies such as autism, we are probably all racist; and only the difference in degree, and synthetic ethics, separates us into political groups.

    And like other natural bodily functions, such as sex and defecation, it is best done in the privacy of ones own abode.

    As to what ’causes’ racism, or what evolutionary advantage does it impart; ask what it is that causes similar people to form schisms? Such like Mancunians splitting into united or city fans; Christians into Catholics and Protestants; etc. It would be wise to know what it is you are throwing away before you vote on making a biological function illegal.

  • Martin

    With scum like Avigdor Lieberman as the fascist foreign minister of Israel it’s getting tougher and tougher not to be antisemitic, especially following the diabolical war crimes that county committed at the beginning of 2009.

    Judaism is not a race. It is a belief DNA proves it. So antisemitism is not equivalent to racism.

  • stephen

    I have also worked in Poland and can well remember the indifference/contempt shown when I commented on how a Jewish cemetery was poorly maintained.

    I think that Kaminski will find that the Polish people need to acknowledge and apologise for a history of anti-semitism that goes back for many years before WW2 and its aftermath – so in that sense he is correct that they shouldn’t apologise for a single outburst.

    Kaminski does however make a valid point that it is not appropriate to make comparisons with Stalinism and Nazism (most evils like unhappy families are unique). Perhaps Dale and other right wing bloggers who make such comparisions at the drop of a hat in relation to any their dislikes should note.

  • CheebaCow

    As I do not have a particular interest in the Catholic church, I have not spent a great deal of time looking at its history. However I have briefly looked into its WW2 behaviour.

    Anticant, I believe you are over simplyfying the role the Vatican played during the time of Hitler. Pius XI issued ‘Mit Brennender Sorge’ (drafted by Pius XII) which strongly criticised the Nazi ideology. It was read in all German churches and is one of the first crticisms of Nazism issued by a major political power. Furthermore Pius XI was given no support from any of the major European powers.

    Once WW2 began, the role of the Vatican is a bit less straight forward. However it must also be taken into account the precarious situation the Vatican found itself. A sovereign state for only 10 years, with no military and basically relying on Mussolini’s good will, and in 1943 Hitler’s, there was only so much they could ever hope to accomplish even if you assume they were 100% against Nazism. In Poland alone, 2500 monks and priests were killed by the Nazi’s. However during WW2 Pius XII appointed Jewish scholars to the Vatican. Many fake baptismal certificates were also issued.

    I think there needs to be a distinction made between national Catholic churches and the Vatican. For instance I don’t think the Polish Catholic church needed any help from the Vatican fostering anti-semetic feeling. One of the reasons Catholicism has been so successful in spreading is that it adapts to local tradition somewhat. Look at the differences between Irish, Mexican, Australian and Italian Catholicism. As such I don’t think every fault of the Catholic church can be placed on the Vatican.

    As for homophobia, unfortunately almost every single religious group take a very negative view of homosexuality. I don’t know why its found so threatening, but Catholics hate it, Protestants hate it, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists hate it, Hindus hate it and Muslims hate it.

  • Vronsky

    Interesting view, JimmyGiro. You are right, uneasiness about strangers is evolutionarily conditioned in us with obvious good reason. Fear of the dark may be embarrassing but it exists for a reason – our primary sense is sight and in darkness we are dangerously disadvantaged. Similarly, we have millennia of experience of strangers bringing harm, therefore little wonder that we are become fearful of them. Our xenophobia and our fear of darkness exist because they have been of survival value. Those who didn’t run away when the strangers came, or went walking in the woods at night, left few offspring. They are not our ancestors – we are necessarily the children of the cautious.

    But instinctive unease does not need to be translated into action – the crime is not racism of instinct, but racism of action. At the risk of sounding religious (which I’m not) the mark of civilisation is the ability to control instinct with reason. There was once a web site by a university sociology department which offered a quiz to test for racism. It turned out that all respondents were racist in instinct (aware of, and wary of, difference) but, as the site pointed out, that is not the same as the racism we revile – the sort that arises when instinct is given uncritical expression, as in Craig’s example of the black man who was spat upon.

    Reason is also of survival value, and one would hope that it can trump brute instinct because for us reason is the ultimate survival value. But instinct looks so diabolically strong, and is so much more easily manipulated by politicians and clergy that I fear the Darwinian prognosis for our species cannot be a happy one.

  • CheebaCow

    Martin – The actions of Israel make it easy to be anti-zionist. Anti-semetic has nothing to do with it.

    Also please don’t try and argue that anti-semetism is not racism. Anti-semetics treat Judaism as a race and as such it is virtually indistinguishable from any other form of racism. BTW DNA basically proves that no single race exists. We are all a glorious mix.

  • anticant

    CheebaCow

    Yes, I’m aware of these apologetics for Pius XII, and realise that his situation during WW2 was precarious and that he had to be nuanced. But as Papal Nuncio in Germany during the 1920s and ’30s he had influenced the once-powerful German Catholic Party to be acquiescent, and ultimately to dissolve itself, at the behest of the Nazis.

    I can remember, as a child in the 1930s and growing up during the war, what a lot of influential British Roman Catholics were vocally anti-semitic and pro-fascist – especially in support of Franco – because they looked upon fascism as a main bulwark of European “Christianity” against godless Communism. Several Catholic papers took this line.

  • anon

    The doctrines of Christianity come to us from the teachings of the revisionist Paul. He disagreed with Jesus’ ( peace be upon him ) statement that the ‘chosen people’ were no longer chosen as the custodians of God’s religion of Monotheism which is the Biblical authority for Christians to disagree with Judaism.

    Paul invented sacrificial redemption by crucifixion as a philosophy that would appeal to the pagan mind of the Romans, and as such he deviated from Judaism’s teachings about the Oneness of God, in order to re-assert the authority of Judaism in the minds of Christians, which Jesus had cancelled.

    The confusion remained until the arrival of the prophet Muhammad SAW whose purpose was to bring clarity on matters which Christians had been deliberately confused.

    Martin Luther’s writings contain anti-Semitism, which is racism. But Luther was the man who did most to crush the tyranny of the freemasonry of Catholicism. Papism had been the best rip off ever, even better than the scams of the present day like heroin and Security in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    It is not racist to question Teachings. This blog questions teachings left right and centre. Please don’t confuse the freedom to challenge ideas, with the sanctity of respect for the humans who have them. It is not at all racist to question the validity of a philosophy or a religion, whichever race it belongs to. For example, I don’t like Animism, and I don’t think I am being anti-African to state my dislike.

    hich the authority of Judaism was

  • JimmyGiro

    There is always some hope Vronsky,

    Most children mature and leave the family; and if the family is big, or part of a large community, there is an urge for the young to move out to new horizons.

    Even though there is clearly an ‘ethnocentric’ trait in people, there is also that rebellious spirit to break out and seek new blood. I’m inclined to believe that evolution has stabilised us by negative feedback (like a ying and yang type, self checking thingy).

    And again, if true, removing or thwarting some natural trait, risks imbalancing what ever natural system was in place.

  • Phil

    Martin –

    Anti-semitism, like other forms of racism, is the direction of hatred towards members of a group simply because of a characteristic over which they have no control. No matter what you think of the actions of Israel (and they are often pretty loathsome) please remember that no individual is responsible just because they happen to be Jewish.

    Please let us have no anti-semitism on this blog

  • CheebaCow

    Anticant – I usually like your posts and find them to be interesting. However I found your last one a little dismissive.

    Why is stating some of the positive actions of Pius XII apologetics? I don’t think it is fair to call it such, I think it just shows the most humans are complex and very few are either all good or all bad. Also I don’t think your logic is sound. It seems to me that you are implying that Pius XII hated the Jews so much, that he intentionally and permanently undermined institutional Catholicism in order to hurt the Jews. I just can’t imagine someone who rose to the position of Pope would do this. Even if he was 100% antisemetic, I think a Pope would prefer to protect the Catholic church.

    Also do you think during the 1930 British Catholics were more antisemetic than Anglicans? I would guess their views were fairly similar. This is a genuine question, I have no idea.

    Also didn’t pretty much all of western Europe at least implicitly support Franco? Im sure the Catholics did, but I don’t think it makes them different from most other people at the time. One of my favourite books, Homage to Catalonia, makes it clear that everyone involved in the conflict were real shits. Except for the poor Spanish anarchists who got screwed by everyone.

  • Strategist

    Fascinating post. I’d love to see you go head to head with my favourite Polskophile Prof Norman Davies on this issue.

    I don’t think Davies infallible – far from it – but I love his stuff, and completely accept that we Brits should accord the Poles their rightful place in the pantheon of the greatest European nations – warts, dreadful sins and all.

  • anticant

    CheebaCow

    Obviously this is a complex topic, but centuries of Christian (mostly Roman Catholic) anti-semitism, often resulting in ruthless massacres of European Jews, are copiously documented. Anti-semitism was built into the theology of the Catholic Church until Vatican II. While Pius XII may have taken some late, hesitant, and largely ineffective steps to save some Jewish lives when it was already obvious that the Allies were winning the war, his own pro-German and anti-semitic sentiments are undeniable. Far from “intentionally and permanently undermin(ing) institutional Catholicism in order to hurt the Jews”, he was simply implementing traditional Catholic doctrine.

    This isn’t the place for an extended discussion, but I would refer you to John Cornwell’s “Hitler’s Pope” and David Ranan’s “Double Cross: the Code of the Catholic Church”, which devotes a whole section to the Church and the Jews. Ranan points out that while Pius XII excommunicated every Communist in the world, he did not excommunicate the Nazis.

  • Craig

    Strategist,

    I had some very good evenings with Norman Davies in Poland! I din’t think he would wildly disagree.

  • Theophrastus

    Jimmy Giro

    It’s an old excuse for racism to say it’s natural, and not a very convincing one. This use of natural selection to explain everything strikes me as theological. ‘Evolution designed us to be racists’ is about as insightful as ‘God designed us to be racists.’ It boils down to saying that racism has a basis in human nature. True, no doubt, but then so does generosity of spirit and curiosity about the other. The question is, which instinct should we favour?

  • JimmyGiro

    Theophrastus,

    I don’t believe evolution designs anything; but simply is the expression of natures spontaneity.

    Spontaneous systems tend to comply with the second law of thermodynamics, which affords us the universal warning: that any change to a spontaneous system in equilibrium, will result in the system opposing that change.

    My statement was not an excuse of racism, it was a warning about trying to change people to some ideal, will result in confounding natural responses.

    I would add that most historical social catastrophes have been implemented by utopians with ‘good’ intentions. Nature may throw up some uncomfortable situations and conditions, but nature has the trump card of precedence on all other political systems: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”

  • CheebaCow

    Anticant – The author of ‘Hitler’s Pope’ has since written:

    “I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following ‘Hitler’s Pope’, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by the Germans.”

    Anyway, I will look further into the matter, you have piqued my interest.

  • Theophrastus

    JimmyGiro

    In that case I agree with you but I’m not sure who your original comment was directed against.

  • bumbledore

    Getting back to the post, there’s something suspicious about Kaminski’s alleged antisemitism in 1995 presidential election: he did not back Lech Walesa but Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, a woman of somewhat non-slavic appearance and one of Poland’s most common targets of those she’s-really-Jewish rumours – much more common than Kwasniewski. It’d be rather strange if Kaminski, a high-ranking official in HGW’s electoral committee, tried to play the lets-find-Jewish-uncles game.

    Btw, Kaminski’s camp did sth like that in 2005 election but it was about

    The rest of the post is interesting but how’s Kaminski responsible for the views of Craig Murray’s secretary? Was it Kaminski who spat on the black businessman?

    Even if Craig provided any evidence on what he accuses Kaminski of, that would still make a very thin argument against Cameron. Afterall, the labour party’s closest foreign friend had for years been George Bush, he of the John-McCain-has-a-black-child campaign in 2000.

  • Charles Crawford

    Craig,

    Just to clarify: did you know Michal Kaminski in the late 1980s (ie before you went to Poland with the FGCO or a few years later (ie the mid-1990s) when you were posted to Warsaw?

    Your posting refers to the ‘late 1980s’ but I wonder if that was a typo. Attitudes have been changing pretty fast and steadily there since Communism ended, so the dates might matter (a little).

    Regards,

    Charles

  • Charles Crawford

    Craig,

    Just to clarify: did you know Michal Kaminski in the late 1980s (ie before you went to Poland with the FGCO or a few years later (ie the mid-1990s) when you were posted to Warsaw?

