Awhile ago, we heard Jeffrey Goldberg discuss Japan’s & Germany’s WWII behavior on a TV show. It could have been the Charlie Show or another. We really don’t recall that. But we clearly recall one statement of Goldberg in that show because it made a big mark on us. It was Mr. Goldberg’s statement that while Germany had apologized for its WWII behavior, Japan had never done so. As we understood it, his point was that since Japan had never accepted its WWII evil behavior, how can you expect Japan to be sensitive today?
What struck us hard was that Goldberg didn’t even mention the evil behavior of Britain in WWII let alone ask if Britain had apologized for it. Jeffrey Goldberg is no slouch; he is now the Editor In Chief of Atlantic. So he is presumed to know quite of a bit about world history. But Goldberg was either blissfully unaware or utterly unconcerned about the enormity of evil that Britain had unleashed in Asia, especially in India.
Was that because of a huge difference between the heinous acts of both Germany-Japan and of Britain? The victims of Germany-Japan were White British, Europeans & Americans. In contrast, the victims of Britain were Brown Indians or Black Africans. Is this why Goldberg didn’t even think of asking why Britain had never apologized for its evil behavior? We don’t know. We will ask him now and perhaps some readers might want to ask him too.
Whether Mr. Goldberg knows about British atrocities against Indians or not, we think he probably does know quite a bit about Hitler. Of course, many many in US media know about Hitler. But does Goldberg know or do these many many people in US media know what real world example inspired Hitler, which real world system did Hitler choose as his blueprint for his own evil regime?
The answer comes from a speech Hitler gave to a student body in Munich in 1930, three years before he became Chancellor:
- “According to Hitler, if anyone had asked Lord Robert Clive by what right he had seized the riches of Bengal, he would have replied, “I am an Englishman!”. Racial superiority entitled the British to the possession of India, Hitler informed a student body in Munich…..”The Nordic race has a right to rule the world and we must take this racial right as the guiding star of our foreign policy” he said in 1930″ – page 33*
Two years later in 1932, one year before he became Chancellor, Hitler laid out “a blueprint for the economic regeneration of Germany that drew on the British Empire as a prototype“:
- “White men, he stated in a 1932 address….., had exercised their “extraordinary brutal right to dominate others” in order to reorganize the economy of lesser peoples, in India and in the Americas – thereby procuring their own prosperity. The English, in particular, had achieved a “wonderful marriage of economic conquest with political domination“6 – page 33*
Note Hitler combined India & America into a single class of “lesser peoples” dominated by White men. Didn’t he consider America to be a “White” society? Wonder what Jeffrey Goldberg & his many many colleagues think of Hitler’s view about relative Whiteness of Britain vs. America?
Actually a better journalist to ask would be Amy Kazmin whose invective-laced piece in the London-based Financial Times reminded us of Mr. Goldberg’s comment and led to this article’s train of thought. Read the last two lines of her article on Thursday, March 23:
- “In his stunning electoral mandate this month, Mr Modi may now be betting that he can deliver both economic modernity and the creation of a nation dictated by Hindu religious sensibilities. Indians — and the world — will soon learn if he is right”
What a question? Think about it for a minute. Would Amy Kazmin of the Financial Times ever ask whether Mr. Netanyahu can deliver “both economic modernity to Israel and a nation dictated by Jewish religious sensibilities“? Never, in our opinion. Would Amy Kazmin ever ask and would her editors at FT ever permit her to ask in print whether Mr. Trump can deliver “both economic modernity to America and a nation influenced by Mr. Trump’s Christian religious sensibilities“? Absolutely not.
Is that because Amy Kazmin believes Judaism & Christianity, as White religions, are completely consistent with economic modernity while Hinduism is not? What is it about Hinduism that, according to her, makes it incompatible with economic modernity? Ms. Kazmin doesn’t explain. We don’t think Ms. Kazmin has the slightest clue. In our opinion, all that she has is her own bigotry and her accumulated indoctrination into deep-seated Hindu-hate of British society for the past 300 plus years.