    Your posting refers to the ‘late 1980s’ but I wonder if that was a typo. Attitudes have been changing pretty fast and steadily there since Communism ended, so the dates might matter (a little).

    Regards,

    Charles

  • avatar singh

    thos who are talking about catholic must be told that antisemitism started not with catholoisim as religion -it was startwed by action of butcher called richard the so called lion heart who while going on crusade asked his foloowers to kill all those jews who owed ho=im money so that he woudl nto have to pay them money loaned to him. then his foloowers wetn through europe and spread that hatread which is tyrpical of this pirate race ccalled english..

    It is the same class of british loving american traitors who hunted down all free thinking director, producers, actors and artists from hollywood. They hunted the jews so much that though hollywood had been started by the jews ,the jews never dared put in hollywood films anything other than glorifying those southern and western bandits who were of english extraction. the hollywood became a propaganda and fictional plot to further english interest. The hunting of artistd had been going on before war but after hitler it intensified. And these same racists did to jews and other minorities in hollywood worse than hitler could do to german film industry. since then hollywood has become an easy employment place for all sorts of rubbish british star who would get the jobs to the detriment of real american subjects.british are not even gratefull to the americans for that.They would propaganda for british films which are equally bad. failing their attempt to pump up british films, they would infiltrate american filmsincluding even the alien films where their low accent has no relevance. Then the british propaganda against hollywood that it is rubbish(though when French will like more european fims then they would protest). Hollywood is rubbish not inspite of but because of the presence of british(english) actors and so called british artists. Also hollywood;s agenda is determined by the british agents for england’s interest. That is why is the hollywood rubbish-because of english stars’ presence.and americaqns must wrest away this control for themselves rather than leaving hollywood as means of propaganda and employment for english foreigners.

  • avatar singh

    HOW THE JEWS HAVE BEEN USED AND AllOWED THEMSELVES TO BE USED FOR BENEFIT OF PARAISITC ANGLOSAXON RACE.

    very true -in fact so called jewish’s lobby” power is a propaganda done by the english race to hide thier nefarious iterference in the american ploicy to uinflunce american domestic and foreing policy for the benefit of england.

    1999.

    how england has used jews for the benfit of english race only and for deliberatily creating disruption in Europe.

    England had threatened israel in 1948 during israeli war of indepdence that england would use atom bomb agaisnt israel unless israel stop ddrowning royal air foarce palnes and pilots who were helping Jordan against israel.

    the same england was in upsroar in july 1981 when isrea;l attakced iraq’s nuclear reactor-just check out theier papers of the time

    the same ngland was leading charge agasint isreal in june 82 when isreal attacked palestinain terrorists inside lebanon-that was at t time when england was in illegal occupation for malvinas island.

    that is short glimpse of how much england and anglosaxon race care about jews and israel.

    look at editorails of the times, the newsweek during those crucial perios of june 82 and see how they(the TImes, the gaurdian, BBC, ITV) were suggesting that israel or atleast tel aviv should be bombed.-just chek the british papers and bbc clips from april 82 to august 82.Also check those british bastrds joutrnlism hist in the month of summer 1981 when iraqi nuclear planty was bombed by the isralis and the british were the first-along with iraq -to protest agasint the israeli action.

    It is very interesting that the same type of english people(who are anti-communists, anti-blacks, anti-muslims, anti-catolics) started the same sort of propaganda(like used against russians and communists) against The Germans.the Frenchs 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 uop 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 stengthened 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 dso much against German interests and be a major parterner 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 joing european sustem-ofcourse it was unsustainable but for devaluation of pounds the Germans and some jews(as said by bbc) 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 Shroeder(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 sovereignity is england not the main country pushing, threatning and cajoling the thirld world to accept World bank and IMF(created by america for englands interest) so called structral reform regardless of people’s wishes. If other countries’s destiny can be controlled by bureacrats in IMF. then why not England’s by European’s bureacrats? England is the most bureactic 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 burocracy 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. In Fact the rest of Europe should actively discourage england to join Euro, because then [email protected] 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 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 infevted meats, the first reaction of bbc was not as to why it happened but ”Can Europe ban the xport 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 hape said a cruel, primitive practice for rotten meat with no regard for peoples health or [email protected] 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 followinf disclosure. This phenomenan of using rotten british product is not confined to beaf-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,thogh 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 prect 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 ame only 4 or 5 varieties of house, their furniture is the same 4 to five varietis their cothes are they same rotten unsmart types and their food is the sme rotten type with rotten ingediants. Then why do the englisjh live? for extacting 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 engl;ish 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 thirld world support her own industry for their jobs and prosperity. atlest thirld 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 reprted 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 degreee apart.For foregn goods(car, consumer items etc) the english would be very fussy and wanrt 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 ofeerr 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 nhe is now. But then england has always survived on folly of these suckers who do not know who thier real friend or enemy are.nato which ia realyy an agent for english interest(and broadly anglosaxon interest) should have been rejected by Germany and also euro-fighter in place of truelly european (excluding britain ofcourse)military alliance. but Germany lost that chance and new cold war(egland has always done cold wars,it is too coward to enter in direct confontration without firsat weakening enemy with lies and propaganda machinery likebbc and others)has begun. For those who do not belive this let me give an example. Soon after fall of Berlin war, the editor of Sunday times(who is reknowned racist, anti communist and anti poor,pro capitalist and later came out to be anti Germans and antiFrench aswell) said on bbc that to protect nato and english interests ineurope ,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 aswell 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 intusive 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 stength 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 ofcourse against blacks and socialists was also a sort of adviser to lady diana. That lady [email protected] 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 shomful period called 80s and her main freinds were the same exploters which made 80s’climate of greed and shelfishness possible.

    Diana was minly liked by lower class shopkeepers and plumbers class -in other word whose forefatehrs were lumpen proletariat only a generation or two. She was neither aristocratic in taste nor her freinds were. but the same diana -a darling of greedy exploters with no class_ is being pumpep 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 volantary blanket on british news(which in reality are not important anyway). Therew is no point in giving exposure and importance to the very propaganda machinery(british media) which though belonging to not even a 4th leage in military is a dangerous adeversary 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 adn 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 russins (as was advisedby britain ) to exchange pltanks for tracters, to exchange empire for so called freedom the why did not britain disban 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 soveit 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 parlimentarians if they do not approve of yelstil plan to sell Russia to English tobacco and liquers interests and english pimps? Ofcoursre it were mainly english and anglosaxons who were advising jelstin to take all the measures to be sell Russia cheap. soon after storming of parliament yelstin,with the support of anglosaxon media brought a constitutional changeds to give himself a dictatorial power. But then he is a western(read anglosaxon 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 [email protected] product(drug), british and [email protected] and liquers 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. Therfore through that mad, weak, ill man Yelstin these anglosaxons have made prostitutesof women, wifes and girlfriends; have left the helpless children on the cold, cruel streets and left the olds(who worked hard for their pensionable life) pauperforced to beg on the street. Even full war does not do that. Soviet union had better droppeped 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 russsiac did not need to target anywhre, if britain had the first possibility of being annhilated 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 asame reason as cold war against Germany has started. TO keep britain in picture as it gives them a sense of false position, to harass other country and wreck others economy. IN august90, the soviets had captured some persons with british passports who were pumping up False notes of Roubles in russia. IN other words they were british agents who ,by putting illegal tenders were making rouble go down in value and ultimatily wrecking russian economy. THe english arew very careful of their savings and pension and economy. their deeds in other countries must be remembered to get even. Therfore english nature is to be cancerous like low form of lifes’like spread and to be vey intusive,and to pass as parasite srom one host to another(they call it cold war). Oher country have no choice to to neuatralize this cancer and remove it forcefully and bodily because otherwise the same game would be going on for ever.The main aim of england in europe is(and has been( to create a rift between germany and France or Russia or whosoever is strong so that england can play her intussive role in europe and bullying role in world. Having failed in creating this rift, the same english propagidists are saying that Europe should not become strong because it will create a rift and possible war between Europe and America. Why? When according to the same english propagandists american cultutre is(or should remain) predominantly european then why should be such a rift. Gradually with europe getting powerfull, this idea of rift will be instilled into americans just as a cold war was started between earstwhile allies by the english agents in media in britain and america. But why should america be influenced-it should not but it is : so let us examine the role of english propagandists in shaping up american foreign and domestic policy.

1 2

Comments are closed.