What deep-seated hate of Hindus you ask? Just read the set of comments below, comments of “highly respected” British thinkers & writers that are studied in American schools:
- (scholar James) Mill had declared that “the Hindu, like the eunuch, excels in the qualities of a slave,“37 – page xxiv
- “All those arts which are the natural defence of the weak are more familiar to this subtle race than to…the Jew of the dark ages,” Macaulay had written of the “Bengali, who compressed into his diminutive form every loathsome aspect of the Hindu”.41 – page 235
- Churchill exclaimed, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”56 – page 78
- More often that not the small, brown, fangless, and numberless Indians whom the frail old pacifist [Gandhi] personified brought to Churchill’s mind a prey species. – page 206
- Back in London, Churchill told his private secretary that “the Hindus were a foul race ‘protected by their mere pullulation (rapid breeding) from the doom that is their due.’”20 – pages 246-247
This is the hate that has been indoctrinated into British society and quite possibly Amy Kazmin of Financial Times & London School of Economics has been injected with it. No wonder she takes it for granted that Hinduism is incompatible with economic modernity.
By the way, the above British hate didn’t stop at words. Anywhere from 3.5 million to 6 million Indians died in 1942 because of Churchill’s actions and his statement that “the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks” – Amery on Churchill, page 196*.
Surely, Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief of Atlantic, knows this. And yet, he never asks why Britain has never admitted its evil in India and never apologized for it? Actually Mr. Goldberg should ask the more important question – when does Britain stop the indoctrination into contemptuous Hindu hate that we see in today’s British-trained & British-employed journalists like Amy Kazmin?
It is important to remember that America inherited her role in the Indian Subcontinent from the British. Naturally American writers & thinkers inherited the contempt-dripping analysis of Hinduism from British thinkers & writers like Mills/Macaylay/Kipling and Winston Churchill.
And who in American media is the spearhead of this inherited & now embellished anti-Hindu contempt? You guessed what we think – New York Times, of course. Read what the Editorial Board of the New York Times wrote this Friday:
- “… Mr. Modi sees no contradiction between economic development and a muscular Hindu nationalism that feeds on stoking anti-Muslim passions”
Isn’t this NYT statement a replica of Amy Kazmin’s statement in the Financial Times? That’s how we see it.
To be fair, the editorial board of NYT intensely dislikes President Trump & also dislikes Prime Minister Netanyahu. But this “respected” board would never wonder about a contradiction between “economic development of America or Israel” and “a muscular Christian or Jewish nationalism that feeds on stoking anti-Muslim passions”.
For the same reason as Amy Kazmin, we think. Christianity & Judaism are “White” religions & thus completely consistent with economic development according to the New Times Editorial Board? How can these religions be compared with anachronistically backward Hinduism of brown Indians?
Based on our experience, this contemptuous hate of Hinduism is widespread in American media. And that may be why Jeffrey Goldberg never even considered wondering about Britain’s apology for its evil actions in India.
Jeffrey Bewkes, Chairman of Time Warner, presumably comes from the same set of people, education and thought circle as NYT editors and Jeffrey Goldberg. Had any one asked his opinion a week ago about Mills/Macaulay/ Kipling or Winston Churchill, we think Mr. Bewkes would have expressed his admiration of their intellect and ethics. And why not? His knowledge and education about Hinduism probably comes from the same source, the American education that borrowed all it knows about Hinduism from the British mother lode.
Why did we qualify our question about Mr. Bewkes with the clause “a week ago”? Because this week we sent the above quotes of Mills/Macaulay/Churchill about Hindus to Mr. Bewkes and to the Secretary to Time Warner’s Board of Directors. Hopefully Mr. Bewkes read the quotes and double hopefully he was horrified by them.
If so, he would now understand, really understand, why the entire Hindu community was revolted by Aslan’s horrific CNN show about Hinduism. Because Aslan’s central & deep-seated message seemed to be the same as Churchill’s that Hindus are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
So what do Chairman Bewkes & his Board of Directors do with what they now know? We wait to see.
*The quotes above & the page numbers are from the well-documented book Churchill’s Secret War, a book that provides published references for these quotes.
Send your feedback to [email protected] Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter