The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Godfree Roberts Archive
The Chinese Communist Party
And Rotary International: Some Salient Facts
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

China and the US are one-party states. China, a socialist state, permits limited capitalism (Huawei) and disallows factions in government. America, a capitalist state, permits limited socialism (Medicare) and permits factions (Democrat and Republicans) in government.

Our Capitalist Party exists for its own benefit while their Communist Party is a service organization, like Rotary International. If we imagine the effects on America if our government had been answerable to Rotary International for the past seventy years then we can imagine why China has thrived.

It is as difficult to join the CCP as it is to become a successful capitalist. Admission is highly restrictive and the process takes years. Candidates must explain their motives for applying; list personal shortcomings along with detailed personal, financial and political information about themselves and their families; include recommendations from two Party members; and supply character references from two non-relatives who will be accountable for them for life. During the application process they attend weekly classes in Party history and ideology and participate in volunteer activities.

Three quarters of university graduates apply but a tenth succeed.“I was very excited,” said Allen Lin[1]Membership in the Communist Party of China: Who is Being Admitted and How? | JSTOR Daily. By: R.W. McMorrow. December 19, 2015, a twenty-three-year-old college senior who credits his admission to his high grades, service to student government and assistance to classmates, “Joining the Party is not easy–of the forty students in my class, only five were admitted.” Eric X. Li, a Fudan PhD multi-millionaire VC whose advocacy of Chinese governance has won world renown, has been rejected three times. Xi Jinping overcame seven rejections before being admitted. Jack Ma, a teenage student at a second-tier teachers college, was admitted immediately.

New members swear an oath, “I promise to bear the people’s hardships first and enjoy the benefits last.” 300,000 Party members gave their lives in the war of liberation. Mao lost his wife, a son, two brothers, a sister and three nephews. Premier Zhou Enlai lost all his children and the first president, Zhu De, saw his pregnant wife tortured to death and her decapitated head nailed to the city gate.

The Party’s fundamental responsibility is creating policies and mobilizing public support for them. Many Party members will do little more than conduct door-to-door surveys on rainy Sundays or lead local cleanups, but some will head huge corporations and others will be officials, university professors or journalists. All ninety-million will be able to explain new government policies to friends and workmates (though they may find this boring) so that everyone knows where the country is going and how to participate.

Their motto is, “Serve the People” and all 90,000,000 current members are volunteers who contribute $1,000,000,000 in annual dues and billions of volunteer hours leading China towards dàtóng.

The Party’s ability to mobilize is impressive. One night in 2010 a Shanghai high-rise fire killed fifty-eight people. The Minister of Public Security arrived from Beijing at two am and, by dawn, had coordinated twenty-five fire stations and a hundred fire trucks, a thousand firefighters, police, hospitals, finance, insurance, housing, donations, counseling, criminal investigations and local schools. Forty-eight hours later, state-owned insurers began compensating families for lost property and $250,000 for each death. A week later, Shanghai mayor Han Zheng admitted, “We are responsible for poor supervision of the city’s construction industry which caused the fire.” He implemented new building codes, fired or demoted thirty officials (of whom twenty-two were indicted and most went to prison, two for sixteen years). The contrast with London’s 2017 Grenfell Tower fire is stark.

It appears that most folk are happy with the course they’ve plotted:

Members don’t benefit financially from participation and half have at least a junior college degree, forty percent are women, one-third are ‘exemplary farmers, herdsmen and fishermen,’ a quarter are white-collar workers, a sixth are retirees. Ten percent are ethnic minorities (ethnic minorities make up 8.5% of China’s population) and seven million civil servants are Party members.

Two-thirds of Party leaders have graduate degrees and one-fourth have PhDs.

Members vote democratically–on a one man, one vote basis–for senior Party and government appointments.

Surveys suggest that the Chinese are pleased with the Party’s supervision of their government.

Note

[1] Membership in the Communist Party of China: Who is Being Admitted and How? | JSTOR Daily. By: R.W. McMorrow. December 19, 2015

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Chinese Communist Party 
Hide 208 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Well, if you discount, that the communist party is the worst mass murderer in the history of humankind, some 75 mio so far, if you check genocide studies…

    And if you discount that it’s probably a 5000 year old culture which is able to even cope with communism so far

    I’d venture to guess that the positive effects on society are rather despite marxism. The cambodians under the Khmer Rouge for instance were not so lucky.

  2. Daemon says:
    @Kenan Meyer

    I bet you also believe the Holocaust was caused by Hitler wanting to genocide the Jews.

    • LOL: MAOWASAYALI
    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  3. Svevlad says:
    @Kenan Meyer

    Yes, they had their retarded moves, so yeah ey let’s run it all into the ground because muh h*story even though they fixed all the stuff

  4. There is a reason Mao had a falling out with Moscow. Moscow was still operating under the (((Bolshevik))) system, where the (((politburo))) decided who was in the commune, and benefited. The current Chinese system appears to be more along the line of everybody is in the commune, everybody should benefit, let’s define who should be in the politburo to ensure that happens.

    As for mass murders, how many people died in the Indian sub-continent while the (((British))) Empire invaded to establish and control markets? The same for the French in Asia. Fifty million died in WWI and II, not including Soviet losses, to ensure rival economic systems in Germany and Japan did not prevail. How many millions have been killed by the US for corporations?
    Smedley Butler

    I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

    All in all, I’d say the commies have some way to go to catch up, not that I’m advocating for it.

    • Replies: @Hillbob
    , @Poupon Marx
  5. Hillbob says:
    @Curmudgeon

    Ah Mr Curmedgeon….crusty you might be , but so insightful.
    You bring a smile to me every time you destruct the braying of some jackass or the other

  6. willem1 says:

    Not sure why Unz Review carries posts from China apologist Mr. “God-free” Roberts. Just to represent the mostly Mainland Chinese opinion that (even) China is less authoritarian and sinister than modern-day Amerika?

    And all of the above graphs demonstrate only that the Chinese government has been better at brainwashing its public than the US government. This is most likely because most people in China can still remember when things were even worse, while most people in the US only remember when things were better.

    Give me a break.

  7. peterAUS says:
    @willem1

    Not sure why Unz Review carries posts from China apologist Mr. “God-free” Roberts.

    Uhm…money?

    You know who are sponsors of this site? All of them?
    You…hehe…sure about that?

  8. Muggles says:

    This author appears to be a pseudonym for someone who is likely a paid CCCP apologist operating under false pretenses. Russians and Israelis are widely believed to do this (possibly the US also) so this chart and graph filled “good news” rings very hollow.

    Since there is no way the CCCP will publicly release any survey/poll results showing popular discontent all of that fake evidence can be disregarded. The “we love our government” stuff only comes from reporting lies. Or simply inventing them. The CCCP and its government are probably among the least transparent and honest sources than from any major nation. Chinese love to complain about all things just as much, if not more, than everyone else. Not according to “Mr. Roberts” though. All is happy talk.

    Mr. “Roberts” here might do a better job for his paymasters if he added a bit of realism here to his pro Chinese govt posts. Yes, some balance is needed for all of the anti China stuff, but his posts are just bad propaganda. Fail.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Godfree Roberts
  9. peterAUS says:
    @Muggles

    Mr. “Roberts” here might do a better job for his paymasters if he added a bit of realism here to his pro Chinese govt posts. Yes, some balance is needed for all of the anti China stuff, but his posts are just bad propaganda.

    That could be an interesting point.

    Depends on the target audience I guess.

    If the audience is Chinese urban masses, well, maybe this crude approach is all that it takes.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  10. @Daemon

    How could anyone doubt the Holy Holohoax?

    Remember, it was exactly (((SIX))) million innocent Jews who got gassed at Auschwitz.

    Incidentally, the oft-cited number of 45 million people who starved to death during Mao’s Great Leap Forward is bogus and probably has more to do with their gematria than anything else. The numerology of 45 (4 + 5) is 9 and they love their 9s and much as they love their 6s (i.e. “9/11”).

    Moreover, since we’re on the topic of bogus Jewish numbers, China’s 1.4 billion population doesn’t make any sense, not if you take into consideration the so-called “One-child Policy” implemented in 1979. The Chinese population should have flatlined in the 1980’s and nosedived in the 2000’s.

    Curiously, the Jews in the MSM are now telling us that China is facing a demographic crisis with a growing and aging population and not enough young workers to support them. Their solution: open China’s borders for mass immigration.

    The expression, ‘The Jews set ’em up, and the Jews knock ’em down.’ comes to mind.

    Guess who really came up with China’s One-child Policy? It wasn’t Deng, that’s for sure cause he wasn’t a Jew. Believe it or not, it was Henry Kissinger.

    See my comment on the Kissinger Report.

  11. Hanrahan says:

    A very interesting and informative article. Thanks for the enlightening & educational content.

  12. @Kenan Meyer

    Well, if you discount, that the communist party is the worst mass murderer in the history of humankind, some 75 mio so far, if you check genocide studies…

    Capitalism and Imperialism are the worst mass murders in human history. WW1 and WW2 combined killed 120 million people (including civilians). At least 10 million Indians died under British rule. 10 million Congolese died under the rule of King Leopold II of Belgium, not to mention other deaths under Imperialism. The U.S. invasion of North Korea killed 30% of its population. The U.S. invasion of Vietnam killed 4 million in Southeast Asia. Even Russia’s shock therapy killed millions, just to give you some examples.

    • Replies: @Malla
  13. Half-Jap says:
    @willem1

    Mr. Roberts is deeply fond of this graph. Even assuming the data as sound, the interpretation was often uncritical, in my view. He did admit to the difficulty of conducting a better study, which I also sympathize with. Yours is more plausible; things have been getting better in mainland China because it has been quite terrible until rather recently.
    Also my friends there are unanimous in believing that no good can come from speaking ill of the Party/Govt, and that the information they are presented are only those allowed and thus controlled. These are just a couple factors to consider in assessing the real sentiment of the people there.
    Might be interesting to gather data again during/after a crash in the economy.

  14. @Muggles

    Spare us the ad hom and your imaginings.

    If you’re interested in censorship, read this: https://www.unz.com/article/the-china-hoax/

    If you’re interested in China, go to China and see for yourself. Or talk to one of the 150 million Chinese who are wandering around the world checking us out. Talk to them.

  15. @peterAUS

    The Chinese urban masses make up over 90% of Unz Review readers, I’m told. They can’t get enough of my stuff.

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
    , @peterAUS
  16. Escher says:

    Mr. Roberts still has no answer as to why so many Chinese flee their motherland first chance they get.
    He also conveniently does not mention the many upstanding communist party officials who grew rich by abusing their positions.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Godfree Roberts
  17. Malla says:
    @last straw

    10 million Congolese died under the rule of King Leopold II of Belgium, not to mention other deaths under Imperialism.

    Oh please stop spreading your stupid leftist Commie propaganda. It was impossible to kill 10 million Congolese as there were no 10 million Congolese in King Leopold’s Congo to begin with. This 10 million figure comes from a leftist civil rights activist and commie Western media/academia has been pushing this b.s. on us.
    Also there were at most 200 Belgians in all of Congo. Yeah, 200 Belgians went chopping limbs and killed 10 million Congolese. What rubbish. Most of the atrocities were done by blacks on blacks and happened when White colonial officers were not around. In the presence of colonial officers this arm chopping stopped.
    Also Tipu Tipp was running a nice slave brutal network around that place. had the belgians not colonized Congo, killing, enslaving and arm chopping would have continued as usual.




    Watch this video and enlighten yourself.

    At least 10 million Indians died under British rule

    Indians have been dying in famines before the British came. Indeed the railways built by the Brits actually reduced the frequency of famines.

    The U.S. invasion of North Korea killed 30% of its population.

    Who told North Korea to invade South Korea then?

  18. Malla says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    We’ve killed a thousand foreign civilians every day since 1951:

    Why not include WW1 and WW2? Why start from 1951? Oh I get it WW1 and WW2 were the “good wars”. I get it, after WW2 there was a sudden magical change in the attitude and leadership of the West.

  19. Malla says:
    @Escher

    That is what I find so interesting about these gasbags supporting communism. Communists had to build walls to prevent people from escaping. I guess, the Berlin Wall was built to prevent workers of the west storming the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries to live in “Workers paradise”? I guess, HongKong became empty when Mao came into power, Hong Kong Chinese were fleeing to Maoist China to escape evul imperialist British Empire. North Korea has to build walls to prevent South Koreans fleeing to North Korean paradise. LOL these commies are jokers.
    USA had no walls, people can leave if they wish, the USA has to build walls to prevent people coming into their evil exploitative democracy. Hell even Third Reich Germany had no walls to prevent people from leaving.

  20. Malla says:

    This seems interesting.

    Exiled Chinese Billionaire’s Accusations of Chinese Communist Party (w/ Guo Wengui & Kyle Bass).

  21. onebornfree says: • Website
    @willem1

    willem1 says: ” Not sure why Unz Review carries posts from China apologist Mr. “God-free” Roberts.”

    It’s simple, Unz is a commie apologist/sympathizer, just like the vast majority of the left coast “techie” naive fools.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  22. onebornfree says: • Website

    People’s Liberation Army of China Enters Hong Kong

    “The peoples liberation army”. Yeah, right!

    onebornfree

  23. I have answered that many times and will do so again:

    Doubtless there are officials who escaped with looted riches and being protected in Canada, the US, New Zealand, the UK and Australia. The Hong Kong riots are contrived to protect those who live in Hong Kong.

    As any visitor to China can attest, there is no sign of corruption, wherever you go. By December of next year, in fact, every Chinese will have a home, a job, plenty of food, education, safe streets, health- and old age care. 300,000,000 urban Chinese will have more net worth and disposable income than the average American, their mothers and infants will be less likely to die in childbirth, their children will graduate from high school three years ahead of American kids and live longer, healthier lives and there will be more drug addicts, suicides and executions, more homeless, poor, hungry and imprisoned people in America than in China.

    Many Chinese flee their motherland either because they are either criminals or because it is much easier to make a living elsewhere. One of them, Puzhong Yao, explained his decision thusly:

    “It was the summer of 2000. I was 15, and I had just finished my high school entrance exam in China. I had made considerable improvements from where I started in first grade, when I had the second- worst grades in the class and had to sit at a desk perpendicular to the blackboard so that the teacher could keep a close eye on me. I had managed to become an average student in an average school. My parents by then had reached the conclusion that I was not going anywhere promising in China and were ready to send me abroad for high school. Contrary to all expectations, however, I got the best mark in my class and my school. The exam scores were so good that I ranked within the top ten among more than 100,000 students in the whole city. My teacher and I both assumed the score was wrong when we first heard it.
    As a consequence, I got into the best class in the best school in my city, and thus began the most painful year of my life. My newfound confidence was quickly crushed when I saw how talented my new classmates were. In the first class, our math teacher announced that she would start from chapter four of the textbook, as she assumed, correctly, that most of us were familiar with the first three chapters and would find it boring to go through them again. Most of the class had been participating in various competitions in middle school and had become familiar with a large part of the high school syllabus already. Furthermore, they had also grown to know each other from those years of competitions together. And here I was, someone who didn’t know anything or anyone, surrounded by people who knew more to begin with, who were much smarter, and who worked just as hard as I did. What chance did I have?
    During that year, I tried very hard to catch up: I gave up everything else and even moved somewhere close to the school to save time on the commute, but to no avail. Over time, going to school and competing while knowing I was sure to lose became torture. Yet I had to do it every day. At the end-of-year exam, I scored second from the bottom of the class—the same place where I began in first grade. But this time it was much harder to accept, after the glory I had enjoyed just one year earlier and the huge amount of effort I had put into studying this year. Finally, I threw in the towel, and asked my parents to send me abroad. Anywhere else on this earth would surely be better.
    So I came to the UK in 2001, when I was 16 years old. Much to my surprise, I found the UK’s exam-focused educational system very similar to the one in China. What is more, in both countries, going to the “right schools” and getting the “right job” are seen as very important by a large group of eager parents. As a result, scoring well on exams and doing well in school interviews—or even the play session for the nursery or pre-prep school—become the most important things in the world. Even at the university level, the undergraduate degree from the University of Cambridge depends on nothing else but an exam at the end of the last year.
    On the other hand, although the UK’s university system is considered superior to China’s, with a population that is only one-twentieth the size of my native country, competition, while tough, is less intimidating. For example, about one in ten applicants gets into Oxbridge in the UK, and Stanford and Harvard accept about one in twenty-five applicants. But in Hebei province in China, where I am from, only one in fifteen hundred applicants gets into Peking or Qinghua University.
    Still, I found it hard to believe how much easier everything became. I scored first nationwide in the GCSE (high school) math exam, and my photo was printed in a national newspaper. I was admitted into Trinity College, University of Cambridge, once the home of Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Prince Charles.
    I studied economics at Cambridge, a field which has become more and more mathematical since the 1970s. The goal is always to use a mathematical model to find a closed-form solution to a real-world problem. Looking back, I’m not sure why my professors were so focused on these models. I have since found that the mistake of blindly relying on models is quite widespread in both trading and investing—often with disastrous results, such as the infamous collapse of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management. Years later, I discovered the teaching of Warren Buffett: it is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. But our professors taught us to think of the real world as a math problem.
    The culture of Cambridge followed the dogmas of the classroom: a fervent adherence to rules and models established by tradition. For example, at Cambridge, students are forbidden to walk on grass. This right is reserved for professors only. The only exception is for those who achieve first class honors in exams; they are allowed to walk on one area of grass on one day of the year.
    The behavior of my British classmates demonstrated an even greater herd mentality than what is often mocked in American MBAs. For example, out of the thirteen economists in my year at Trinity, twelve would go on to join investment banks, and five of us went to work for Goldman Sachs.”

    Get the picture?

  24. onebornfree says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    onebornfree says: “Unz is a commie apologist/sympathizer, just like the vast majority of the left coast “techie” naive fools. “

    And, I might add, just like 95% of his readers who apparently swallow Roberts pro- chinese government commie propaganda and horseshit ” hook, line and sinker”, without question.

    But, I remind myself, “stupid is as stupid does”, so what did I expect? [Shit eaters are always gonna eat shit, after all].

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Biff
  25. YN1F says:

    Yea, no. I reject both capitalism and communism. Both are a couple of different-colored empty bottles on the garbage-heap of political ideology.

    Hey, here’s an novel idea: Let’s talk about all of the pros of Germany’s short-lived but very successful foray with National Socialism! Most of the population of the time loved the system (which can be proven, unlike Godfree’s “we’re all happy!-happy! in communist China!” propaganda), too.

    I think some pretty convincing graphs can be drawn up showing both the success and support of National Socialism among the German citizenry throughout the early 30s-early40s compared to communist and capitalist systems (and their respective pleb citizenry’s contentment). Didn’t that Hitler chap solve Germany’s terrible economic depression? Wasn’t he able to go out into the streets among millions of his smiling and adoring people without fear of assassination?

    National Socialist For Life!!!

    (Now I’ll await the “Nazi scum!” attacks…Bring ’em on.)

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Onebornfree
    , @GeeBee
  26. Malla says:
    @YN1F

    Here is a video for your great post. If you had not come across it before.

    The turn around of the German Economy using National Socialist principles. The best options lie outside Wall Street style speculative Capitalism and Marxist Communism.

  27. HT says:

    Does this writer actually believe communist parties don’t exist for their own benefit?

  28. Yee says:

    I hope one day some talent litterateur would write the story of the Chinese communist party, founded in 1921 with 53 members, finally brings the country to be the strongest in the world…

    It would be a greater story than the Three Kingdoms.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  29. Malla says:
    @alan2102

    Apologists for Western genocides are SO full of shit.

    Actually it is apologists for Communist genocides who are full of shit.

    This is one of the most rubbish critic of Ryans video I have read, by some arrogant commie POS. Though he makes some good arguments too such as proof of destruction of records. Brutality yes (which Ryan agrees too) , but genocide it was not.
    For example about the genocide numbers are way off and full of people’s fancies.

    Roger Casement in 1904 gives a figure of 3 million people,
    Peter Forbath speaks of at least 5 million,
    Adam Hochschild, of 10 million,
    Isidore Ndaywel è Nziem, Congolese historian, of 13 million,
    the Encyclopædia Britannica gives a population loss of 8 to 30 million.

    Yet, Professor Ngondo a Pitshandenge (First Congolese Doctor in Demography, btw) denounces the “legend of depopulation”,

    The volume and evolution of the Zairean population in the distant past have given rise to much speculation. Explorers have shown optimism about the demographic importance assessing the population to some 20 to 30 million.

    The occupation of the territory tightening, this population figure will eventually crumble: 15 million in 1898, 10 million in 1906 and 4.6 million in the census of 1914. This crumbling gives rise to the legend of a depopulation of the country due to colonization, the slave trade and new diseases and decided the King to send a commission of inquiry in 1906.

    The numbers on the population loss are wrong because they are based on wrong estimations made in a completely unscientific way.
    Or as Malengreau wrote in 1947,

    At the moment we are talking about the demographic situation a bit like blind people would talk about colors.

    Here are a few facts:

    There were probably less than 5 million inhabitants in the Congo at the time.
    There has never been any intention to destroy the Congolese population. On the contrary, the EIC was in acute need of manpower.
    There were only 175 expats in the 1890’s and a third of them died of tropical diseases. Among them, there were some who went there only for greed but there were others who went there for reasons more noble, for humanitarian reasons.

  30. Malla says:

    Communist nations, nations of the people, kind angelic nations for the upliftment of man
    Ya rite.
    Check this out. The USSR purposely exposed Kazakh villagers to radiation at the Polygon.
    They suffer to this day with genetic mutations.

    according to the Bolshevic Jew Beria, the place where the tests were done was officially uninhabited. But in reality 1.5 million people lived there and suffered.

  31. Onebornfree says: • Website
    @YN1F

    Yet another useless idiot who does not understand that National Socialism is almost wholly based on Marx’s Communist horseshit. [As he himself admitted publicly].

    Centralization of economies [communism, socialism etc],never works in the long run- the only reason that Hitlers’ National Socialist Germany did not completely collapse economically was because it never got the chance, it was overrun by larger socialist states [UK, US ,USSR etc] before it had the chance to fully collapse of its own accord- which was inevitable- just as it now is for China. [and the US,Russia, Germany,France,Japan etc.etc., to name but a few].

    No regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Onebornfree
    , @Malla
    , @YN1F
  32. peterAUS says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    The Chinese urban masses make up over 90% of Unz Review readers, I’m told. They can’t get enough of my stuff.

    Nobody said that your handlers were smart.
    As long as those apparatchiks are happy the gig is good.

  33. @Curmudgeon

    Socialism is Communism- Joseph Stalin. He ought to know, being an expert. I just don’t believe any large bureaucratic command and control, top down system like a pyramid works well in the long run.
    The modern nation state of Singapore works well, as do the cantons of Switzerland-up to now.

    The false focus on different government structures is a hopeless endeavor, as is the paradigm of Left-Right. Leaving social sciences and taking up engineering did more for me, and gave my added insight into the way the World is, and led me eventually to Buddhism, which reconciled many opposites and open ends of many types.

    These discourses of abstract philosophy, invented ideologies, are so boring and irrelevant. They do not lead to solutions, succor, a better life and an elevation of values. They are temporal and flame out due to the failures predictable and shortcomings that are built in.

  34. @alan2102

    Population growth is not logarithmic, it is geometric in growth. Summarization and generalization are justified if they are accurate. While colonization was going on, mainline Christianity didn’t seem to mind, as long as large cathedrals were being built and whole populations could be made into a captive audience to bring them to the “One True Church”, or the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

    All these countries now face ruin and reverse colonization. If they had simply chosen to trade-at arm’s length-with Afreaka and other aboriginal nations, they would have prospered.

    In the Universal Scheme, aka Big Picture, karma evens the score, balances the equation. Every wonder why wars have little lasting effect? The Muslim conquests may turn out differently than expected. If they end up dominating the Western World, there will be a darkness and long period of regression and suffering. Like a morsel that seems tempting to swallow, digesting same can lead to severe illness and pain.

  35. @Godfree Roberts

    Hello Mr. Godflee,

    I am Chinese and I answered yes to all those questions. I don’t want my social credit score to be reduced and lose my job, my family, and have my name on a public registry as a “non-conformist”.
    And also, I don’t want surveillance in my shower and have to ask to go see my mother in the next town. I am happy being an ant, of the hive, and soon our Golden Shower Country will be Borg. Resistance and Insistence will be futile. The Party knows best. I had to ask forgiveness for using too much toilet paper from several ministries.

  36. Erebus says:
    @Yee

    It would be a greater story than the Three Kingdoms.

    I think you’re right, but that story wouldn’t be complete without an explication of the serial betrayals perpetrated first by Western elites in giving China a running start with the ball, and then when the Chinese kept the ball and ran away with it.

    What they’ve done with that ball has to have been experienced to be believed, but the story isn’t wholly Chinese. Of course, the “Chinese world” was built in very large part by the hard work of both its citizens and the CCP, but the speed with which it was built depended in no small part on Western elites putting their ideological and pecuniary interests above that of their fellow citizens’ well-being.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI, Biff
  37. @Malla

    Oh please stop spreading your stupid leftist Commie propaganda. It was impossible to kill 10 million Congolese as there were no 10 million Congolese in King Leopold’s Congo to begin with. This 10 million figure comes from a leftist civil rights activist and commie Western media/academia has been pushing this b.s. on us.
    Also there were at most 200 Belgians in all of Congo. Yeah, 200 Belgians went chopping limbs and killed 10 million Congolese. What rubbish. Most of the atrocities were done by blacks on blacks and happened when White colonial officers were not around. In the presence of colonial officers this arm chopping stopped.
    Also Tipu Tipp was running a nice slave brutal network around that place. had the belgians not colonized Congo, killing, enslaving and arm chopping would have continued as usual.

    Why should I believe your sourceless nonsense and video instead of the well researched “King Leopold’s Ghost”?

    Indians have been dying in famines before the British came. Indeed the railways built by the Brits actually reduced the frequency of famines.

    The guilt of British imperialism in India’s famines is far more complicit than your lazy trivialization suggests. For example, 200 million pounds of rice was exported to Great Britain during the Orissa famine of 1866, during which 4-5 million Indians died. Another example, which is even worse than the Orissa famine of 1866, is the Bengal famine of 1943. Unlike other famines in India where drought was usually the main cause, this time British policies played a significant role and resulted in the death of 3 million Indians.

    Note that I was very lenient in assessing the crimes of British imperialism in India. Others are not so forgiving. For example: Britain is responsible for deaths of 35 million Indians, says acclaimed author Shashi Tharoor.

    Who told North Korea to invade South Korea then?

    North Korea was fighting a civil war with South Korea. The U.S., however, was a foreign invader. The rulings of Nuremberg trials dictate that the invading party bears the brunt of the guilt of war crimes.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  38. Yee says:

    Anyone who dare to go against the official narratives in the free world will face a tsunami of insults…

  39. Lot says:
    @Kenan Meyer

    Are you crazy? Mao was the kindest, most gentle human being in history. Those famines are all Jewish smears, just like the Holohoax. Pol Pot has also been unfairly maligned by nefarious Jews.

  40. Lot says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    “As any visitor to China can attest, there is no sign of corruption, wherever you go.”

    Well there’s no sign of anything because you can’t see more than 3 inches ahead of you in the most polluted cities in the world.

    • Agree: Poupon Marx
  41. Yee says:

    Erebus,

    “but the speed with which it was built depended in no small part on Western elites putting their ideological and pecuniary interests above that of their fellow citizens’ well-being.”

    Well, that only makes it a better story… History tells more spectacular stories than fiction ones…

    The story would have everything – a world staged background, hardships, strategy, military wars, spy, diplomacy, economy and economic war, mistakes, failures, stroke of lucks, success…

    • Replies: @Erebus
  42. @Poupon Marx

    “The Epoch Times” is a publication of the Falun Gong, one of the most rabid anti-China organizations in the world. I take their claims about China with a huge grain of salt.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  43. peterAUS says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Are you bribed or blackmailed, or both?

    “Remunerated” I’d say.

    Intelligent but stupid?

    Smart.

    It’s a good gig.
    His handlers feel he’s doing a good job. He knows he’s doing a bad one. For Western audience, that is.
    Two birds with one stone …..

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  44. Onebornfree says: • Website
    @Onebornfree

    Onebornfree said: “ [as he himself admitted]”

    I meant to say “as he , Hitler , admitted publicly].”

    onebornfree

    • Replies: @last straw
  45. Smith says:

    America hate chinese, YET:
    Chinese can’t stop coming to America! (and no one can stop them)
    American jobs can’t stop coming to China! (and no one can stop them)

    But if you whine about this, you are “Anglo-Zionist” stooge (the political correct version of Jew) who wants to ruin China’s “economy” (that is based upon exploiting the people on EVEN lower wages and rest than the american slaves).

    The elites in US and the elites in China are the same, once US falls, they will live in China, and no whiners on the internet can do anything about it (except actually standing up and fighting).

  46. AWM says:

    Communism’s death total will never reach that of malaria, but don’t expect it to stop trying.

  47. @peterAUS

    Terse, insightful. I’ve become accustomed to your economical and parsimonious style.

    Who is Globflee? I believe he is one and he is all:

    • Replies: @Ber
  48. @last straw

    Really, you don’t say. I thought they resented the sexual and physical torture and being harvested for their organs for profit. I know I would; how about you?

    They are a Buddhist sect, peaceful, and just want to free to associate and worship-from what I have read and heard. Am I missing something?

    And are they “anti-China” or anti-oppression, control, and subjugation? They look very scary.

    http://en.falundafa.org

    Step up, son.

    • Replies: @last straw
  49. @Lot

    It’s a benefit for those with light pigmentation, as most of the sun is blocked out. Visibility is so bad that you can’t see your face in front of you.

  50. @Onebornfree

    You don’t even know that National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism and communism? It’s an extreme form of capitalism – fascism. Fascism is anti-communism.

    • Replies: @Malla
  51. @last straw

    You are on automatic. King Leopold was stronger and had more means to subjugate and exploit. He did nothing that the local strong man would not do. The difference was the local booga boogie had spears and King had ordnance. Do not doubt that the local Bleeks would have loved to ramp up the scale.

    The same with the SJ Moron narratives of the Bad White Man. He did to the Indians what enemies of tribes always wanted to do. Only difference is scale.

    Let me add to your edification. The real “blame” or cause is the Human Heart-or lack of it. Everybody in history, practically, has practiced slavery, genocide, blood for gold or land. Some are more successful due to resources and armament.

    You need to shift to a more independent cognitive process instead of being led around by your nose, by this book or that book. Get out more and see the World-as it is. Wake up.

    • Replies: @last straw
  52. Erebus says:
    @Yee

    Well, that only makes it a better story… (it) would have everything…

    Indeed it would, and would be much more illuminating.

  53. @Poupon Marx

    So a creepy cult with a nutcase leader who blatantly make up all kinds of anti-China stories, and willingly turned itself into an anti-China tool for the U.S. state department, is your anti-oppression, control, and subjugation shining beacon on the hill?

  54. @Poupon Marx

    Right, I’m sure Jews had killed each other before WW2. So Nazi Germany was not responsible for the Holocaust. The Jews had only themselves to blame.

    • Replies: @MAOWASAYALI
  55. lloyd says: • Website
    @Lot

    I lived ten years in China and never noticed this pollution. Perhaps an event today may throw light. My Chinese wife was commenting in an admiring way at the English environment of our neighbourhood. We then walked to our apartment. I said truthfully to her, “Now we are in a Chinese slum”. Our apartment is in a building mostly inhabited by Chinese. The difference of dirt and griminess is impossible to avoid. Fortunately, she took it in good spirit. Like the blacks, the Chinese see the Western environment to be aspired to, but their own habits bring down the environment to their own level. That is why most want to emigrate to the West. The super rich Chinese employ white staff to preserve their environment.

  56. Biff says:
    @onebornfree

    You’re type two

    TYPE TWO: the paid trolls. These are the folks whose task it is to obfuscate the real issues, to bury them under tons of vapid ideological nonsense; the best way to do that is to misdirect any discussion away from the original topic and sidetrack it into either a barrage of ad hominems or ideological clichés.

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/bibi-in-banderastan-or-the-importance-of-words/

  57. @Escher

    See my answer to your first question ,below at #24.

    I answered your second allegation in my article, above, “Members don’t benefit financially from participation…” Read it.

  58. @Malla

    Sir John Pratt, KBE, CMG, is an authority on China. He held appointments in the Foreign Service at many places in China and was for 13 years Adviser on Far Eastern Affairs in the Foreign Office. He was for two years head of the Far Eastern Section of the Ministry of Information. He was, for 20 years, the Foreign Secretaries’ representative on the Universities China Committee. He is now Vice-Chairman of the Board of Governors of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

    The Britain-China Friendship Association is a non-party-political and non-sectarian organisation whose objects are to foster peace and friendship between the peoples of Britain and China, and to encourage the development of British-China trade.

    In pursuance of these objects the Association is publishing this pamphlet by Sir John Pratt because it believes that it is a sincere and courageous attempt to put before the people of Britain certain facts about the origin of the Korean war which should be widely known.

    The opinions expressed in the pamphlet are those of its author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Association.

    The Association believes that this exposure of the truth will come as a shock to many people and will bring home sharply a realisation that the Chinese People’s Government, subjected to extremes of indignity and provocation, has acted wisely and temperately and has thereby greatly assisted the cause of British-Chinese friendship.

    The leaflet ‘Rearmament and the Far East’ explains very briefly how the Korean War broke out. There is overwhelming evidence that Syngman Rhee and his American supporters started the civil war on 25 June 1950, and it was in order to prevent this evidence being produced and sifted that the United States Government insisted that a Security Council resolution condemning the North Koreans should be adopted the same day. The war was not manufactured, as some people make out, to safeguard British and American interests. That is the sort of stupid charge that often spoils a good case. The war had its origin in the hysterical fear that the mere word Communism produces in America and in the crime rackets and witch-hunts which are a normal feature of American political life and which are now employed to achieve American aims in world affairs.

    The State Department’s White Paper on US Relations with China — a volume of 1020 pages published in August 1949 — was a public confession of the failure of the policy of backing Chiang Kai-shek as a barrier against the spread of Communism in Asia. Since 1945 the US Government had given Chiang Kai-shek 2000 million dollars, the whole of which had gone into the pockets of his Kuomintang officials, as well as 1000 million dollars’ worth of military supplies, the whole of which his generals had sold to the Communists. During 1949 the Kuomintang Administration
    disintegrated and Chiang Kai-shek fled to Formosa.

    A few months later the party led by Mao Tze Tung gained control of the whole country and, on 1 October 1949, established the People’s Republic of China, with the capital at Peking. In January 1950, Truman and Dean Acheson announced the new policy they had decided to adopt: neither Formosa nor Korea would be included in the ‘American perimeter of defence’; Formosa had been restored to China in 1945 in accordance with the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and the terms of the Japanese surrender; it has become once more a province of China and the US would not intervene in the civil war between the Nationalists in Formosa and the Communists in China.
    This policy was denounced by the Republicans as appeasement of Communism, and in a few weeks Senator McCarthy began making speeches in which he declared that the State Department was full of Communists who were selling out their country. The White Paper showed that the Kuomintang administration had fallen to incredible depths of corruption and incompetence and had reduced the people of China to unprecedented depths of misery and despair, but, according to McCarthy, the collapse of Chiang Kai-shek was due, not to his own defects, but to the treachery of the Communists in the State Department.

    A Sub-Committee of the Senate, which spent five months enquiring into these charges, declared that they:… represent perhaps the most nefarious campaign of half-truths and untruth in the history of this Republic… For the first time in our history we have seen the totalitarian technique of the big lie employed on a sustained basis… We have seen the character of our government employees destroyed by public condemnation on the basis of gossip, distortion, hearsay and deliberate untruths. This has been done without the slightest vestige of respect for even the most elementary rules of evidence or fair-play or, indeed, common decency. We have seen an effort to inflame the American people with a wave of hysteria and fear on an unbelievable scale.
    The free world looked on aghast at the hysteria and unreason of the McCarthy witch-hunt, but the American people believed McCarthy and the leaders of the Republican Party rallied to his support. General Marshall was responsible both for the State Department and its Chinese policy and, as the Economist pointed out, ‘he could, with his immense national prestige, have scattered the State Department traducers with a few words’, but General Marshall remained silent and Truman soon realised that unless he capitulated to McCarthy he would lose votes in the Presidential election. ‘The moral and intellectual squalor of this period’, said the New Yorker, ‘has not been equalled in living memory.’ In April 1950, Foster Dulles, a Republican, was appointed ‘Top Consultant’ in the State Department and Truman gave an assurance that he would be consulted both in the formulation and the execution of foreign policy. Since then Truman has, step by step, carried out the Republican policy in the Far East.
    In the latter half of June 1950, Foster Dulles and the two defence chiefs went by air to Tokyo to hold a conference with MacArthur. The decisions reached were published in some detail in the press in America; MacArthur insisted, and the others agreed, that America should have bases in Japan, Formosa and Korea from which she could dominate both China and Russia; in order to secure these bases it would be necessary to:
    1. Exclude China and Russia from the negotiations for a peace treaty with Japan. This was a violation of the agreement made in 1942 not to make a separate peace with any of the enemy countries.
    2. Cordon off Formosa and supply military aid to Chiang Kai-shek, who had fled from China in 1949. This was a violation of the Cairo and Potsdam agreements and armed aggression on what was admittedly a Chinese province.
    3. Supply military aid to Syngman Rhee in South Korea against the Communists in North Korea.
    These decisions involved a complete reversal of the policy announced in January and immediate action was necessary because:
    a. A plan for unifying Korea by conference and negotiation had been launched by the North Koreans and was having such success that Syngman Rhee’s government in South Korea was on the verge of internal collapse.
    b. The Peking Government intended to drive Chiang Kai-shek out of Formosa in about three weeks’ time.

    The Tokyo scheme might be wrecked if there were even a few days’ delay in obtaining the approval of the US Government. The difficulty was that, only six months earlier, both Truman and Acheson had been very emphatic that the status of Formosa had been finally settled in 1945. It was Chinese territory and the traditional American policy called for international respect for the territorial integrity of China. Acheson, in particular, had insisted that the US would not allow the 1945 decision to be upset by any lawyer’s quibble about waiting for a peace treaty. It was essential, he said, to maintain in the world the belief that the Americans were decent and honourable people who, when they took a position, stuck to it and did not change by reason of transitory advantage. It is not surprising, therefore, that on 23 June Dean Acheson told a press conference in Washington that the discussions in Tokyo had not altered US policy as stated by President Truman in January.

    The only way out of this difficulty was to present Truman and Acheson with a fait accompli. At dawn on Sunday, 25 June, Syngman Rhee launched a sudden attack which took the North Koreans by surprise. His forces crossed the 38th parallel at several places and captured Haeju, some miles to the north on the road to Pyongyang. The North Koreans staged a counter-offensive and the South Koreans threw down their arms and fled. The North Koreans then drove on across the parallel and staged a full-scale invasion of South Korea.

    For nearly a year both North and South Koreans had been expecting civil war to break out, and each side was confident of victory. The American Military Advisory Group, who had created the South Korean army, were convinced that one South Korean division could defeat three North Korean divisions and Syngman Rhee had often boasted that, if they were allowed to start, his forces could capture Pyongyang, the Northern capital, in three days. These were ludicrous miscalculations. Ten months later (6 May 1951) General MacArthur told a Committee of the Senate what had happened:

    The South Koreans were no match for them at all; and the disposition by the South Koreans of their logistic potential was extraordinarily poor. They had put their supplies and equipment close to the 38th parallel. They hadn’t developed any positions in depth. Everything between the 38th parallel and Seoul was their area of depot. When they lost that immediate line they lost their supplies. They were not able apparently to destroy them en masse; so that at one initial stroke this North Korean army had a new supply base in the area between the 38th parallel and Seoul, which enabled them to press south with the full strength of their base being immediately behind them. They no longer had to rely on the long distance from the Yalu to get their supplies down.
    General MacArthur’s evidence contradicts at all material points the report of the United Nations’ military observers, which is the one document always cited as proof that the South Korean forces ‘were taken completely by surprise’ (see Appendix II).

    It was not an international war but a civil war, with which the United Nations would not normally be concerned. The United States Government decided, however, to treat it as an international war and to secure the condemnation of the North Koreans before any evidence could be produced and before the Soviet delegate could resume his place on the Security Council. Ambassador Muccio’s report reached the State Department at 9.26pm on 24 June, eastern daylight time (11.26am, 25 June, Korean time), and at midnight EDT, namely, 2.00pm, 25 June, Korean time (see Appendix II (e)) the Secretary-General telegraphed to the United Nations Commission in Seoul asking for a report. Some hours later the Commission sent a telegram in reply (S/1496) stating that Syngman Rhee had not planned to appeal to the Security Council, but had no objection to their being informed of this ‘latest turn of events’. The telegram threw no light on the origin of the fighting but merely stated that each side accused the other. At the urgent request of the US Government the Security Council met at Lake Success at 2.00pm EDT the same day. The US delegate said that the facts were set out in the Commission’s telegram (S/1496) and that his government considered that ‘this wholly illegal and unprovoked attack by the North Korean forces constitutes a breach of the peace and an act of aggression’. The Yugoslav delegate protested that the evidence before them did not enable the Council to decide which was the guilty party, but he received no support. The American resolution was adopted and the North Koreans were condemned unheard.
    This monstrous act of injustice was rendered possible by the subservient attitude of the British delegate and the absence from the Security Council of both China and Russia. On 13 January 1950, the Security Council decided that the delegate from Formosa should be accepted as the representative of China. The British delegate abstained from voting but the Russian delegate protested against China’s exclusion from the United Nations and refused to attend any further meetings of the Security Council. He maintained that valid decisions could not be taken so long as China was prevented from occupying the permanent seat on the Security Council to which she was entitled. If other countries, and especially Great Britain, had had the moral courage to adopt the same policy there would have been no Korean War but, in the event, it merely meant that in the absence of a Russian delegate, on 25 June the United States was able to secure the condemnation of the North Koreans. Mr Malik resumed his seat on 1 August, but by then the United Nations had been drawn into the Korean War.

    On 27 June, before the next meeting of the Security Council, President Truman announced that he had sent the Seventh Fleet to cordon off Formosa, alleging as his pretext that the Korean War was proof that ‘Communism had begun to use armed invasion and war to conquer independent countries’. A year later, on 5 July 1951, the Chicago Tribune published an editorial under the heading ‘Truman’s Fear: Not the Reds but Depression’. The contention of the article was that the burden of armaments had been imposed on the world, not from genuine fear of Communist aggression, but in order to relieve the American economy of its nightmare dread of depression: ‘No reports from any quarter prove that Russia has any intention, within the foreseeable future, of embarking on a general war.’

    On 28 June, Chou En-lai, the Foreign Minister of the Peking Government, declared that the US had instigated Syngman Rhee to attack the North Koreans in order to create a pretext for sending the Seventh Fleet to Formosa, an act which he denounced as armed aggression against Chinese territory. On 29 June, Dean Acheson made an attempt to answer this accusation. In a speech to the annual convention of the American Newspapers Guild in Washington, he declared that the Security Council’s resolution of 25 June, condemning the North Koreans, had been adopted within 20 hours ‘after hearing the report of the UN Commission labelling the Communist action an unprovoked act of aggression’. This calculated lie has formed the basis of all subsequent accounts of the origin of the Korean War.

    After the condemnation of the North Koreans attempts were made to find evidence and arguments to support the American case. We were asked to believe:
    1. That Soviet Russia had launched her puppet, North Korea, against the South Koreans at the moment when there was no Russian delegate on the Security Council;
    2. That the North Koreans started a civil war at the moment when their own unification-by-conference plan was on the point of succeeding;
    3. That this plan was intended solely for its screening effect; and
    4. That it was a mere coincidence that the civil war happened to break out at the very moment when MacArthur was urgently in need of a pretext for cordoning off Formosa.

    A year later, when Acheson was asked to explain how it was that 51 Chinese Nationalists, residing in America, had made a profit of 30 million dollars by cornering the market in soya beans just before the Korean War broke out, he replied that this had created a serious situation, but that it was a matter that concerned the Department of Agriculture. We were also told that the report of the United Nations’ military observers proved that it must have been the North Koreans who began the war, but, no doubt through inadvertence, this myth has been exploded by General MacArthur’s evidence quoted above. In any case all that the report of the military observers proved was that neither side seemed to be expecting an immediate outbreak of hostilities. Paragraph 8 of the report, which showed that the North Koreans were not preparing to attack, was omitted from the version published in the British White Paper laid before Parliament (Cmnd 8078). The White Paper also suppressed the United Nations’ telegram from Seoul of 25 June (S/1496) which would have shown that the North Koreans were condemned unheard on a charge for which no evidence has ever been produced.

    Attempts were also made to allay the anxiety aroused both in England and America by the prospect of being involved in war in Korea. We were assured that what the United Nations were being asked to undertake was a defensive police action in order to restore the position as it was before 25 June, and that there would be no crossing of the 38th parallel. If that promise had been kept, it would have made it difficult for the United States to include Korea within the American perimeter of defence. Korea could not be used as a base from which to bomb and menace China and Russia until the Syngman Rhee Government had been established in control of North Korea.

    General MacArthur was appointed Supreme Commander of the United Nations’ Forces and on 15 July President Rhee assigned to him command authority over all South Korean land, sea and air forces. On 1 October the South Korean forces were sent across the 38th parallel and on 9 October they were followed by the rest of the forces under General MacArthur’s command. On 13 October, General MacArthur had a conference with President Truman, who flew to Wake Island for the purpose. With the elections three weeks off he was anxious, we were told, to pluck ‘at least a branch of the laurels of the Korean victory’. In the minutes of the conference which were made public five months later, it is recorded that General MacArthur expressed concern at the opposition in the United Nations to President Rhee, to which President Truman replied: ‘We must make it plain that we are supporting the Rhee Government and propaganda can go to hell.’

    The public have been told that General MacArthur was authorised to cross the 38th parallel by the General Assembly Resolution of 7 October 1950. That is quite untrue. Pandit Nehru warned the Assembly that: ‘Faith in the United Nations might be impaired if the United Nations were even to appear to authorise unification of Korea by the use of force against North Korea after the organisation had resisted the attempt of North Korea to unify the country by force against South Korea.’ But by 7 October the 38th parallel had already been crossed and the South Korean army, under General MacArthur’s supreme command, was advancing on a broad front to the port of Wonsan, 100 miles to the north. Faced with a fait accompli, the General Assembly passed a resolution which declared that United Nations’ forces should not ‘remain in any part of Korea’ longer than necessary. It ‘obliquely recognised’, but it did not authorise, the use of force against North Korea.

    The account given in the British White Paper (Cmnd 8078) has led the public to believe that two separate armies were operating in Korea and that the army under General MacArthur’s command began its advance across the 38th parallel after the General Assembly had passed the resolution of 7 October. No mention is made of the fact that Syngman Rhee placed all the South Korean forces under General MacArthur’s command and that General MacArthur, in accepting this arrangement, wrote: ‘It cannot fail to increase the coordinated power of the United Nations’ forces operating in Korea.’ We allowed ourselves to be tricked into participating in General MacArthur’s invasion of North Korea and we share the responsibility for the miseries the invasion inflicted on the people of Korea. According to a recent United Nations’ report, out of a total population in North Korea of nine millions, one million have been slaughtered and some four millions have fled from their homes southward to escape the obliteration bombing. The Manchester Guardian’s comment was that this shows what a popular government they had in North Korea.

    The MacArthur policy called for military aid to Chiang Kai-shek as well as to Syngman Rhee. In August, MacArthur paid a visit to Formosa and made it known to all the world that his aim was to restore Chiang Kai-shek to power in China. On 30 September, when the United Nations’ forces were standing on the 38th parallel, Chou En-lai gave warning that the Peking Government could not stand idly by if they invaded North Korea. This was regarded as bluff. North Korea was invaded and then, ignoring British protests, MacArthur made a headlong rush to the Yalu River. Before long he ran into stiff opposition and was forced to make another headlong rush, this time back to the 38th parallel, and it was not until about the first week in January 1951 that the tide turned again in favour of the forces under his command.

    We are still being asked to believe that China’s intervention in North Korea was an act of aggression. WV Purcell, Lecturer in Far Eastern History in Cambridge University, writes as follows:
    The press, generally speaking, asks its readers to see in Korea the unmistakable signs of Soviet aggression. China (they say), at the instigation of Russia, has unwarrantably intervened in Korea to undo the police work of the United Nations. No one who has studied the situation can believe that there is a vestige of evidence for this charge. The fact is that China has reacted in the face of MacArthur’s provocation in an extremely logical and expected way… Chinese intervention came only after a disregarded warning and an exhibition of forbearance. Thus Korea ceased to be a local issue once for all and the United Nations, and the United States in particular, became, to Asia at least, the aggressor. It is hard to believe that MacArthur did not, and does not now, seek a world war.

    On 10 January 1951, a memorandum demanding that China be branded an aggressor was circulated by the State Department to 22 nations. The discussions at Lake Success during the next three weeks make painful reading. Walter Lippmann expressed the hope that the United States was capable of something better than ‘the futile rages of a frustrated child’, and even the Economist complained that ‘American policy seems now to have taken the shape of issuing peremptory instructions to the United Nations by Congressional resolution and then flying into a temper when they are not immediately obeyed’. It seemed that America was deliberately seeking an extension of hostilities. Nevertheless on 1 February 1951, the resolution branding China an aggressor was adopted by the General Assembly.

    This shameful resolution presented Stalin with a case which neither Truman nor Attlee made any attempt to answer. In February 1951, Stalin declared that ‘the United Nations, created as a bulwark for preserving peace, is being turned into an instrument of war’. It was the representatives, he said, of the 10 member countries of the North Atlantic Pact and the 20 Latin American countries ‘who carried the shameful decision on the aggression of the Chinese People’s Republic’, but it is difficult to convince the soldiers sent to fight in Korea ‘that the United States is entitled to defend its security on the territory of Korea and at the frontiers of China, whereas China and Korea have no right to defend their security on their own territory or at the frontiers of China’.

    Up to the end of the eighteenth century China was a great and well-ordered Empire to whom the people of Asia looked up as the fountainhead of civilisation. There followed a century of decay, but during the last 30 years there has been a crisis of rejuvenation, culminating two years ago in the recovery by China of her former proud position with prestige enhanced by an officialdom that is completely incorruptible and an army under perfect discipline. All this is familiar to those who deal with Far Eastern affairs, but any American who states these facts is in danger of being labelled Communist and being made the victim of a witch-hunt.

    General Marshall finds it prudent to declare that ‘China has been virtually conquered by Russia’ and, from President Truman downward, no one dares deny that Mao is a puppet of Stalin and China a tool of Soviet aggression. There is something rather ludicrous in the claim these men make that their country is the leader of the free world. They should bear in mind the words of Euripides: ‘This is true Liberty, when freeborn men, having to advise the public, may speak free: Which he who can and will deserves high praise: Who neither can nor will may hold his peace. What can be juster in a state than this?’

    The new China, unlike the China of Chiang Kai-shek, will not submit to being menaced from places like Formosa and Korea and, rather than submit, will go on fighting till the end of time. This is not yet understood in America. Nor have Americans abandoned their faith in the ignoble slogan, ‘all aid short of war’. It was an unpleasant shock when American soldiers, as well as arms and money, had to be sent to aid Syngman Rhee in his civil war against the North Koreans. It may be some years, therefore, before it is realised that, so long as the United States maintain their present attitude towards the Communist world, so long will they have to send American soldiers to fight in Asia. When this has seeped into the minds of the American people, then, and not till then, will it be possible to re-establish a civilised world order founded on the principles the comity of nations.

    Appendix I

    New York Times, 1 August 1950: ‘The Senate voted $2,450,000,000 to carry forward the Marshall Plan for the economic reconstruction of Western Europe… It warned the 16 beneficiary nations that those refusing to help the United States fight the United Nations’ battle in Korea might lose all Marshall aid.’
    House of Lords, 21 November 1951: The Marquess of Reading: ‘Those who profess to doubt whether UNO has any reality need surely look no further than Korea, where forces from 16 different nations are ranged under a United Nations’ commander to defeat just the kind of aggression that the United Nations Organisation was created to resist.’
    House of Lords, 21 November 1951: Viscount Samuel: ‘The sections of the United Nations’ Charter that arrange for contingents to be furnished when military action is necessary were of great value in the case of Korea, and swift and effective action was in fact taken under the magnificent leadership of the United States.’
    Washington Post, 11 November 1951: ‘There has been heavy public pressure to use atomic weapons in Korea and Congressional agitation to this end, growing in recent weeks, will probably increase… For the notion of annihilating the Red Chinese and North Korean enemy with an atomic inferno is an appealing one.’

    Appendix II

    After this pamphlet had been sent to the printer further information, summarised below, was received by airmail from New York. It leaves no reasonable doubt that Syngman Rhee began the civil war with a sudden attack on North Korea. It seems probable that the truth cannot be suppressed much longer, even in America.
    A: MacArthur’s HQ in Tokyo, which maintained a ‘reportial unit’ in Korea, relayed a report to Washington in March 1950 that South Korea would be invaded by June, but this report was dismissed in two subsequent telegrams of 10 March and 25 March, stating that there would be ‘no civil war in Korea this spring or summer… The most probable course of North Korean action is furtherance of the attempts to overthrow the South Korean Government by the creation of chaotic conditions through guerrilla activities and psychological warfare.’
    B: Assistant Secretary of State John D Hickerson stated to the Senate Appropriations Committee that ‘the attack came without warning’, but admitted under cross-examination that the State Department had ‘done some thinking about it… We planned to take it to the UN for immediate action… We had a skeleton of a resolution, but only in very rough form.’
    C: New York Times, 31 July 1950: On 30 July an Intelligence Staff Officer on General MacArthur’s HQ at Tokyo said that ‘the North Korean army had not carried out its full mobilisation plan at the time the war began on 25 June… that only six full divisions had been ready for combat when the invasion started, although the North Korean War plan called for 13 to 15.’ (He offered no theory to explain why North Korea should launch an invasion before it was fully ready.)
    D: In the December issue of the Cosmopolitan, General Willoughby, General MacArthur’s Chief of Intelligence, writes of the attack as an ‘alleged surprise’ and says: ‘The entire South Korean army had been alerted for weeks and was in position along the 38th parallel.’
    E: John Gunther was in Tokyo in June 1950, gathering material for his book about MacArthur. On 25 June he was lunching with two important members of the occupation ‘when one was called to the phone and came back and whispered, “A big story has just broken. The South Koreans have attacked North Korea.”’

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  59. Smith says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Wow, China sounds like a paradise.

    Now if only every chinese abroad can be sent back to that paradise so that we are left the heck alone.

  60. Ber says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Don’t just knock Godfree Roberts. Looks like others are also speaking the same language as Godfree.
    Watch this video…. Fair and balanced.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  61. Malla says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Very interesting Mr. Roberts. Maybe the South was responsible for the invasion.

    But then we have this

    https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/366/578

    Release of Soviet documents during recent years has removed any doubt that North Korea planned and initiated the Korean War with the reluctant endorsement of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. North Korea’s leader Kim Il Sung had begun to press the Soviet Union to support an invasion shortly after creation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in September 1948. But Stalin withheld approval until April 1950 mainly because he feared that the United States would intervene militarily, thereby risking escalation into a major war involving the Soviet Union.”

    “Since 1994, the release of additional Soviet documents has added more information to the record of events leading to North Korea’s launching of its invasion of South Korea on 25 June 1950. A more accurate assessment of the impact of Acheson’s Press Club speech on Stalin’s decision to authorize Kim Il Sung to initiate the war is now possible. Relying on as yet unreleased documents, Soviet scholar Evgueni Bajanov emphasizes that a desire to avoid war with the United States dominated Stalin’s thinking about Korea:

    Until the end of 1949 Stalin did not plan any aggression against South Korea. Instead he was worried about an attack from the South, and did everything to avoid provoking Washington and Seoul. In 1947-1948 Soviet leaders still believed in the possibility of a unification of Korea, ….39 [emphasis added]
    However, Kim Il Sung, within months after the creation of the DPRK, had begun to press Stalin for approval of an attack on South Korea. Preparatory to an invasion, Kim Il Sung proposed in January 1949 signing a Soviet-North Korean Treaty of Friendship and Alliance. Stalin rejected the idea, arguing that it would receive world condemnation for perpetuating Korea’s division. But he no doubt also was refusing an obligation to defend the DPRK if Kim initiated a war and the United States intervened. When Soviet Ambassador in Pyongyang, Terentii F. Shtykov, informed Kim Il Sung and Foreign Minister Pak Hon-yong that “to conclude a friendship treaty is not timely,” the two “embarrassed” North Korean leaders suggested a “secret treaty” for Soviet military assistance as an alternative.40

    Shtykov played a key role in causing Stalin to be cautious and skeptical in how he reacted to Kim Il Sung’s lobbying for an invasion. Starting early in 1949, he began reporting a growing number of military clashes at the 38th parallel, complaining bitterly that North Korea “did not have enough trained personnel, adequate weapons and sufficient numbers of bullets to rebuff intensifying incursions from the South.” When Kim Il Sung headed a delegation that visited Moscow to secure expanded economic assistance, Stalin made it clear that he would not sanction the DPRK provoking a war in Korea. In their meeting on 5 March, Stalin agreed to provide North Korea with Soviet technical trainers and between $40 and 50 million in credit to buy imports, as well as promising cultural exchanges. But he then issued a blunt warning to Kim Il Sung: “The 38th parallel must be peaceful. It is very important.”41 Nevertheless, Kim pressed for an invasion, telling Stalin that military means would be necessary to liberate all of Korea because “reactionary forces of the South will never agree on a peaceful reunification and will perpetuate the division of the country until they feel themselves strong enough to attack the North.” It was the right time to attack because the Korean People’s Army (KPA) was stronger than South Korea’s army, guerrilla forces would support the invasion, and the southern people hated the Rhee regime.42″

    So who knows which side was really responsible.
    Maybe the best option would have been a UN observed plebiscite in all Korea for the people of Korea to decide if they wanted North Korean system or the South Korean one. That way the Korean peninsula could have been united according to the people’s wish.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  62. Malla says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    The release of Soviet documents give a different picture, the North was preparing itself for an invasion anyways.

    http://web.sungshin.ac.kr/~youngho/data/security/SovietDocuments-2(1995-6).doc

    At Stalin’s insistence, after secretly receiving the Soviet leader’s conditional green light for an attack against South Korea during a secret summit in Moscow in April (for which records still, alas, remain unavailable), Kim Il Sung traveled to Beijing in May 1950 in order to secure Mao Zedong’s approval for the planned offensive. Documents #11 and #13 show that in his discussions with Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong was considerably less worried about the possibility of military conflict with the United States than was the Soviet leadership, arguing that “the Americans will not enter a third world war for such a small territory.” It also appears that in May 1950 Kim Il Sung, perhaps to counter the oppressive Soviet influence in North Korea, took a tentative step toward the strategy he later used so extensively of playing China and the Soviet Union against one another. He reported to Soviet Ambassador Shtykov that he had at first intended to ask Mao for ammunition for the Korean troops that had recently been transferred from China to North Korea (whose weapons were of Japanese and American manufacture rather than Soviet) but he decided not to raise the issue after all, since he was informed that the KPA had sufficient ammunition. Furthermore, he had no other requests to make of Mao “since all his requests were satisfied in Moscow and the necessary and sufficient assistance was given him there.”
    Shtykov’s telegram to Vyshinsky on May 12 (document #13), reveals that before departing Pyongyang the following day for Beijing, Kim Il Sung reported to Shtykov that he had ordered the chief of the general staff to prepare his forces for the military operation against the South and that he wished to begin the operation in June, though he did not know if they would be ready by then. Unfortunately, the documents from the Presidential Archive in Moscow are quite sparse for the crucial period of April-June 1950 and prospects for gaining access to those records in the near future are not encouraging.5 Many important questions about how the North Korean offensive was planned thus remain obscure. However, a British Broadcasting Corporation documentary team that conducted research on the Korean War in Russia in 1994 has discovered a revealing report on the preparations for the attack and the first day of the operation. Written by Shtykov and addressed to the head of the special Soviet military mission sent to North Korea to oversee the operation, this report (document #14) reveals that troop concentration was carried out from June 12 to June 23, as prescribed in the General Staff’s plan, and that Soviet advisers participated in reconnaissance and in planning the operation at the divisional level. However, Soviet advisers were apparently withdrawn from the front line before the attack began, with negative consequences for the efficiency of the operation. This accords with Khrushchev’s recollection that Stalin pulled back Soviet advisers from the front at the last minute, out of fear that they might be taken prisoner and thus expose Soviet participation in the operation.6
    Consistent with his withdrawal of Soviet advisers from the front, Stalin’s queries to Shtykov on July 1 (document #15) indicate that he was agitated and nervous about the situation in Korea following the American entry into the war. Shtykov’s reply (document #16) cautiously raises the question that was at the root of the Soviet leader’s anxiety, namely the possibility that a disaster in Korea might draw Soviet troops into combat against American armed forces. Shtykov reports that Kim Il Sung and North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Hon Yong “understand the difficulties for Korea elicited by the entrance of the Americans into the war” and “are taking the necessary measures to stabilize human and material resources,” though some in the DPRK leadership were inquiring about possible Soviet entry into the war.
    We see that as early as the first week of July, Stalin began the strategy toward the war in Korea that he was to continue for the remainder of the conflict. In order to avoid committing Soviet troops to fight the Americans in Korea, he encouraged the Chinese leadership to take steps toward entering the war should the tide of battle turn against the DPRK. Chen Jian revealed in his recent book7 that theChinese leadership decided on July 7 and 10 to send troops to the Korean border to prepare for possible intervention in Korea; discussion about sending troops to Korea thus began well before the UN advance into North Korea in early October. Stalin’s telegram to the Soviet ambassador in Beijing on July 5 (document #18) reveals that in advance of those mid-July meetings, the Beijing leadership consulted with Stalin about the proposed troop transfer. Stalin informed PRC Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai on July 5 that he approved of the plan and also promised to try to provide air cover for the Chinese troops.

    So we already see that in June-July 1950, there was a lot of preparation of the DPRK, USSR and PRC for a possible full fledged invasion of South Korea irrespective of border clashes in between both the Koreas and MacArthur’s crossing of the 38th parallel.

    • Replies: @Half-Jap
  63. Malla says:
    @last straw

    You don’t even know that National Socialism has nothing to do with socialism and communism? It’s an extreme form of capitalism – fascism. Fascism is anti-communism.

    National Socialism is remarkably different from Fascism. And it was a type of Socialism but different from Marxist Socialism or Communism.
    It is Communism which is an advanced form of Capitalism. According to Marx, Capitalism would inevitably lead to Communism.
    Karl Marx has no monopoly over Socialism

    Otto Weininger, who was himself Jewish wrote:
    “It is notable that the Jews, even now when at least a relative security of tenure is possible, prefer moveable property, and, in spite of their acquisitiveness, have little real sense of personal property, especially in its most characteristic form, landed property. Property is indissolubly connected with the self, with individuality. It is in harmony with the foregoing that the Jew is so readily disposed to communism. Communism must be distinguished clearly from socialism, the former being based on a community of goods, an absence of individual property, the latter meaning, in the first place a co-operation of individual with individual, of worker with worker, and a recognition of human individuality in every one. Socialism is Aryan (Owen, Carlyle, Ruskin, Fichte). Communism is Jewish (Marx). Modern social democracy has moved far apart from the earlier socialism, precisely because Jews have taken so large a share in developing it. In spite of the associative element in it, the Marxian doctrine does not lead in any way towards the State as a union of all the separate individual aims, as the higher unit combining the purposes of the lower units. Such a conception is as foreign to the Jew as it is to the woman.”

    Adolf Hitler in his own words

    “Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.”

    “Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

    “We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” – Adolf Hitler, interviewing with George Sylvester Viereck

  64. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Unlike other famines in India where drought was usually the main cause, this time British policies played a significant role and resulted in the death of 3 million Indians.

    Not at all.

    India recorded 200 famines in the 2,000 years up to the British arriving that’s about 1 every 20 years and only 2 in the 200 years under British rule and one of those was during WW2 when the British Empire was fighting a war against the Japanese Empire, Italy and the Third Reich.

    In 1943, agriculture and famine relief was under the provenance of the Indians themselves during the 1943 famine? (Government of India act 1935). The Indian provincial legislators refused to export their surplus grain to Bengal? Some Indian Provinces even blocked transit shipments of grain, from other areas of India, from reaching the Bengalis??? Local corruption and the hoarding of grain (to force the price up) was commonplace or that the Raj , in the end, had to force the Indian provincial Governments, to release surplus grain – for the victims of the famine? (Famine inquiry rapport 1945

    The Provincial Governments was the establishment of Independent Indian assemblies in all the provinces. The British Raj only maintained control of Defence, Communication and foreign policy at that time. Agriculture and famine relief was the responsibility of these Indian legislators (Government of India act 1935)

    It was also during a time when India’s main political parties were trying to boost their status in preparation for independence. In Bengal, the Muslim League managed to replace the Krishak Praja government early in the crisis, only for its strategy of encouraging food imports from neighbouring provinces which had not been affected by the cyclone which had decimated food stocks in the Ganges delta to fail, possibly because they were INC (Congress) strongholds (to complicate matters further the INC was refusing to co-operate with the British Indian Govt, exercising influence but not formally governing in provinces where it had won elections).

    The fact is; the British Indian Central government in New Delhi in the end had to force the Provincial governments (run by Indian politicians and civil servants) to release surplus stock. In doing so they undermined the credibility of the Government of India act (which had given suzerainty over regional affairs to Indians) which only furthered the demand for full Independence . It wasn´t ( according to Amartya Sen) that food was in short supply – only the will to help. By the time that supplies actually started reaching the Bengali´s more of them were dying of disease than of actual hunger. Yes Great Britain took out loans from British India (which they paid back) to pay the war effort. All the weapons uniforms and supplies etc, for the Indian Army were paid for by the British tax payer not Indians even though most of these troops were defending India against the Japanese Empire – and the grain that was consumed in Britain during the war came from Canada and the U.S. Obviously – as these markets were much closer, their stocks were in abundance and most importantly – could be protected by the Atlantic convoy system. Travelling half way round the world to get grain from India and in doing so having to remove Naval assets vital to the war effort in the Atlantic as well as expose ships to German and Japanese U-boat attacks would have made no sense what so ever. Fact is the Famine had nothing to do with the British, it was caused by a heavy monsoon, a bight on the Rice and the Japanese conquest of Burma which was at war with the British Empire, which was a major importer of food to India. As for Churchill, he sent 350,000 tons of grain to India at a time when every ship was needed for the war effect. He also begged the Americans in a letter for more ships but was refused by Roosevelt who said that every ship was needed for the war.

    In short, British India and thus Bengal was at war (WW2) being a part of the British Empire at that time, Burma which was a supplier of rice in case of famines earlier and was part of British Empire too was now a part of the Japanese Empire which was at active war with the British Empire at that time (there was armed confrontation in the Burma Bengal border regions like Manipur between the forces of both the Empires), Churchill’s harsh reaction was rebuked by the Viceroy of British India, Governor General etc… who were all Brits, they used their own quota on ships to get as much food as possible into Bengal, The British Indian government had passed a law (Government of India act 1935) which gave more powers to the Indian provinces ten years earlier in nearly all domestic matters and the Punjab, a bread basket province refused to give food to Bengal, to their fellow Indians, the Central British Indian govt in Delhi had to force them to send food to Bengal (by breaking the government of India act 1935) due to which the Punjabis cried foul and anti British feelings there increased there with riots and revolutions, the mayor of Calcutta (Bengal) was an Indian as due to the law I mentioned earlier, Churchill had a change of heart and did sent food from other parts of the empire (mostly Australia) even though allied forces needed those resources, when Churchill asked Communist loving, British Empire hating U.S. President Roosevelt for some aid for the starving peoples of Bengal, the same Roosevelt who was arm twisting the British to give independence to India, flatly refused.

    • Replies: @Anon
  65. National Socialism is remarkably different from Fascism. And it was a type of Socialism but different from Marxist Socialism or Communism.

    It seems to me that “socialism” different from Marxist socialism is “socialism” in name only. In Nazi German’s case, it was indeed fascism. In fact, Hitler adopted the Italian model along the line.

    • Replies: @Malla
  66. Malla says:
    @last straw

    For example, 200 million pounds of rice was exported to Great Britain during the Orissa famine of 1866,

    Like all Indian famines of the 19th-century, the Odisha famine was preceded by a drought: the population of the region depended on the rice crop of the winter season for their sustenance; however, the monsoon of 1865 was scanty and stopped prematurely. In addition, the Bengal Board of Revenue made incorrect estimates of the number of people who would need help and was misled by fictitious price lists. Consequently, as the food reserves began to dwindle, the gravity of the situation was not grasped until the end of May 1866, and by then the monsoons had set in.

    Efforts to ship the food to the isolated province were hampered because of bad weather, and when some shipments did reach the coast of Odisha, they could not be moved inland. The British Indian Government imported some 10,000 tons of rice, which reached the affected population only in September.

    The heavy rains of 1866 also caused floods which destroyed the rice-crop in low-lying regions. Consequently, in the following year, another shortfall was expected, and the Government of British India imported approximately 40,000 tons of rice at four times the usual price. However, this time they overestimated the need, and only half the rice was used by the time the summer monsoon of 1867, followed by a plentiful harvest, ended the famine in 1868. In the two years of the famine, the Government of British India spent approximately Rs.9,500,000 on famine relief for 35 million units (i.e. one person per day); a large proportion of the cost, however, was the high price of the imported grain.

    Lessons learnt from this famine by the British rulers included “the importance of developing an adequate network of communications” and “the need to anticipate disaster”.Indian Famine Codes were slowly developed which were “designed to be put into place as soon as a failure of the monsoon, or other warning-signal, indicated a probable shortage”. One early success of this new approach was seen in the Bihar famine of 1873-74 when the famine relief under Sir Richard Temple resulted in the avoidance of almost all mortality.

    North Korea was fighting a civil war with South Korea. The U.S., however, was a foreign invader.

    And China was not? I see in communist world, communist are not “foreign” invaders.
    And what if the South Koreans asked for American help. Are Americans foreign invaders then too?
    So during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Soviet Union was a foreign invader, you agree?
    The Hungarian People’s Republic was not part of the USSR.
    The Chinese invasion of Vietnam to relive pressure on their Cambodian allies, PR China was a foreign invader, right?

    Note that I was very lenient in assessing the crimes of British imperialism in India. Others are not so forgiving. For example: Britain is responsible for deaths of 35 million Indians, says acclaimed author Shashi Tharoor.

    Tharoor is a gas bag politician who probably murdered his wife. And Tharoor’s Congress Party is a big rival to the Communist Party in Keral where Tharoor is from, how does that make you feel? Maybe Tharoor should do a speech about India’s brutality in the Indian North East, about the Indian conquest of the independent Kingdom of Sikkim and about India’s policies in Kashmir.

    • Replies: @last straw
  67. Half-Jap says:
    @Malla

    Thank you, as always.
    My classified genius grandfather’s last war was Korea, and that one has always been a mystery to me. Any beyond that crap published on it, anyways.

    • Replies: @Malla
  68. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Why should I believe your sourceless nonsense and video

    How is it source-less? Ryan Faulk provides all sources for all his videos. This video was scrubbed off by Communist Corporation (isn’t that ironic but so many such ironies in the real world) Google/Jewtube so maybe bitchute does not have links.

    He talks about the independent investigation into the Congo as well as periodic bulletins from 1904 called “Official Bulletin of the Congo Free State” in response to public outcry about atrocity news. The report’s findings was that the abuses occurred almost exclusively by Force Publique detachments were sent out without an European commander, indeed European commanders prevented such atrocities.

    Also not mentioned in the video but mentioned in David Van Reybrouck’s book, Congo: The Epic History of a People, HarperCollins, 2014. p. 95.

    “When sleeping sickness ravaged the population, Leopold II called in the assistance of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, the most famous center for tropical medicine of its day. He would never have done that if his intention had been to commit genocide. “

    • Replies: @Half-Jap
  69. Malla says:
    @last straw

    In fact, Hitler adopted the Italian model along the line.

    Italian model of taking power, attempting a March on Berlin like Mussolini’s March on Rome, which failed. Not economic policies. Adolf Hitler’s party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte (National Socialist German Workers’ Party).

    • Replies: @last straw
  70. India recorded 200 famines in the 2,000 years up to the British arriving that’s about 1 every 20 years and only 2 in the 200 years under British rule

    Uh? India suffered 24 major famines from 1850 to 1899 alone.

    Here is some really sensational stuff for you: Britain robbed India of $45 trillion & Thence 1.8 billion Indians died from deprivation

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  71. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Uh? India suffered 24 major famines from 1850 to 1899 alone.

    I am sorry, I mistyped.

    Thence 1.8 billion Indians died from deprivation

    Are you a freaking Idiot? 1.8 billion died? So India’s population would have been 3 billion had there been no British rule? Are you a moron to even believe such crap.

    Britain robbed India of $45 trillion &

    The Indian economy did not even have 45 trillion, so how could Britain steal what did not even exist?

  72. @Malla

    Consequently, in the following year, another shortfall was expected, and the Government of British India imported approximately 40,000 tons of rice at four times the usual price.

    How would importing 40,000 tons of rice but exporting 90,000 tons (200 million pounds) to the Great Britain at the same time help the Indians? The hypocrisy stinks to high haven.

    And China was not? I see in communist world, communist are not “foreign” invaders.
    And what if the South Koreans asked for American help. Are Americans foreign invaders then too?

    China was also invited by North Korea. Yes, China was also a foreign invader.

    So during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Soviet Union was a foreign invader, you agree?
    The Hungarian People’s Republic was not part of the USSR.

    Yes, the USSR was the foreign invader, no doubt about it.

    The Chinese invasion of Vietnam to relive pressure on their Cambodian allies, PR China was a foreign invader, right?

    Of course you are right. China was no doubt the invader.

    The difference between the American and Chinese invasions of Korean and Vietnam was that the U.S. committed war crimes while China did not.

    Tharoor is a gas bag politician who probably murdered his wife.

    Personal attack is not an argument.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  73. @Lot

    Reminds me of the smog in Los Angeles in the 1990s–the last time I was there.

    Apparently, things haven’t improved all that much since then, not according to the American Lung Association’s 2019 annual “State of the Air”.

    Cf. LA Times article, Los Angeles under cover | Smog through the years

  74. @Malla

    Hitler succeeded eventually, though. I would think that fascism is a economic-political order that is a little bit difficult to separate the two.

    • Replies: @Malla
  75. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Personal attack is not an argument.

    Indeed it is not.

    I will let this video argue

    And also Prof Freidman

    A student poses a question to Milton Friedman in which he asks for an appraisal of just how exactly the riches that now exist in the so called “capitalist democracies” were obtained and how those countries became so rich so quick. …Friedman answers: The reason people are quick to think so is that they have an ingrained predisposition to see view the world as a zero-sum game where if one man gains the other man looses. In reality a free market allows everyone to gain through mutually beneficial voluntary transactions. When the West colonized Africa they brought with them technology that greatly improved the condition of the people that lived there and actually made them better off. The wheel for example had not even been invented in Africa in the 19th century. As a result of Africa’s contacts with the West their condition improved greatly from what it previously was. To the charge that colonizers bleed wealth from their colonies, Friedman notes that it has always cost the mother country more to maintain its colonies then what was ever received in direct or indirect economic benefit. In the famous case of India, conclusive studies have shown that it cost Britain far more to maintain India then if it had never had it. Furthermore, many Western nations never possessed colonies yet became wealthy despite that fact.

    Also

    From http://www.friesian.com/british.htm
    we see that Britain’s trade with the Third World was tiny and not of any consequence as compared to it’s trade with the USA and the rest of Europe from the above link “Another lesson to be read off the trade figures is that a relatively small fraction of British trade involved colonies that would later constitute the “Third World.” Indeed, the only trade surpluses in the table are with India, Africa, the West Indies, and the Far East, which might give some heart to Marxist claims that British colonies, especially India, were the outlet for Capitalist “excess production.” However, the trade surpluses are small, and overall British trade with India and the other colonies is hardly larger than with the much, much smaller populations of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. No serious argument can be made that the likes of Australia and New Zealand, with their own autonomous governments and protective tariffs, were being “exploited” by Great Britain. Instead the largest British export market is simply with the rest of Europe. Indeed, Europe, the United States, Australia, Canada, etc. are the places where more people would have enough money to buy British goods.

    https://www.britishempire.co.uk/timeline/colonies1924.htm

    1924 revenues of the British Empire from Non White colonies excluding Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Irish Free State, Falkland Islands and Gibralter but including Southern Rhodesia, Malta, Cyprus and South Africa = GBP 218,303,000 out of which India alone accounted for GBP 135,000,000 (62%).

    1924 revenue of the British Empire from United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Island or the home islands, alone = GBP 910,775,000

    Revenues out out Britain itself was far higher than revenues from colonies both White and non White, indeed more than double.

    • Replies: @last straw
  76. @Poupon Marx

    Why are you shilling for a war against China?

  77. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Thence 1.8 billion Indians died from deprivation

    It is far worse than that brother. The evul Bratish actually killed 600 billion Indians. How you say?

    Why, by building the largest irrigation project in the World at that time in the Punjab. Larger than anything in the United States, Russia/ Soviet Union, China or Brazil at that time. Built between 1886 to 1940.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_Canal_Colonies

    The Punjab Canal Colonies is the name given to parts of western Punjab which were brought under cultivation through the construction of canals and agricultural colonisation during the British Raj. Between 1885 and 1940, nine canal colonies were created in the inter-fluvial tracts east of the Beas and Sutlej and west of the Jhelum rivers. The Punjab underwent an agricultural revolution as arid subsistence production was replaced by the commercialised production of huge amounts of wheat, cotton and sugar.[1] In total, over one million Punjabis settled in the new colonies, relieving demographic pressures in central Punjab.[2]

    …snip….

    In the 19th century, the vast majority of the population was settled in the fertile regions of central and eastern Punjab. In the western Punjab rainfall was too low for large scale agriculture and resulting in large tracts of barren land.[3] Most of this land had been assigned as Crown land and lay unused.[5] In the 1880s the British Punjab administration of Charles Umpherston Aitchison began the process of engineering a vast irrigation scheme in the mostly uninhabited wastelands. The two stated motives for the project were:[6]

    To relieve the pressure of population upon the land in those districts of the Province where the agricultural population has already reached or is fast approaching the limit which the land available to agriculture can support and to colonise the area in question with well-to-do yeomen of the best class of agriculturists, who will cultivate their own holdings with the aid of their families and the usual menials, but as much as possible without the aid of tenants, and will constitute healthy agricultural communities of the best Punjab type.

    The British Indian government hoped to “create villages of a type superior in comfort and civilisation to anything which had previously existed in the Punjab”,[7] which in turn would increase productivity.[8] This increased productivity would then boost revenues for the government. To finance this ambitious project, capital was raised through the sale of governmental bonds in Britain, offering investors the chance to benefit from the interest charges remitted by the provincial government.[9]

    …snip….

    To improve the economic position and standard of living amongst Punjabi agriculturalists, the British Indian government had passed a series of farmer friendly measures. The Punjab Land Alienation Act, 1900 removed the zamindar’s right to sell or mortgage his land without the approval of the district officer. These officers usually only approved a zamindar’s request if he belonged to a tribe designated as an agricultural tribe by the government. The restrictions were designed to halt the flow of land outside of the agricultural community, and prevent further indebtedness towards moneylenders by curtailing cultivator’s credit. Although the Act drew protests from the commercial tribes and money-lenders, they were unable to garner support from the cultivators whose interests had been protected. In the following years, encouraged by the lack of agitation further farmer friendly measures were introduced by the British Indian Government, such as the Punjab Pre-Emption Act which stated agriculturalists had first claim on any land sold by a villager.[4]

    …snip….

    The Punjab, despite being only 9.7 per cent of the total area of British India, had by 1931 9,929,217 acres irrigated by canals colonies, the largest area in British India, and representing 46 per cent of the total land irrigated by canals. This was two and a half times greater than the Madras Presidency, second in this category.[55] The canal irrigated area in the Punjab increased from 3 million acres in 1885 to 14 million acres by the end of the British Raj in 1947.[56]

    The canal colonies acted as a primary industrialising agent in the British Punjab. By 1921 the proportion of the population supported by agriculture was lesser in the colony districts relative to in the non-colony districts, because a significant population in the colony districts was engaged in industrial pursuits. For example, in Lyallpur alone 326 ginning factories emerged to serve her own cotton fields.[57] By converting barren land into productive agricultural land, the British Punjabi government was able to increase export output and maximise revenue through taxes on the increased produce. The increased supply of produce in turn meant investment was needed in the road and rail network to transport the goods to market. The larger size of the holdings in the colonies, together with improvements to the transport infrastructure and other marketing facilities had a large positive impact on the settler’s income.[58]

    Prior to the establishment of the colonies, many farmers in the Punjab were in debt to money-lenders. However, with the increased incomes in the colonies, the proportion of debt owed to traditional money-lenders was considerably less than in other non-colony areas.[57] Furthermore, by obtaining the grants at nominal prices, the settlers were able to enjoy the vast capital appreciation of their land as it grew increasingly productive. By the 1920s, thirty years after the establishment of the Chenab Colony, the average land price in Lyallpur was Rs. 1200 providing a capital gain of 9,900 percent.[59]

    A significant beneficiary of the colonisation was the city of Lyallpur, originally named after Sir James Broadwood Lyall who pioneered the Chenab colony. At the time of the British annexation in 1849 it was a barren wasteland, and by 1891 the region had a population density of mere 7 persons per square mile. It was characterised by nomadic tribes and notorious criminals, with the Sandal Bar area being named after the Chuhra bandit Sandal. By 1901, in just a decade, the population had reached 187 persons per square mile, was 301 in 1921 and 927 in 1998.[60] Lyallpur, renamed Faisalabad in the 1970s, is currently the third most prosperous city of Pakistan in terms of GDP per capita.[61]

    • Replies: @last straw
  78. Malla says:
    @last straw

    I would think that fascism is a economic-political order that is a little bit difficult to separate the two.

    There is a subtle difference. It is just that since both opposed Communism (Marxist Internationalist Socialism), they are all grouped together.

    • Replies: @last straw
  79. Malla says:
    @Half-Jap

    Welcome as always, bud.

    My classified genius grandfather’s last war was Korea, and that one has always been a mystery to me.

    Your grandfather fought for a righteous cause. You should be proud of him. Because of his (and others who fought on his side) sacrifice, South Koreans enjoy a prosperous and free life.

  80. Malla says:
    @Onebornfree

    Marx’s Communist horseshit.

    That scumbag Marx does not have a monopoly on Socialism. Marx was promoted at the expense of other socialist thinkers by “mysterious forces behind the scenes” into a monopoly. That was Bakunin’s view.

    the only reason that Hitlers’ National Socialist Germany did not completely collapse economically was because it never got the chance

    That is an assumption.

    collapse which was inevitable-

    Sad but true. But society has obligations to the poor and weak. Capitalism has its own advantages but some form of Socialism is needed. As long as the socialism does not become excessive and is kept within certain sensible limits (is not misused by people and bureau-c-rats).

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  81. Malla says:
    @last straw

    The difference between the American and Chinese invasions of Korean and Vietnam was that the U.S. committed war crimes while China did not.

    I do not know about Korea but the US did commit some crazy war crimes in Vietnam. That is for sure.

  82. @Malla

    There are apologists for socialism and communism, then there are apologist for capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, and even Nazism. You have to judge for yourself. India might well developed by itself without British colonial rule. Just compare India and China, the legacy of the British imperialism in India does not seem so great.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  83. @Malla

    I said that the 45 trillion and 1.8 billion were sensational, didn’t I? Indians had been building irrigation systems before British arrival I suppose? 20 famines in 2000 years before British rule, then dozens of famines during the British rule of 150 years or so do not look like a good record for the British, do you agree?

  84. @last straw

    The latest from (((Falun Gong))) operatives in Hong Kong is that China is the new Nazi Third Reich. LOL

    • Replies: @last straw
  85. @Malla

    I do not know about Korea but the US did commit some crazy war crimes in Vietnam. That is for sure.

    Here and here

    • Replies: @Malla
  86. GeeBee says:
    @YN1F

    Very well said. So many of those who routinely pour scorn on Godfree Roberts’ offerings are also totally on board with all that seventy-year-old propaganda that still (of necessity if you’re one of the tiny elite that has most to gain from the post-war wreckage we call the West) infects the minds of, well, mindless Americans and Europeans alike. Honk-Honk!

  87. Malla says:
    @last straw

    There are apologists for socialism and communism, then there are apologist for capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, and even Nazism. You have to judge for yourself.

    I agree. Again, so called Nazism or National Socialism is a type of Socialism. Communism is good for social development, no doubt about that. Colonialism was slow social development, Communism is shock therapy fast social development.

    Just compare India and China, the legacy of the British imperialism in India does not seem so great.

    Compare India and China in 1945/47. India in 1947 was far more industrialized than China, China was never colonised to the same extent as India or Pakistan. Besides under Nehru, until 1990 (Dr. Manmohan Singh’s reform), India followed a socialist economic system with 5 year plans. Indeed China opened itself to Western Capitalism under Deng Xiaoping a decade before India under Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao.

    PM Nehru, the first PM was a socialist but opposed communism, however he was a pro-Soviet guy. He was a Indian freedom fighter and a vocal anti-colonialist on the World stage but under him India conquered the North Eastern peoples of India like the Nagas in an imperialist fashion with extreme brutality. Ironic isn’t it?

    Would communism been good for India? maybe. India may have been more modernised. Superstitions would have been suppressed.

    So the fault does not lie with the British Raj who left India in a far better position than China was in 1947. China’s Communism + Capitalism has triumphed India’s Socialism + Capitalism.

    Why not compare Communist Ethiopea under the Derg with say South Korea? Ethiopia, faced only 6 years of European rule under the Italians (during which the Italians released slaves) but faced decades under Communism.
    In 1977–78, up to 500,000 were killed as a result of the Red Terror,[110] from forced deportations or from the use of hunger as a weapon under Mengistu’s rule.
    The 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia affected around eight million people, resulting in one million dead. Insurrections against Communist rule sprang up, particularly in the northern regions of Eritrea and Tigray. The Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) merged with other ethnically-based opposition movements in 1989, to form the coalition known as the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF).

    So Ethiopia which experienced only 6 years of evul European rule but decades of Communist rule should have been a splendid nation, land full of milk and honey. Not really…..
    South Korea with Dictatorship Capitalism followed by Democratic Capitalism triumphed Ethiopia’s
    Communism. That is even though South Korea arguably has less resources than Ethiopia and South Korea was part of the Japanese Empire for decades while Ethiopia faced only 6 years of Italian rule. And the Italian rule was ended by the British Empire.

    And as far as Korea under Japanese rule.
    A picture is worth a thousand words.
    Korea before and after become part of the Japanese Empire

  88. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Anyways one comparison of India and China during the early 1900s.
    RAILWAYS IN BRITISH INDIA 1909

    RAILWAYS IN CHINA DURING THE SAME PERIOD.

    Railways under British Rule

    The first line of railway in India was finished in 1853. At the end of March, 1924, India had a total length of 38,039 miles of open system, which in 1925 carried over four and a half times as many passengers per mile of steel as did the railways of the United States.

    When America built her railways, she had not sufficient means to do so without borrowing. Consequently she borrowed from Europe, largely from Great Britain, about half the money that built her railway system, well content to pay what it cost in view of benefits expected from the opening of the country. These costs, in the normal course, continued until about 1914. When India built her railways, she also failed to find the money at home; yet in her case not because money was lacking, but because Indian baniya capitalists would lend only at huge rates of interest. Consequently India borrowed from her cheapest market, London, practically all the money that built her railways, paying from 2.5 to 5 per cent., with an average of 3.5 per cent, on the loans–the lowest rates that the world knew.

    Beyond the railheads ran the British-built network of good highroads, speeding motor traffic where bullock carts alone used to creep and wallow.

    Other practical uses of the railways, whether in equalization of prices, in opening of markets, or in development of trade with its consequent increase of individual prosperity and of Government revenues.

    The following figures as of the year 1925 are based on statistics contained in The Statesman’s Year Book of 1926:

    Mileage open per 1,000 square miles of territory in
    British India – 21
    Argentina – 19
    USA – 88
    Canada – 15

    Number of passengers carried per mile of open railway
    British India – 15,834
    Argentina – 5,966
    USA – 3,550
    Canada – 814

    Tons of goods carried per mile of open railway
    British India – 2,785
    Argentina – 2042
    USA – 8,277
    Canada – 2,019

    Total value of imports and exports carried per mile of
    open railway
    British India – $56,929
    Argentina – $73,092
    USA – $33,116
    Canada – $35,647

    At 1947, when India exited the British Empire, she had 53,596 kms of British built railways as against China in 1945 who had only 27,000 kms of railways even though China is far larger in size than India.
    By 1948, the number of usable kilometers of rail in China was estimated at only 8,000 km due to the Chinese Civil War. The Communists actively sabotaged rail lines to disrupt the ruling Nationalists (Kuomintang), and the Nationalists scavenged lesser used railways in order to repair the most important ones.

    Indian government added only 11,004 kilometres rail network after 1947. India’s rail network rose from 53,596 route kilometres as of 1947 to 64,600 kilometres in 2016.

    Railways in not colonised China during same period (China was not colonised to the same extent as India, there were areas of influence).

    Most of these railway lines were designed and built by Europeans, Americans and the Japanese

    The British built the Shanghai-Nanjing Railway (1905-1908) and Kowloon-Canton Railway (completed 1911). The French built the Sino-Vietnamese Railway (1904–10), an 855 km 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) line to connect Kunming with Vietnam, French Indochina. The Germans built the Jiaoji Railway in Shandong Province. British and German industrialists jointly built the Tianjin–Pukou Railway. The Americans built the Canton – Sam Shui Railway in Guangdong in 1902-04. Czarist Russia built the China Eastern Railway (1897-1901) and the Southern Manchuria Railway to Port Arthur. To prevent domination by bigger powers, the Qing Court gave the rights to the Lugouqiao-Hankou Railway to Belgians. The Imperial Japanese built the Chao Chow and Swatow Railway (1904–06).

    Some networks however were built by the Chinese themselves
    The Beijing-Zhangjiakou Railway built from 1905–09, was the first railway to be designed and built indigenously. The chief engineer was Zhan Tianyou, who is known as the Father of China’s Railways. The Shanghai-Hangzhou Railway, 189 km in length and completed in 1909, was financed by the provincial governments of Jiangsu and Zhejiang.

    • Replies: @last straw
  89. GeeBee says:
    @last straw

    And guess whom Fascism sets out to benefit? (not that we’re ever told this, or else there’d be another damned threat to the Globalist hegemony.)

  90. Malla says:

    20 famines in 2000 years

    Indian history is not well documented unlike China. So that is just an estimate.
    Indeed Indian history before the Muslim era was nearly non existent before the coming of Europeans. It were the officers of the British East India Company who should be thanked for recreating the ancient glories of India. It were the British officers and scholars like Princep who told us about the Mauryas and Ashoka the Great.

    Thus unlike British, Chinese, Japanese or Roman history, Indian pre Islamic history is not very well documented.

    I would say famines have been very frequent in Indian history before European contact indeed for thousands of years. Indeed so frequent that, the bodies of Indians have adapted to famines.
    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Jury-out-on-whether-Indian-body-type-poor-for-athletics/articleshow/11483279.cms
    “Medically speaking, Indians seem to be at a disadvantage as far as competitive running is concerned. Blame it on our thrifty gene that helps in storing fat; doctors says the thrifty gene is an inheritance from times when famines were common in pre-British India. Sports medicine specialists blame the poor proportion of right muscles.”

    Information on famines from ancient India up to colonial times is found in five primary sources:
    Legendary tales passed down in oral tradition that keep alive the memory of famines
    Ancient Indian literature such as the Vedas, Jataka stories, and the Arthashastra
    Stone and metal inscriptions provide information on several famines before the 16th century
    Writings of Muslim historians in Mughal India
    Writings of foreigners temporarily resident in India (e.g. Ibn Battuta, Francis Xavier)
    The ancient Ashokan edicts of the Mauryan age around 269 BCE record emperor Asoka’s conquest of Kalinga, roughly the modern state of Odisha. The major rock and pillar edicts mention the massive human toll of about 100,000 due to the war. The edicts record that an even larger number later perished, presumably from wounds and famine. From Hindu literature, there is the 7th century famine due to failure of rains in Thanjavur district mentioned in the Periya Puranam. According to the Purana, Lord Shiva helped the Tamil saints Sambandar and Appar to provide relief from the famine.[16] Another famine in the same district is recorded on an inscription with details such as “times becoming bad”, a village being ruined, and cultivation of food being disrupted in Landing in 1054. Famines preserved only in oral tradition are the Dvadasavarsha Panjam (Twelve-year Famine) of south India and the Durga Devi Famine of the Deccan from 1396 to 1407. The primary sources for famines in this period are incomplete and locationally based.

    The Tughlaq Dynasty under Muhammad bin Tughluq held power during the famine centered on Delhi in 1335–42. The sultanate offered no relief to the starving residents of Delhi during this famine. Pre-colonial famines in the Deccan included the Damajipant famine of 1460 and the famines starting in 1520 and 1629. The Damajipant famine is said to have caused ruin both in the northern and southern parts of the Deccan. The 1629-32 famine in the Deccan and Gujarat, was one of the greatest in India’s history. In the first 10 months of 1631 an estimated 3 million perished in Gujarat and one million in the Deccan. Eventually the famine killed not only the poor but the rich as well. More famines hit the Deccan in 1655, 1682 and 1884. Another famine in 1702–1704 killed over two million people. The oldest famine in Deccan with local documentation sufficiently well-preserved for analytical study is the Doji bara famine of 1791-92. Relief was provided by the ruler, the Peshwa Sawai Madhavrao II, in the form of imposing restrictions on export of grain and importing rice in large quantities from Bengal via private trading, however the evidence is often too scanty to judge the ‘real efficacy of relief efforts’ in the Mughal period.

    Mughal officials took no long term measures to fight famines in Kashmir, and the land tax system of Mughal India often contributed to the scale of famines by depriving Indian peasants of much of their harvest in the good years, denying them the opportunity to build up stocks.

    • Replies: @last straw
    , @last straw
  91. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Buddy, how much more proof do I have to provide. What is the full form of Nazism? National Socialism. “Nazi” is not a term Hitler and his party used for themselves, they called themselves National Socialists. Nationalsozialistische.

  92. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Thanks. Also check out Operation Phoenix where the CIA drugged the Vietnamese people.
    Later on the American elites forced and promoted drugs on the American (and other Western) population itself!! Remember all that LSD during the hippie period. Well the CIA/ American elites pushed it.
    Remember Yale University made a ton load of money from the opium trade. The Sephardic Baghdadi Jewish Sassoons were the biggest kingpins of that trade who later married into the Ashkenazi Jewish Rothschild family. Many big Indian and American families made a load of money in the opium business. Remember the opium was grown in India. President FD Roosevelt’s Delano side of the family made their money by transporting Opium to China from India.
    Yale university leads us to Skull and Bones. Also Mao was a Yali. So the same Yale Uni which made drug money by drugging the Chinese people, later played a part in unleashing Mao on China!!! Strange world this.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  93. YN1F says:

    The World Union of Jewish Students 2002 Hasbara Manual states this boldly:

    Bandwagon
    Most people, when in doubt, are happy to do what other people are doing. This is the bandwagon effect. People are happy to be part of the crowd, and subtle manipulators can play on this desire by emphasizing the large size of their support. Although it is reasonable that people are given a chance to find out how many other supporters a speaker or movement has, often it is possible to create the impression of extensive support – through gathering all supporters in one place, or through poorly conducted opinion polls – in an attempt to persuade people who are keen to follow the crowd.
    Israel activists can commission opinion polls amongst groups who favour Israel, and use these to give the impression that Israel is the ‘team to support’. Demonstrations, and even photos that give the impression of large numbers can help to create the impression that Israel is even more popular than it is.
    Remember that playing with perceptions of numbers supporting a cause can be problematic if this means that genuine supporters become complacent. https://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

  94. YN1F says:
    @Onebornfree

    “[As he himself admitted publicly]”

    Who is the “he” about whom you refer?, and mind providing proof?

    And concerning the term “socialism”: The way that the system was utilized in Germany during Hitler’s reign rendered the term an entirely different thing from the Marxist definition. Just because a word is spelled and pronounced the same in two different contexts doesn’t mean they’re actually the same. For instance, the “bed” that you lay your rather thick head down upon to sleep is of an entirely different nature than the “bed” of thorns (which used to be roses before the bugs devoured them) outside my window. Marxist socialism as compared to Hitler’s National Socialism is/was of vastly different compositions in very critical ways.

    As for the rest of your assumptions concerning the “inevitable collapse” of NS Germany, that means very little in light of the fact that the system was never allowed to live past twelve years.

    An extended finger (guess which), Oneborn(big joke!)free

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @YN1F
  95. @Ber

    Stop. Stop. Stop. You were not listening to the video of the Grandmotherly Flounder. She was spouting straight Communist talking points and Classical Marxism. >>The Class Struggle, The Ruling Classes, Capitalism [inherently] creating the rich and the poor dichotomy. This is straight Columbia University Frankfurt School, Coward-Piven, Yiddish Communism.

    Start with simple observation, instead of memes, narratives, and abstractions and monikers. The INSTALLED by China head of Hong Kong accedes to a new rule that all criminals proceedings will be transferred to Peking. This is new, and was not the dualistic nature upon which the turnover of Hong Kong was elucidated. Hong Kong was to be a semi-autonomous state, reasonably self-governing as long as it did not conflict with the interests of China.

    How would you feel if the Bill of Rights were yanked from under you and all proceedings were to made by political appointees? {To a large extent, they are now}. Also, how would you like it if you were now subject to the Social Credit system of China. If you haven’t even heard of it, then you should withdraw from any more discussion on this topic. You are unqualified.

    You didn’t do your homework: https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individuals/sara-flounders/

    National co-director of International ANSWER
    Member of the Communist Workers World Party

    There are areas where interests overlap, e.g., Pat Buchanan, Dr. K. McDonald, Taki, Jared Taylor, IrishSavant, nationalists/populists and The Socialist International, Communists, collectivists, etc.
    Like a plate of spaghetti, there are not only strands of pasta there, but maggots as well-when you look closer.

    Don’t be distracted. This is very elementally a power play. The Chinese leadership wants total CONTROL over Hong Kong with no differentiation of the Mainland. Flounders is of course a thought leader of secular Judaism, Marxism/Communism. Being Jewish {note the Brooklyn accent}, I guess she just can’t help herself.

    • Replies: @Ber
    , @Erebus
  96. @MAOWASAYALI

    As I said, Falun Gong is really one of the most extreme anti-China organizations out there. I suspect that Falun Gong got some of its ideas, such as vivisection and organ harvest from the Japanese Unit 731.

  97. @Malla

    The Sasoons of the beauty products dynasty. Public chums with Henry Kissinger during the Nixon days. Vidal Sasoon. All made up, gloss for the goy.

    • Replies: @Malla
  98. @Malla

    China was not in a good shape in 1945/1947 because it experienced a revolution in 1911, then ravaged by civil war among the warlords, the Chinese communist, and the KMT government, and barely survived the brutal Japanese invasion from 1931 – 1945, which caused the death of 20 -50 million Chinese depending on who you ask.

  99. @Malla

    I agree. However, the way you put it, it’s almost like that India would have begged the British to stay instead of seeking independence in 1947.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  100. @Malla

    Sad but true. But society has obligations to the poor and weak. Capitalism has its own advantages but some form of Socialism is needed. As long as the socialism does not become excessive and is kept within certain sensible limits (is not misused by people and bureau-c-rats).

    That might work, but I believe it is not an absolute or sole requirement. A society that has a proper spiritual and moral grounding as core, irrefutable and immutable values and norms would be a better option. In my mind, the best milieu and spiritual system the unifies a community from the inside out is Buddhism, as taught by the Siddhartha Buddha. All other systems or comprehensive belief systems are factious, fractured, and incomplete.

    I always consider matters of importance in the concrete sense of analogy and parallels of the Real World. The most perfect machine where all the component parts and sub-systems work in harmony and efficiency is Buddhism-as taught by The Buddha.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oio0Kx2jimg&frags=pl%2Cwn

    This is a powerful metaphor for what I am talking about. Before this pump hit the market, cargo oil steam turbine pumps were crude, loud, inefficient, and poorly designed. They never evolved. Not only is this an exquisitely designed machine, but its internals are beautifully machined and formed. And it is part of an entire system, made by the Japanese, of a condenser, controls, auxiliary machinery.

    That’s what Buddhism is, a superior system.

    • Replies: @Malla
  101. onebornfree says: • Website
    @YN1F

    “Hitler may have publicly denounced Marxism, because of his war against the hated Soviet Union, but privately he always admitted that he was at heart a left-winger. …”:

    #1:”I have learned a great deal from Marxism…” A. Hitler

    #6:”We are socialists, we are enemies of todays capitalistic economic system….” A. Hitler

    7 Quotes That Prove Adolf Hitler Was A Proud Socialist :
    https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-quotes-prove-adolf-hitler-proud-socialist/

    regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @Malla
  102. @Malla

    Indian history is not well documented unlike China. So that is just an estimate.

    On second thought, even we double or triple the documented famines in the past 2000 years in India before the British rule, say, 40-60 famines instead of 20, the frequencies of famines under British rule still seems high, even considering El Nino, as Mike Davis pointed out in “Late Victorian Holocausts”: there were 31 serious famines in the 120 years of British rule compared with 17 famines in the 2,000 years before British rule.

    • Replies: @Malla
  103. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Fuck the communist party” says a HK protestor at the end of this vid.

    I couldn’t agree more:

    Regards, onebornfree

  104. Ber says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Perhaps people should read this: http://www.unz.com/article/social-credit-datong-dreams/

    As for Sara Flounders, she comes across as a very humanitarian person.

  105. @Malla

    Who knows? However, Stalin’s ‘endorsement’ is pro forma, and does not establish causation or even permission.

    • Replies: @Malla
  106. @Malla

    My father, John W. (Bill) Powell was the editor and publisher in Shanghai of the English-language news magazine, China Weekly Review (China Monthly Review [CMR] after 1952) and first published reports from North Korean military sources of alleged US germ warfare attacks on North Korea in March 1952.

    The Review printed a growing number of reports of US Army Biowarfare attacks in North Korea and China and covered the ensuing international uproar until 1953.
    My father considered these reports reliable because they came directly from North Korean and Chinese government officials citing eye-witness testimony, laboratory tests, and People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) field reports.

    The Review reported North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Hon-yeong’s (Bak Hongyong) February 22, 1952 accusation to the United Nations, denouncing US use of biological warfare against North Korea, his second denunciation of US BW attacks. On May 8, 1951, he announced that the US had released plague pathogens in rural North Korean villages during a four-week window in December 1950 into January 1951. This was a defensive BW deployment to slow down the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army counter-invasion across the Yalu River to cover the UN forces’ hasty retreat from the Chinese border back to the 38th Parallel.

    Bak’s February 1952 announcement accused the US Army of dropping canisters containing

    The Research Group on Socialism and Democracy vehemently denied the allegations and tar-brushed the Review as a mouthpiece of the Chinese communist government. With falling subscription revenues in post-Revolution Shanghai, the Review folded and my family returned to the US, settling in San Francisco in 1953,3.

    In 1956, my father, my mother, Sylvia Powell, and their associate editor, Julian Schuman were indicted on federal charges of sedition for the editorials and news content of the Review. Sedition is a complex charge designed to limit freedom of speech and the press in times of war. It is a serious criminal offense carrying fines of $10,000 and prison sentences of up to 20 years on each count.

    The defense options were limited but, ultimately, my parents chose to fight based on the truth of their claim; the US government had used BW in North Korea and China during the Korean War and they would substantiate it. The case came to trial in 1958 and ended abruptly with a mistrial being declared by the judge.4

    Charges lingered until 1961 when new Attorney General Robert Kennedy dropped the indictment.

    The government’s case against my parents collapsed because the prosecution would not allow defense access to top-secret Defense Dept. and State Dept. records which might have validated Chinese and North Korean BW accusations, nor was it willing to permit BW physical evidence collected in China to be introduced into a US court, nor would it permit in-person courtroom testimony by North Korean and Chinese eye witnesses to alleged BW attacks.5

    Powerful Senators and top State Dept. officials wished to punish my parents for the editorial policy of their newspaper which supported the new communist government in China, and which had published the North Korean and Chinese allegations of BW use by the US Army in plague- and smallpox-infested insects as offensive weapons on bombing sorties over North Korea in 1951–52.

    CMR, March 1952, 226.

    On March 8, 1952, China’s Foreign Minister, Chou En-Lai, announced that US planes flew 448 sorties over Northeast China over a six-day period from February 29 to March 5, 1952, and that canisters of germ-laden insects had been released during these raids. CMR, Vol. 122, No. 4, April, 1952, 317–320. 3.

    The subscription loss was due to US Postal Service embargo on US delivery which was the bulk of the Review’s circulation. The actual cause for the embargo was the Review’s publication of POW lists obtained from Chinese and North Korean military sources. The US Army policy during the war was not to release POW and MIA lists even though many families in the US were desperate to know the whereabouts of their husbands and sons. 4.

    For a concise history of the Powell-Schuman Sedition Trial, see Stanley Kutler, The American Inquisition: Justice and Injustice in the Cold War, Hill & Wang, New York, 1982. 5. Conversation with Doris Brin Walker, Powell’s defense attorney, February 2009. 24 Socialism and Democracy combat.

    However, these powerful parties were also not willing to allow the defense to mount a case based upon the evidence of the BW claims. The prosecution wanted to punish dissent while maintaining state secrecy, which Judge Goodman, fortunately, would not permit.

    1. “Crime Against Humanity: With millions of civilian dead and homeless in Korea as a direct result of the deliberate US campaign of extermination, the latest American crime to come to light has been the launching of bacteriological warfare in Korea. Not content with the wiping out of entire cities and towns by napalm bombings, massacres of military and civilian prisoners, and campaigns such as ‘Operation Killer,’ the Americans have resorted to one more bestiality in their frantic efforts to conquer the Korean people and extend their aggression in Asia.” CMR, Vol. 122, No. 3, March 1952, 225.

    2. The Review reported North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Hon-yeong’s (Bak Hongyong) accusation to the United Nations of February 22, 1952 denouncing US use of biological warfare against North Korea. This was Pak’s second denunciation of US BW attacks. On May 8, 1951, he announced that the US had released plague pathogens in rural North Korean villages during a four-week window in December 1950 into January 1951. This was a defensive BW deployment to slow down the China’s People’s Volunteer Army counter-invasion across the Yalu River to cover the UN forces’ hasty retreat from the Chinese border back to the 38th Parallel. Bak’s February 1952 announcement accused the US Army of dropping canisters containing plague- and smallpox-infested insects as offensive weapons on bombing sorties over North Korea in 1951–52. CMR, March 1952, 226. On March 8, 1952, China’s Foreign Minister, Chou En-Lai, announced that US planes flew 448 sorties over Northeast China over a six-day period from February 29 to March 5, 1952, and that canisters of germ-laden insects had been released during these raids. CMR, Vol. 122, No. 4, April, 1952, 317–320.

    Tom Powell has written three definitive articles about biowar in Korea, systematically dismantling the preposterous fairy tales by shameless propaganda operatives

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08854300.2016.1265859
    https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/9bQTcehrRPXPCt729aSe/full
    http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/05/26/the-dirty-secret-of-the-korean-war/

  107. Malla says:
    @onebornfree

    I have learned a great deal from Marxism…” A. Hitler

    Even if he learnt from Marxism so what, that does not make him a Marxist.

    ”We are socialists, we are enemies of todays capitalistic economic system….

    What is wrong in that? He was anti Marxist as well as anti- American/British style Capitalism. The world is not either Corporate Capitalism or Marxism. There are better options than both.

    Basically National Socialism is a combination of the best of free market economics and Socialism.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    , @last straw
  108. Malla says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Thank you for this information Mr. Roberts. I am not surprised that the USA used this form of bio warfare. It is very well possible and with the information you provided, seems like it happened.

  109. Malla says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Yes, the same scumbag family.

  110. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Mike Davis is a Trotsyite communist and it is in his interest to make the Colonial Empires look worse than what they were. The Universities and the media of Western Capitalist “Imperialist” nations are filled to the brim with such Communist folk. Ironic? Yes.
    I agree, there were instances when the British Colonial Government could have done much much more to alleviate the situation. But to claim that the Brits were genocidal against Indians is laughable. The Indian population boomed under British rule. It would have been the most incompetent genocide ever.
    From my post above
    “doctors says the thrifty gene is an inheritance from times when famines were common in pre-British India.”

    There have been so many famines in pre British India that the genes of Indian people has changed via evolutionary selection.

    By the way the famous Indian Professor of Economic History at the London School of Economics, Tirthankar Roy has looked into this famine phenomenon in India.

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/WorkingPapers/Economic-History/2016/WP243.pdf

    Were Indian Famines ‘Natural’ Or ‘Manmade’? by Tirthankar Roy

    In page 21, we see

    “Dick Kooiman shows in an anthropological history of Travancore – a princely state and not a colonial territory – that nineteenth century famines broke up social cohesion among vulnerable population.55 A large and diverse scholarship suggests that far from causing the death of altruism, colonial modernization induced new ideas of altruism as it reshaped merchant identity, notions of citizenship, and patronage relations. Historians seem to agree that charity and philanthropy took on a new meaning in the wake of Indo-European cultural encounter, and did not necessarily shrink under the weight of commercialization and colonial rule. They do not agree on what new meaning, if any, philanthropy acquired in the colonial era.”

    My comment: European cultural influence increasing altruism in India is very likely. India had the caste system and in Hindu beliefs, a person suffering poverty or hunger is because of the bad karmas of their last births. If one was to help such a down trodden person, he or she is actually doing a bad deed as the person being helped will have to be reborn again to complete the Karma cycle and complete his or her suffering. Christianity is different with a deep concept of Christian charity for the weak and poor. Indeed it is believed that early primitive Christianity in the Roman Empire was a sort of Communism of its time.
    Further from Roy’s work
    Conclusion:
    “Were Indian famines natural or manmade? ‘Manmade,’ insofar as this means that famines were an outcome of colonial politics, is an unconvincing theory because it fails to explain the rarity of famines during late colonial rule and presumes that the capacity of the state to mitigate famines was limited only by its own intention to act. ‘Natural,’ insofar as this means that climatic shocks and geographical barriers to trade jointly caused famines, is unconvincing too because the underlying conception of the state is either undeveloped or simplistic.
    In this essay, I have suggested that the effects of geographical or political causes depended on available information and knowledge, which constrained state capacity to act during disasters. As statistical information and scientific knowledge improved, prediction of and response to famines became better, and famines became rarer. This thesis does not discount the importance of either market integration or shifts in political ideology from despotism to contractarianism, behind the causation and retreat of famines. It adds an important third process that these views tend to overlook.”

    • Replies: @last straw
  111. Malla says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Agreed. Stalin was very cautious about supporting Kim Il Sung’s bellicose ambition of uniting the Korean peninsula. North Korea was militarily stronger than the South and for Kim Il Sung, this was the opportunity, which is very understandable.
    Stalin’s reluctance in helping Kim Il Sung is very understandable. Since WW2, Stalin became very inward looking, indeed the USSR did not even recognize Communist North Vietnam for some years. This is because in WW2, the USSR suffered far more than the USA economically. And it is is true that for some decades after WW2, the USSR saw huge economic growth as the nation was further industrialized. And a lot of the new developments were in the civilian section of the economy unlike before WW2 where a lot more importance was given to the military. However 1950 was too close to the end of WW2 and the USSR was not strong enough to face the USA at that time.

  112. Malla says:
    @last straw

    However, the way you put it, it’s almost like that India would have begged the British to stay instead of seeking independence in 1947.

    The fall of the British Empire had many factors working against it.
    In the case of India
    1] Upper caste Hindus mostly Brahmins and mercantile Baniyas increasingly opposed the British Raj as the British were very pro- Lower caste improvement. The Indian National Congress was upper caste dominated.
    2] Internal conspiracy (Montague’s infamous Montague Clemsford report).
    In general
    1] Ww1 rivalry in between the British, French Empires etc… vs the German Empire, Ottoman Empire.
    2] Actions of Soviet Russia, as well as the USA after the Great depression, against the European Empires, especially the British Empire.

    If you are interested, I could elaborate on each of them.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @last straw
    , @Anon
  113. Malla says:
    @last straw

    About the British Empire and pre-mature independence, I would like to qoute Dr. Ambedkar about Ranade.
    First, who is Dr. Ambedkar?Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), popularly known as Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, was an Indian jurist, economist, politician and social reformer who inspired the Dalit Buddhist movement and campaigned against social discrimination towards the untouchables (Dalits), while also supporting the rights of women and labour. He was independent India’s first law and justice minister, the architect of the Constitution of India, and a founding father of the Republic of India. In India and elsewhere, he was often called Babasaheb, meaning “respected father” in Marathi and Hindi.

    And secondly, who is Mahadev Govind Ranade?
    Mahadev Govind Ranade (18 January 1842 – 16 January 1901) was an Indian scholar, foremost social reformer, justice and author. He was a founding member of the Indian National Congress party and owned several designations as member of the Bombay legislative council, member of the finance committee at the centre, and judge of the Bombay High Court, Maharashtra.

    Ranade was a visionary who summarised the mission of the Indian social reform movement as to “Humanize, Equalize and Spiritualize”. He campaigned against the ‘purdah’ system (keeping women behind the veil).He was a founder of the Social Conference movement, which he supported till his death, directing his social reform efforts against child marriage, the shaving of widows’ heads, the heavy cost of marriages and other social functions, and the caste restrictions on traveling abroad, and he strenuously advocated widow remarriage and female education. He was one of the founders of the Widow Marriage Association in 1861.

    ————-

    From
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_ranade.html

    Dr. Ambedkar writes about Mr. Ranade, thus

    “There is one charge against Ranade which is frequently made and which I think must be met. It is said of Ranade that he believed that the conquest of India by the British was Providential, that it was in the best interest of India, that she should remain within the British Empire, and that therein lay her final destiny. In short, Ranade is accused of being opposed to India’s Independence.

    The charge is founded on the following utterances of Ranade:—

    It cannot be easily assumed that in God’s Providence, such vast multitudes as those who inhabit India were placed centuries together under influences and restraints of alien domination, unless such influences and restraints were calculated to do lasting service in the building up of the strength and character of the people in directions in which the Indian races were most deficient. Of one thing we are certain, that after lasting over five hundred years, the Mohammedan Empire gave way, and made room for the re-establishment of the old native races in the Punjab, and throughout Central Hindusthan and Southern India, on foundations of a much more solid character than those which yielded so easily before the assaults of the early Mohammedan conquerors.”
    Both Hindus and Mohammedans lack many of those virtues represented by the love of order and regulated authority. Both are wanting in the love of municipal freedom, in the exercise of virtues necessary for civic life, and in aptitudes for mechanical skill, in the love of science and research in the love and daring of adventurous discovery, the resolution to master difficulties, and in chivalrous respect for womankind. Neither the old Hindus nor the old Mohammedan civilization was in a condition to train these virtues in a way to bring up the races of India on a level with those of Europe, and so the work of education had to be renewed, and it has been now going on for the past century and more under the Pax Brittanica with results—which all of us are witnesses to in ourselves.”

    A mere glance at these statements is enough to show that the charge is based on a misunderstanding, if not on a misreading, of the statements. The statements are plain and simple, and they cannot even by inference be said to lead to the conclusion that Ranade was opposed to India’s independence. In that sense the charge is false and without foundation.
    These statements of Ranade, far from casting any reflection upon his self-respect, testify to his wisdom and to his sagacity. What did Ranade want to convey by these statements? As I understand them, I think Ranade wanted to convey two things. The first thing he wanted to convey was that the conquest of India by Britain has given India the time, the opportunity, and the necessary shelter for rebuilding, renovating, and repairing her economic and social structure, to refit herself for bearing the strain of any foreign aggression when she does become free. The second thing Ranade wanted to convey was that going out of the British Empire by India before she had satisfied and solidified herself into a single nation, unified in thought, in feeling, and charged with a sense of a common destiny, was to invite chaos and disruption in the name of independence.

    How very important these truths are! People do not realize the part that shelter plays in the smooth working out of social, economic and political conflicts which are inevitable in every society which desires to advance. The late Prof. Maitland was once asked to explain why Parliamentary Institutions flourished in England but failed to take root in Europe. His answer reveals the importance of shelter. He said the difference was due to the English channel. By this answer what he meant to convey was that by reason of the English channel England was immune from foreign aggression while she was repairing her own body politic, and therefore it became safe for people to fight against their King for Liberty and also safe for the King to allow it to his people. This importance of shelter was also emphasized by Abraham Lincoln. In a speech devoted to showing why American Political Institutions were destined to remain perpetual, Lincoln said:—

    “All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined. . . with a Bonaparte for a Commander, could not by force take a drink from Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years.”
    In this Lincoln was also emphasizing the importance and the necessity for shelter for social reconstruction. India is not a sheltered country as England and America are. She lies across and on the roads, whether the roads are land routes, sea routes, or air routes. As she has no shelter, the fear is that she will be broken up if she is attacked from outside while she is engaged in refitting herself. India needs a dry dock as a shelter for the period of her refitting, and the British Empire is a dry dock for her. Who can say that Ranade was not wise in asking his countrymen to bear in mind the importance of a shelter which the British Empire can give and which India needs so much?

    • Replies: @last straw
  114. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The fall of the British Empire had many factors working against it.

    Sorry, what I meant was, The British Empire had many factors working against it.

  115. Ber says:
    @Godfree Roberts

    Interestingly Noel Joseph Terence Montgomery Needham was also similarly punished/attacked for exposing this germ warfare by the US.

    Needham was a British biochemist, historian and sinologist known for his scientific research and writing on the history of Chinese science and technology.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
  116. onebornfree says: • Website
    @Malla

    Malla says: “Basically National Socialism is a combination of the best of free market economics and Socialism.”

    Horseshit. You live in a fantasy world. National Socialism is fundamentally no different from any other imagined form of socialism/communism . All are unalterably anti-capitalist and anti- free market. All rely on the fantasy of “top down” control and planning of the economy and society in general by the ordained few “at the top” .

    “Top down” government control of economies always destroys economies and therefor impoverishes most individuals for the benefit of the few “at the top”. It’s a system of systemic robbery by the elites.

    “Government is always a way for the few to exploit the many. But it’s not always the same few.” Bill Bonner

    “Intellectuals and scientists and technologists have adopted the viewpoint that, since they can see the whole of society from above, and since they can understand its workings in clearer and evermore specific terms, and since they understand the vast field of natural resources, they can and should plan and plot the future of humanity. This belief is a form of insanity.” Jon Rappoport

    “If one understands that Socialism is not a ‘share the wealth’ program but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super rich men promoting Socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately Socialism, is not a movement of the down-trodden masses but of the economic elite.” From: “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” -Gary Allen

    “Regards”onebornfree

  117. Malla says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Very interesting comment. Thank you.

    A society that has a proper spiritual and moral grounding as core, irrefutable and immutable values and norms would be a better option.

    That is very true. High moral behaviour is the bed rock of any good society. It is best inculcated deep within the hearts of people, as you say. But it is not an easy task. No system, be it Christian theocracy, Buddhist theocracy, Communism, Capitalism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Islamic theocracy, Libertarianism, Fascism etc… will work well if there is a lack of morality in the population. There is only so much a society can to do or spend on, to police a people externally.

    That’s what Buddhism is, a superior system.

    It is. But like all systems it has to be followed. The essence of the core philosophy should be kept alive forever in time in the hearts of people and it should not end up as mere rituals and identity and rich fat monks. This is true for all ideologies/religions.

    The problem obviously is that we humans are competitive and selfish. This is part of our evolutionary programming as living beings. Mother nature loves competition, for us living organisms (from the bacteria to a huge Whale) this universe is a Roman Colosseum and we living organisms the Gladiators. True Civilization entails minor personal sacrifices for the common good and thus civilization and Mother Nature/Universe are partially, always at war.
    Suppressing this individual/clan competitiveness for a common good is what the challenge is all about.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    , @peterAUS
  118. onebornfree says: • Website

    As I have previously stated here and elsewhere, the Chinese “miracle”economy is largely an illusion, a fake boom creation of its own central banks continual, massive creation of fake money[See article linked below] .

    It’s the exact same scam as the Fed perpetuates here in the US, but on an even larger scale .

    However, because the $US is still the primary reserve currency for most of the world, the Fed can get away with its fraudulent money creation to a larger degree and for a longer time period than can other countries, including China.

    Bottom line:”Mr Market” Will Speak – LOUDLY! :

    Sooner or later the Chinese fake miracle economy is heading for a huge collapse caused directly by the central banks creation of massive amounts of fake money to falsely “stimulate” economic growth and the so-called “Chinese miracle” , when “Mr Market” finally gets to have his say and readjusts everything back to the mean average[ and beyond].

    The Chinese bank engineered economic collapse is slowly happening right now, in real time [as in the US and elsewhere- Chinese government economic statistics are all lies], and will only further further accelerate as the commies inevitable response will be even more centralization of the Chinese economy, and even more printing of fake money/ fake credit.

    The then further accelerating Chinese economic collapse will make the Chinese commie elite insider megalomaniacs and control freaks even more desperate to create major distractions for its increasingly impoverished slaves, as its fraudulent currencies value tanks relative to the equally fraudulent $US [and others.]Which means, [if history is any guide] : major distraction – WAR!

    And so it goes…

    The Real “Helicopter Money”: Since 2009, China Has Created $21 Trillion Of New Money, More Than Double The US:

    “….Chinese banks have been on a credit and money creation binge, and have created RMB144Tn ($21Tn) of new money since 2009, more than twice the amount of money supply created in the US, the eurozone and Japan combined over the same period. In total, China’s money supply stands at Rmb192tn, equivalent to $28 TRILLION. Why does this matter? Because Chine money’s supply is the size of broad money supply in the US and the eurozone put together, yet China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds that of the US.…”:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/real-helicopter-money-2009-china-has-created-21-trillion-new-money-more-then-double-us

    Regards,onebornfree

  119. YN1F says:
    @YN1F

    None of those quotes prove anything of the kind inasmuch as they merely say that A.H. studied Marxism enough to understand who (or what) he was fighting. Of course he’s going to study Marxism!

    And, again, socialism is of an entirely separate nature than communism or political Leftism, dummy.
    There are social programs all over the democratic West… that aren’t communism per se.

    I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.

  120. Erebus says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Don’t be distracted. This is very elementally a power play. The Chinese leadership wants total CONTROL over Hong Kong with no differentiation of the Mainland.

    If they wanted “total CONTROL” over HK, you nitwit, they’d have blown the Brits out of there in 48hrs back in the ’80s. Deng set the negotiations on the rails by telling Thatcher as much in their first meeting in Beijing in 1982.

    Sadly, I get the feeling that, having cut the city a lot of slack over 2 decades, Beijing has taken a page from the Russian Maidan playbook and is now cutting HK enough slack to hang itself. Its political and financial elites are grotesquely corrupt troglodytes and they’re marching what could have been “Asia’s World City” towards a 2nd tier container port existence by hanging on to their exorbitant privileges.

    I’ve liked Hong Kong for several decades now, and it pains me to see it go into decline and eventual irrelevance. Sad, but there it is.

    • Agree: MAOWASAYALI
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
  121. @Malla

    Mike Davis is a Trotsyite communist and it is in his interest to make the Colonial Empires look worse than what they were. The Universities and the media of Western Capitalist “Imperialist” nations are filled to the brim with such Communist folk. Ironic?

    This is just personal attack, irrelevant to our discussion. What relevant is the following, from the the Wiki page of “Late Victorian Holocausts”:

    This book won the World History Association Book Prize in 2002.[2] It was also featured in the LA Times Best Books of 2001 List.

    I agree, there were instances when the British Colonial Government could have done much much more to alleviate the situation. But to claim that the Brits were genocidal against Indians is laughable. The Indian population boomed under British rule. It would have been the most incompetent genocide ever.

    I never said that famines in India under British role was genocide. However, other people would think so, including Mike Davis. They have their reasons. From the Wiki page of “Late Victorian Holocausts”:

    [MORE]

    Between 1875–1900—a period that included the worst famines in Indian history—annual grain exports increased from 3 to 10 million tons”, equivalent to the annual nutrition of 25m people. “Indeed, by the turn of the century, India was supplying nearly a fifth of Britain’s wheat consumption at the cost of its own food security.”[6]

    In addition, “Already saddled with a huge public debt that included reimbursing the stockholders of the East India Company and paying the costs of the 1857 revolt, India also had to finance British military supremacy in Asia. In addition to incessant proxy warfare with Russia on the Afghan frontier, the subcontinent’s masses also subsidized such far-flung adventures of the Indian Army as the occupation of Egypt, the invasion of Ethiopia, and the conquest of the Sudan. As a result, military expenditures never comprised less than 25 percent (34 percent including police) of India’s annual budget…”[7]

    As an example of the effects of both this and of the restructuring of the local economy to suit imperial needs (in Victorian Berar, the acreage of cotton doubled 1875–1900),[8] Davis notes that “During the famine of 1899–1900, when 143,000 Beraris died directly from starvation, the province exported not only thousands of bales of cotton but an incredible 747,000 bushels of grain.”[9]

    India’s Nero

    This chapter focuses on the central government, under the leadership of Lord Lytton vehemently opposed stockpiling the grain or otherwise interfering with market forces only to keep the surplus in India to support their own extravagant lifestyle.[18]

    Throughout the Autumn of 1876, while the kharif crops were withering in the field due to lack of winter rains, Lord Lytton was absorbed in organizing the immense grandeur for the Imperial Assemblage in Delhi to proclaim Queen Victoria as Kaiser-i-Hind.[19][11]

    An English Journalist later estimated that 100,000 of Queen Victoria’s subjects had to be starved to death in Madras and Mysore in the course of Lytton’s spectacular Durbar.[20] For such, future generations of India would remember Lytton as the Nero of India.[20]

    In addition, military budgeting was strictly frugal due to the depreciation of the Indian rupee.[20] … Even the grain merchants preferred to export a record of 6.4 million cwt. of wheat to Europe in 1877-78 instead of relieving starvation in India.[22] Lytton justified his actions, to be somewhat fair, by weighing what still had value-budget against lives that were doomed or devalued of any civilized human quality.

    Running Indian labor camps like concentration camp (my comment, the content is from the same Wiki page as above):

    The Temple Wage, put forward by Richard Temple, was duly introduced for people who would earn under a certain criteria of both physical and economic deprivation, consisting of rigorous physical labour. Famished people would require a license to travel outside of their community to work in the work camps as labour on railroad and canal projects that wouldn’t even feed them a day’s meal; furthermore, they were also prohibited to seek refuge unless and until they were categorized as ” indigent, destitute and capable of only modicum of labour”[23]

    Work camps turned into extermination camps with the strenuous manual labour cherry topped with unhealthy sanitation. By the end of 1877, relief officers were shook to the ground with the number of inmates in the work camps that were dead by the beginning of the terrible summer. Dr. Cornish, Temple’s most dogged critic, reported that the monthly mortality rate was equivalent to an annual death rate of 94%. Moreover, post-mortem reports showed the chief cause of death to be-“extreme wasting of tissue and destruction of the lining membrane of the lower bowel”. Full grown men were starved to a point that their weight reduced below sixty pounds.[24] Ironically, the only exception to this mortality pattern were Jails, where people were better fed than the disease-ridden work camps. People would have been better off getting themselves arrested and go to jail for non-fulfillment of a contract.

    From my post above
    “doctors says the thrifty gene is an inheritance from times when famines were common in pre-British India.”

    There have been so many famines in pre British India that the genes of Indian people has changed via evolutionary selection.

    Some Indian doctors want to make an excuse for India’s poor performace in modern sports competition. It’s just their speculation. There is no scientific evidence for what they claim.

    By the way the famous Indian Professor of Economic History at the London School of Economics, Tirthankar Roy has looked into this famine phenomenon in India.

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/WorkingPapers/Economic-History/2016/WP243.pdf

    It’s Davis’s 480 page extensively researched and widely cited book vs a 20 or so page paper, guess which one I would regard as much more important?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  122. @Malla

    I did not know that Gandhi:

    1. represented the interest of upper caste Hindus and were against the interest of the lower caste and poor in India
    2. involved in internal conspiracy
    3. had much to do with the rivalry among imperialist powers in WW1
    4. was an agent of Soviet Union or the U.S. government, or represented their interests

    • Replies: @Malla
  123. @Malla

    If colonialism was so wonderful, why would almost all of former colonies fought for and gained independence? It was not only the British colonialism in India that was eventually overthrown.

  124. @Godfree Roberts

    Thank you. I was hesitant to mention America’s germ warfare in the Korea War because I thought it was far more controversial.

  125. @Malla

    Basically National Socialism is a combination of the best of free market economics and Socialism.

    Nazism is definitely not socialism. It lacked the two most important features of socialist economy:
    1. The public ownership of land.
    2. State Owned Enterprises (SOE).

    • Replies: @Malla
  126. @Malla

    Agree completely. Even within The Buddha’s circle, there was competition-of a sort-but it was a personal and individual one where the individual strove to make himself the better. Buddha recognized achievement and thus that person was elevated. It was not a competition against or contra another monk.

    If a society, like a wheel, can operate with the hub always as a reference point and sinecure, then it can be perpetually successful. No other system of thought, values, and Truths can compare to Buddhism as a foundation and guide for a society that runs smoothly, on time, and fulfills its members.

    Buddhism is enormously unifying in the practical, physical realms and meta-physical (just as real) dimensions. Applied correctly, it supersedes discreet, fractured theories, “laws”, and coexists with those that WORK. It something does not work, and do work, it is not to be wasted time on. This is the under appreciated side of The Buddha and his teachings.

    • Agree: Malla
  127. @Erebus

    Silly boy. “Blowing it to bits” is the least favorable option to total control. Listen, do not blow your nose too hard, and if you see bits of grey matter, scurry on down to a neurologist. Given its geographic limits, it functions best as a “Switzerland of the East”. To be that, it needs independence or at least non-interference.

    I am being charitable and simpatico to even reply to you. Don’t take it for granted. May you have a commodious day.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  128. peterAUS says:
    @Malla

    The problem obviously is that we humans are competitive and selfish. This is part of our evolutionary programming as living beings. Mother nature loves competition, for us living organisms (from the bacteria to a huge Whale) this universe is a Roman Colosseum and we living organisms the Gladiators. True Civilization entails minor personal sacrifices for the common good and thus civilization and Mother Nature/Universe are partially, always at war.
    Suppressing this individual/clan competitiveness for a common good is what the challenge is all about.

    Yep.
    Hehe..the Devil is in the details. Like WHO determines what are those “minor personal sacrifices for the common good”. HOW are they applied? Etc.

    Has it ever been in the history of Humankind that those who determined “what” and “how” didn’t have….hehe….. the best “material” at their disposal? Food, accommodation….women?

    Just…one…example would be quite refreshing. Not those who preached that, no; those who actually dispensed the “what” and “how”. When they got into position to do that. “Power corrupts…” thing.

    Ever?

    • Replies: @Malla
  129. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Do not mix my words please.
    This has nothing to do with Gandhi in particular.

    • Replies: @last straw
  130. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Some Indian doctors want to make an excuse for India’s poor performace in modern sports competition.

    That is ridiculous. This is no excuse but scientific fact.

    What relevant is the following, from the the Wiki page of “Late Victorian Holocausts”:

    What is relevant is this:
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/Economic-History/Assets/Documents/WorkingPapers/Economic-History/2016/WP243.pdf
    Were Indian Famines ‘Natural’ Or ‘Manmade’? by Tirthankar Roy
    Were Indian famines natural or manmade? ‘Manmade,’ insofar as this means that famines were an outcome of colonial politics, is an unconvincing theory because it fails to explain the rarity of famines during late colonial rule and presumes that the capacity of the state to mitigate famines was limited only by its own intention to act.

  131. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Debate this topic with the poster ‘one born free’.
    You are mistaking Communism that is a type of Socialism with Socialism in general.

    The philosopher Otto Weininger, who was himself Jewish wrote:
    “It is notable that the Jews, even now when at least a relative security of tenure is possible, prefer moveable property, and, in spite of their acquisitiveness, have little real sense of personal property, especially in its most characteristic form, landed property. Property is indissolubly connected with the self, with individuality. It is in harmony with the foregoing that the Jew is so readily disposed to communism. Communism must be distinguished clearly from socialism, the former being based on a community of goods, an absence of individual property, the latter meaning, in the first place a co-operation of individual with individual, of worker with worker, and a recognition of human individuality in every one. Socialism is Aryan (Owen, Carlyle, Ruskin, Fichte). Communism is Jewish (Marx). Modern social democracy has moved far apart from the earlier socialism, precisely because Jews have taken so large a share in developing it. In spite of the associative element in it, the Marxian doctrine does not lead in any way towards the State as a union of all the separate individual aims, as the higher unit combining the purposes of the lower units. Such a conception is as foreign to the Jew as it is to the woman.”

  132. Malla says:
    @last straw

    It’s Davis’s 480 page extensively researched and widely cited book vs a 20 or so page paper, guess which one I would regard as much more important?

    480 pages book or paper. Can you debunk Mr. Roy’s conclusions?

    • Replies: @last straw
  133. @Godfree Roberts

    Fascinating background to the Korean war and your own family; so “Godfree Roberts” is an alias then?

    Korea was not the first place nor time (((they))) used BW (smallpox) against ‘recalcitrant natives’ as the Shabat goy par excellence Winston Churchill was wont to say.

    I wonder how long it will take before “Operation Killer” and the use of BW is declassified and becomes common knowledge like the ‘gift’ of smallpoxed blankets to American Native Indians?

    Sir Jeffrey Amherst wrote a letter regarding the use of smallpox blankets as a weapon against Native Americans.

    Smallpox had spread at Fort Pitt.

    Early American historian Elizabeth Fenn of the University of Colorado Boulder lays out her theory on what happened in her 2000 article in the Journal of American History. In the late spring of 1763, Delaware, Shawnee and Mingo warriors, inspired by Ottawa war leader Pontiac, laid siege to Fort Pitt, an outpost at the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers in present-day downtown Pittsburgh.

    The fort’s commander, Capt. Simeon Ecuyer, reported in a June 16 message to his superior, Philadelphia-based Col. Henry Bouquet, that the situation was dire, with local traders and colonists taking refuge inside the fort’s walls. Ecuyer wasn’t just afraid of his Native American adversaries. The fort’s hospital had patients with smallpox, and Ecuyer feared the disease might overwhelm the population inside the fort’s cramped confines.

    Bouquet, in turn, passed along the news about the smallpox inside Fort Pitt to his own superior, Amherst, in a June 23 letter. In Amherst’s July 7 response, he cold-bloodedly saw an opportunity in the disease outbreak. “Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.”

    July 13, Bouquet, who at that point was traveling across Pennsylvania with British reinforcements for Fort Pitt, responded to Amherst, promising that he would try to spread the disease to the Native Americans via contaminated blankets, “taking care however not to get the disease myself.” That tactic seemed to please Amherst, who wrote back in approval on July 16, urging him to spread smallpox “as well as try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble [sic] Race.”

    Source: History Channel

    Of course, what the JewSA did to Vietnam with Agent Orange–which is recognized as a biological weapon and not controversial mainstream news–makes the war crimes in Korea look inconsequential and one wonders why it is still controversial in Korea and denied by the Powers That Be?

  134. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Again Lies Lies Lies.

    Lord Lytton disapproved of the work of the Madras Government of increasing wages as this was attracting people who were capable of buying food, coming to the camps for extra money. Thus famine relief was being wasted on people who did not need relief. In the concurrent famine in the Bombay Presidency, Lord Lytton’s, measure to keep the wages down led to far fewer mortality.

    Also it was Lord Lytton to pushed for a plan to build a series of canals and railways lines to prevent further famines.
    Your Marxist “researchers” are not that good, do not read original sources.

    From The History of Lord Lytton’s Indian administration, 1876 to 1880 by Lady Betty Balfour

    [MORE]

    “In the opinion of the Viceroy, Sir Richard Temple carried out his instructions at Madras with admirable tact, judgment, and energy, and for the time being exerted a much-needed check on the expenditure of the Madras Government. He found that vast numbers were in receipt of relief who, for a time at any rate, could support themselves. Under his influence the wage rate was lowered and the supervision of relief labour was increased.
    Unfortunately there was a relapse to the original condition of excessive extravagance soon after Sir Richard Temple’s departure.
    Rain fell throughout the famine districts of Madras in May and June 1877, but the hopes then entertained that the worst period of scarcity was over were subsequently disappointed. The state of things at Madras grew from bad to worse. The Madras Government raised their scale of relief wages. This, in the opinion of the Viceroy, was unwise, but he considered it a matter in which the Supreme Government was not justified in interfering. In Bombay, where the scarcity was the same, a much lower rate of wages was found to work successfully, and in that presidency there had been far less famine mortality.
    The mortality in Madras was terrible, and in the Viceroy’s opinion was not a little attributable to the defective management and unsound principles of the local Government.
    Viceroy to Writing to the Duke of Buckingham on July 6 Madras, the Viccroy expressed his distress at the great increase in the numbers receiving charitable relief in Madras without any prospect of diminution till the next crop should be reaped, and attributed this state of things to the recent increase of relief wage, adding : ‘ So long as a pinched population, not habitually or by temperament very self-helpful, can live at Government expense, on high wages for light work, I greatly fear you will experience serious difficulty in forcing such a population to revert to dependence on its own unaided resources, however sufficient those resources may be. But would it not be a sound principle in such cases that Government relief should cease, as far as regards cultivators, as soon as crops have been sown under fairly favourable circumstances. For when this happens the cultivator can at once obtain credit for his property.’

    Towards the end of July drought was so wide- spread as to threaten a general scarcity, and the Viceroy informed the Governor of the Straits Settlements of the failure of the crops, requesting him to communicate the information to the Governments of Cochin China and Siam, where there was abundant grain for export.

    The condition of affairs at Madras by the end of July was so deplorable that the Viceroy decided to go there himself without delay. The following letter to Lord Salisbury gives a vivid picture of the existing state of things.

    To the Marquis of Salisbury

    [Private.l ‘ Simla : July 29, 1877.

    My dear Lord Salisbury, — I fear it is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the situation we have now to recognise, and, if possible, to deal with, in Madras and Mysore. I have briefly recorded the main facts of this situation in my telegram of yesterday, and I need not now repeat what I have.

    To Lord said in that telegram. When Temple inspected the relief works in Madras, he reported that the population employed upon them was a mere mob for want of adequate supervision. The total number of the population on relief work, or in receipt of charitable aid, was then, I think, within half a million. It has now increased to one million and three-quarters (probably owing, in no slight degree, to the measures which have simultaneously lowered the rate of labour and raised the rate of wages), but the means of supervision have not been augmented in proportion ; nor, indeed, so far as I can make out, have they been appreciably augmented at all. If the relief gangs, when Temple inspected them, were an unregulated rabble, what must now be their condition? But, supposing the public works staff to be adequately strengthened, all relief labour to be brought under its supervision, and that supervision to be as complete as possible, there is really, so far as I can discover, nothing to supervise. By far the greater portion of the relief labour throughout Madras seems to consist of scraping mud off a road, or out of a tank, and scraping it back again, or chopping prickly pears. According to the weekly dispatch from the Madras Government to you, the grants for famine relief amounted, on the instant, to two millions and a half. This, of course, is irrespective of loss of revenue, and enhanced military and other charges. So far as I can judge, this enormous expenditure will bequeath to the presidency little or no permanent benefit in the shape of any important public works.
    Some few works of lasting utility will no doubt have been completed or commenced, but none of which the importance will render any appreciable return for the vast outlay already incurred. But we have now to contemplate another unexpected year of famine, with increased and increasing expenditure for an indefinite period ; and I am sure you will share my anxiety that this enormous, and apparently inevitable, outlay should not, at least, be altogether wasted ; that it should contribute to the permanent improvement of the presidency, and bequeath to the population some increased insurance against future famine.
    Lord Lytton wrote
    ‘ Mysore is easier to deal with than Madras ; not only because the field of operations is smaller, but also because the Government of India has, at least, some power of control and direction over the local authorities, who cannot disregard its instructions with complete impunity. In Mysore I am hopeful that it may still be possible to effect a timely rescue To Lord by the appointment of a Special Commissioner, care fully selected and furnished with adequate powers. But in Madras what can we do ? . . . I believe that Temple’s mission saved us from a great catastrophe ; and nothing but the conviction that a great catastrophe was impending, and could not otherwise be averted, induced me, most reluctantly, to resort to that measure. . . ,extremely embarrassing.
    After stating that the Government of India, with the approval of Her Majesty’s Government and of the people of India, were resolved to avert death by Starvation by the employment of all means available. The Viceroy first expressed his conviction that ‘absolute non-interference with the operations of private commercial enterprise must be the foundation of their present famine policy.’ This on the ground that ‘ free and abundant private trade cannot co-exist with Government importation,’ and that more food will reach the famine-smitten districts if private enterprise is left to itself (beyond receiving every possible facility and information from the Government) than if it were paralysed by State competition.

    With regard to the population out of work and unable to buy food at famine prices, he explains that it is the policy of Government to employ such people on relief works, but that such relief employment, at a subsistence rate of wage, should be provided on large, fully supervised works of permanent benefit to India. ‘ The advantage of large works of this kind over petty local works is twofold — firstly, the obligation to do a full day’s work, at a low rate of wage, and to go some distance to work, keeps from seeking relief people who can support themselves otherwise ; and secondly, the money expended on such works bequeaths permanent benefits to the country.’
    For people who, from infirmity or social custom, or other reasons, are unable to work, ‘ the State must, when the sources of private benevolence run dry, provide gratuitous relief.’
    But such relief imposes upon the State a task of peculiar difficulty and delicacy, ‘for it is the inevitable tendency of all gratuitous relief afforded by the State, if it be not supervised and restricted with the most scrupulous exactitude, to intrude injuriously on the field of relief labour, and thus demoralise large masses of the population.’ Then follows a description of the forms in which such relief may be given.
    Finally, two main objects are put forward towards which the endeavours, and all the available power, of the Indian Government and local Government should be directed. ‘ Firstly, the framing and working of a scheme whereby 4,500 to 5,000 tons of food may be carried daily into the famine country ; and, secondly, the selection and commencement of large public works of lasting utility, on which all the able- bodied relief recipients of either sex and any age should at once be employed.’
    The Minute closes with these words : ‘ Nothing could be further from my intention than to interfere unduly with the local authorities, and the devoted officers, who have so long and zealously been combating the growth of a gigantic catastrophe. Although, up to the present moment, the result has not equalled the assiduity of their untiring efforts, yet the energy and devotion of the district officers throughout Madras, during the protracted and increasing strain upon their physical and mental faculties, cannot, I think, be too highly or gratefully appreciated. It is not to inadequate energy or intelligence, but to inadequate numbers and inadequate executive powers, that I attribute the incompleteness of their success. “

    • Replies: @Malla
  135. @Malla

    Do not mix my words please.
    This has nothing to do with Gandhi in particular.

    How can you talk about the movement of India independence without mentioning Gandhi?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  136. Malla says:
    @Malla

    A few days before his departure Lord Lytton wrote to his friend. Sir James Stephen :

    [MORE]

    ‘ I start for Madras next Thursday with but very little hope of being able to avert what threatens to be an unprecedented catastrophe. . . . The weather is hideously hot, and I start on my journey with a ‘ Now Sir Charles Bernard. If I survive this adventure, you will doubtless hear from me at Madras.’
    Lord Lytton’s despondency at this crisis was greatly increased by the illness of Sir John Strachey — the colleague and friend upon whose help and counsel he most relied. Sir John was suffering from a serious affection of the eyes, and the doctors feared that he would have to choose between resigning his office and losing his eyesight.’

    Viceroy has arrived at Madras and inquired for himself into the details of famine administration there. Such a course, however, appeared to him to involve endless embarrassment and conflict. ‘Virtually we should be sitting as a committee of inquiry on the Madras Govermnent. Every man’s back would be up and every man’s hand against us, and we should have to fight every inch of ground. It is, I am convinced, impossible that we could conscientiously arrive at a final verdict favourable to the Madras Government, and any other would, of course, be bitterly resented and probably appealed against. The only objection that I can see to my own plan is that the Madrassees will, I am told, resent the introduction of even a single officer, however eminent, into their presidency. But do what we will we cannot avoid some difficulty and soreness.’

    On September the 6th the Viceroy received the following telegram from the Secretary of State :
    ‘ I have heard with great satisfaction of judicious arrangements concluded between you and the Duke Telegram of Buckingham. I believe that concentration of famine management in his hands will be of greatest advantage. The appointment of General Kennedy, in whom you repose well grounded confidence, will also be very beneficial. I approve generally of your arrangements, reserving any observations I may have to make in matters of detail. Greater stringency in confining relief to those unable to work is no doubt in many places necessary, but every precaution should be taken that consequent requirement of task work is not allowed to press dangerously on those who by privation have become partially incapacitated for labour,’

    In acknowledging this telegram in a private letter the Viceroy writes :

    To the Marquis of Salisbury ‘ Bangalore : Sept. 9, 1877.
    ‘ My dear Lord Salisbury, — I feel relieved of a great anxiety by your welcome telegram approving of the arrangements concluded with the Duke of Buckingham at Madras. I think I can assure you To Lord that every provision has been made, and every precaution taken, on behalf of those who have fallen out of condition and are quite unfit for work. Of such persons (putting aside the aged, the infirm, and the diseased) there is undoubtedly a large number ; and the care of these should, I conceive, be the special function of the relief camps. All the officers in charge of these camps aver that wanderers, picked up in an advanced stage of emaciation, recover flesh and strength after about a fortnight of the diet they receive in camp, and that in less than a month all who are not diseased become perfectly fit for work ; but at present there is no work to put them on to, and all the camps I inspected were swarming with fat, idle, able-bodied paupers, who had been living for months in what is to them unusual luxury at the expense of Government. The main difficulty I now experience will be to get these demoralised masses on to real work of any kind, even when the work has been provided for them. The Duke showed me, on the day I left Madras, a letter from the collector of one of the largest Madras districts complaining that his camps were beginning to get flooded with immigrants from other parts of the presidency where minor works ” near the homes of the people ” had already been started, and where agriculture itself was not yet entirely arrested. Though many of these persons, who had come from a considerable distance, arrived in an emaciated condition, it had been proved on inquiry that all of them were able to support themselves. But they positively refused to do any kind of work, or to return to their own farms and villages, having heard that plenty of food was to be had for nothing elsewhere.

    ‘Relief camps. Of the relief camp I visited at Bellary there is not much to be said. It is a honarable relief camp, though not, I should say, so well organised as it might be. The relief camps in and around Madras are simply huge popular picnics, whose inmates are at present thoroughly enjoying themselves at the Government expanse.
    Conversation ‘ The following is a faithful summary of my conversation with the officer in charge of the Palaveram camp, when I visited it :
    ‘ Self. — All these men and women seem in splendid condition for work.
    ‘ Officer. — Yes. Unluckily we have no work to give them, and if we did not keep them here they would soon drop out of condition again. It is the future population that we are saving.
    ‘Self. — Then you have stringent precautions, of course, for the prevention of wandering from the camp ? I see none, but I presume they exist.
    ‘ Officer. — Oh dear, no. None are required. The people know when they are well off; and they have never been before, and will never be again, so To Lord well off as they are here. The famine has been a godsend to all the people you see here, and there is not a man, woman, or child in this camp who will not bitterly regret the cessation of scarcity. Look at our sleeping and feeding arrangements ! This class of the population are never so comfortably lodged or so highly fed at home. In addition to the rations you have seen, those who are in delicate health receive fish and meat twice a week, and all receive sundry little condiments and spices to season their rice and dal. This prevents the diet from being monotonous, and keeps up a healthy appetite. You see we have no need of precaution against wandering from the camp. Our difficulty will be, by and by, to get the people out of it. . . .
    ‘ We pass to the huts containing the women and children.
    Self. — I notice that, whilst all these children are in a genuine famine condition, the women they seem to belong to are uncommonly fat. What is the reason of this ?
    Another Official (interposing). — Ah ! This is one of the saddest facts we have to deal with. Though all these miserable mothers are apparently in such fair condition, their milk has run dry. We are now providing milk for all these poor infants.
    ‘ Self (to First Officer privately as we leave). — Do you believe those fat women are the mothers of all those lean babies ?
    ‘ Officer. — Of course not. All the babies are hired, borrowed, or stolen. Famine babies are now at a premium, as the presentation of them obliges us to admit their supposed mothers.
    ‘I compliment on the great cleanliness of the camp. ” Yes,” he replies, ” we have now got our organisation well in hand, and have not had a single case of fire in the camp.” “No,” I say, ” I noticed that your kitchens are well away from the huts.” ” Oh, it is not that. But you see all the men smoke in their huts. Tobacco is one of the little luxuries we allow them, poor fellows, and if we did not look sharp the whole camp might be burnt down.”

    ‘Here we rejoin who has been conversing through an interpreter with a portly old native almost entirely nude, who has been on gratuitous relief for the last three months, and whom has discovered to be ” a fine old farmer.”
    ‘ (to fine old farmer). — And do you find more flavour in the vegetables now than last month ?
    ‘ Fine old farmer says, he does ; and explains to me that among the sad phenomena of the famine is the tastelessness of the vegetables given in relief food to season the rice with, owing to the recent hot dry winds.
    ‘ The above, which is not an imaginary conversation, will suffice to illustrate the manner in which relief operations are treated in Madras. All the camps I have seen are splendidly organised as regards sanitary and conservancy arrangements. But they are treated like “model farms,” regardless of expense.
    ‘Before leaving the subject of Madras, I may mention that I offered the Duke, if he wished it, to To Lord take the famine business of the Government of India into my own hands, and also to attach to it any Madras officer in whom he had confidence. The Duke did not seem to think that these arrangements would make any material difference to him; and there was no Madras officer whom he felt able to recommend. But as regards the first of my two proposals, I have decided on other and general grounds to take the Famine Department into my own hands, and have already informed you of this by telegraph. . . .

    ‘ And now, my dear Lord Salisbury, I must end this long letter with many apologies for the length of it. Temple has behaved exceedingly well, and greatly helped me by assisting all my arrangements, at some sacrifice, I fear, to his own convenience and the strength of his famine staff.
    But in this province the severity of the famine has thrown everything out of gear, and so greatly changed for the worse the financial condition and prospects that I fear it will be absolutely necessary to postpone the restoration of the province to native rule beyond the date hitherto contemplated.

    * Yours, dear Lord Salisbury, very faithfully,

    (Signed) ‘ Lytton.’

    • Replies: @Malla
  137. That is ridiculous. This is no excuse but scientific fact.

    Where is the scientific fact? I could not find any.

    • Replies: @Malla
  138. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The new arrangement between the Viceroy and the Madras Government had hardly been completed when the long expected rain fell abundantly. The hearts of the people revived, and they dispersed so rapidly that the numbers which in September were 2,218,000, by December had fallen to 444,000.

    [MORE]

    The people in Madras connected the advent of the rain with the Viceroy’s visit, which they looked upon as a most propitious omen.

    The principal changes made by the new Famine Administration in Mysore were to transfer all the paupers who were able to do any work, however slight, from the ‘ kitchens ‘ to relief works, to remodel the kitchens as hospitals for the sick, and to establish a system of village relief in their own homes for those who were unfit to be employed on works. These efforts were greatly aided by the bountiful rain which fell in September and October, filling the tanks, securing the rice harvest, and affording abundant employment to agriculturists in the fields. The number on gratuitous relief, which stood at 220,100 in September 1877, had fallen in June to 11,000, and the number employed in relief works, after rising from 49,000 to 86,000, fell in June to 37,000. Mr. Elliott left the province in May 1878, making over the post of Famine Commissioner to Major Moncreiff, who, with Mr. Wingate, remained in Mysore till August, by which time hardly any need of famine relief continued to exist. In May, Lord Lytton imposed on Mr. Elliott the duty of drawing up the Mysore Famine Report, and wrote a minute on it (November 1878) when it was completed, from which the following extracts have been made : —

    ‘ The first step taken, in September 1877, was to reinforce the Mysore staff with trained Civil officers and Mr Elliott’s officers from Her Majesty’s Army, whose duty was to direct relief operations; with engineers to manage relief Report works and to organise famine labour ; with medical officers to arrange famine hospitals and tend the sick. The next step was to gather all the threads of famine administration into one hand, and to lay down detailed rules for the guidance of famine officers of all grades And the last step, which followed close upon the others, was to effect a thorough and intelligent inspection of all the famine operations throughout the country. It is only too clear that all this ought to have been done in December 1876. The report tells of the many difficulties which were met in the management of the relief works ; in getting the people to come to these works ; in employing persons in different stages of weakness so as not to overtask them, while giving them some incentive to live and work ; in clearing the relief kitchens and carrying the inmates with their own consent to the works, if they were fit to labour, or to their own homes if they were past work ; in establishing and working a system whereby house-ridden folk were relieved in their homes ; in preventing peculation ; in securing to the province a moderate out-turn of useful work in exchange for relief given to the able-bodied ; and, lastly, in helping the ryots to recover their position and independence by a judicious distribution.

    I am deeply indebted to Mr. Elliott for his excellent report, which tells truthfully and graphically the story of much human suffering, borne with the patient endurance characteristic of the people of India, and gives a faithful account of the early failure and subsequent success in relieving a great population from the dreadful effects of prolonged famine. . . .

    ‘ The thanks of the Government of India are due to Mr. Elliott for the ability and energy with which he carried out their famine policy in Mysore. Though the province and its people were new to him, he promptly mastered the position. He organised and directed relief operations with a patience and sense which overcame all difficulties, and with the fullest tenderness to the people in dire calamity. To Major Scott- Moncreiff, the Chief Engineer, and to Mr. Wingate, the famine secretary, I tender the hearty acknowledgments of the Government for the skill, knowledge, and zeal which they brought to bear on the difficult questions connected with the conduct of relief work and the organisation of gratuitous relief.’
    Whilst admitting that private subscription had its use and place, the Viceroy continued to hold the view that any appeal to private charity in England was ‘ a dangerous folly ‘ unless by previous arrangement a sphere of operation could be marked out for it which should not overlap the field already occupied by the Government’s organisation. Ultimately, in accordance with Lord Lytton’s views, the sums collected were profitably used in helping the farmers, who in the time of famine had been forced to sell their agricultural implements, to buy them back, thus saving them from degenerating from the condition of peasant proprietors to that of coolie labourers.

    Writing to Lord Salisbury on November 1 the Viceroy says : ‘ Kennedy has really done wonders in Madras, and the enormous reductions he has effected in the numbers gratuitously relieved (especially at Salem) convincingly demonstrate, I think, the waste and mismanagement of the old system, against which I have been in vain protesting ever since January last. For these reductions, which have afforded the greatest relief to our Treasury, have been effected without loss of life or health in a single instance.’

    During the following year (1878) all relief operations were finally wound up.

    • Replies: @Malla
  139. @Malla

    480 pages book or paper. Can you debunk Mr. Roy’s conclusions?

    That 24-page paper you provided is woefully inadequate both in its analysis and in the factors it considered, compared to Davis’s book. Now try to debunk Davis’s book.

    • Replies: @Malla
  140. Malla says:
    @Malla

    At the close of 1877 a measure was introduced at the Legislative Assembly of the Indian Government, by Sir John Strachey, legislation to which, supplemented by the Acts previously passed in that year, was designed to provide for the future expenses cost of famines.

    [MORE]

    In a work published by Sir John Strachey and his brother on ‘ The Finances and Public Works of India,’ it is written : ‘ A nobler, more humane, or wiser programme was never devised by any Government for the benefit of a country than that put forth by the Government of India in 1878 for the protection of India against this most terrible and ruinous and far-reaching of all natural calamities ; and until it is brought into far more complete operation than has hitherto been permitted, the most urgent of the duties of the British rulers of India to the vast population they have undertaken to govern will be left unfulfilled.’-
    It was Lord Lytton’s conviction, a conviction shared by all the leading men in India, that the wisest policy was, by the construction of a network of cheap railways and carefully planned works of irrigation, to do all that it was in the power of a Government to do to prevent the frightful calamities of famine to which India is still exposed.

    This policy was set forth in a speech delivered by Lord Lytton at the close of the Legislative Council held on December 27, 1877, a speech which Sir John Strachey has characterised as worthy ‘ to be remembered among the wisest utterances of Indian Governors.’
    The principles therein laid down may be understood from the following extracts from Lord Lytton.
    “ Of the countless suggestions made from time to time, and more especially during the present year, for rendering less bitterly ironical than it still seems, when read by the sinister light of recent events, that famous inscription on the huge granary built at Patna for ” the perpetual prevention of famine in these provinces” there are only three which merit serious consideration. They are firstly EMIGRATION, secondly Railways ; and thirdly, Irrigation Works. Unfortunately for India, however, the first of these three material factors in the practical solution of problems similar to those we are now dealing with is inapplicable, or only very imperfectly applicable, to the actual conditions of this country. The first condition requisite to render emigration available as a precaution against famine is a normal excess of the population as compared with the food-produce of the country; the second condition is sufficient energy, on the part of the surplus population, to induce it to seek a higher standard of material comfort than that to which it is accustomed ; and the third condition is a foreign field of labour in which this higher standard may be reached. Now, none of these conditions are sufficiently developed in India to justify reliance upon emigration as an efficient auxiliary in our struggles with famine. Of our whole population only a small portion as yet exceeds its food producing power. The possible increase of this proportion of the population will undoubtedly augment our future difficulties, if, in the meanwhile, no adequate correctives be applied to them. But in those parts of India which, during the last two years, have most suffered from scarcity, the population only averages at 250 inhabitants to every square mile; and, since those districts comprise large areas of uncultivated land, this average cannot be regarded as at all excessive. In the next place, there is no contesting the fact that, in spite of the inducements offered to emigration by this Government, in spite of the widespread organisation for the recruitment of it established by Colonial Governments, and in spite of the encouraging example furnished by that small number who, having tried the experiment of temporary emigration, return, after a few years’ absence, in possession of savings which they could not otherwise have stored by the labour of a lifetime — in spite of all these things the people of India will not emigrate. The uncomplaining patience of the Indian ryot has a profoundly pathetic claim upon our compassionate admiration. In no country of the “Western world could a national calamity, so severe and prolonged as that which has now for more than twenty-four months affected one-half of this empire, have lasted so long without provoking from the sufferings of an ignorant and starving population agrarian and social disturbances of the most formidable character. But for this very reason we cannot safely frame any plans for improving the condition of the Indian ryot in exclusive reliance on his spirit of adventure. And, although the exportation to foreign countries of large numbers of the people, without reference to their feelings and in opposition to their known inclination, is a policy which might possibly have been enforced by a Moghul Emperor, it is certainly not a policy which can be adopted by a British Government. It is a very significant fact that those of our native subjects who do occasionally emigrate belong to the least, rather than the most, densely populated parts of the country. Finally, it must be borne in mind that if to-morrow all the native races of Hindustan were animated by a simultaneous impulse to emigrate, there is at present no field of foreign labour capable of absorbing a proportion of the enormous population of this continent sufficiently large to make any appreciable difference in the general condition of the remainder. Our colonies take from India, annually a few thousand labourers. Multiply that number by ten, or even twenty, and the percentage of Indian emigration would still bear but an insignificant relation to the number of the whole non-emigrant community.
    For all these reasons, although emigration unquestionably claims our fostering encouragement, I fear that for many years to come we must practically exclude this expedient from the list of those on which we mainly rely as a means of insuring the population of India against the calamities of periodical famine. The conclusion thus arrived at forcibly confines our immediate efforts to the most rapid development, by the cheapest methods, combined with the most appropriate and efficient application, of the only two remaining instruments for increasing the produce of the soil, facilitating its circulation, and thereby improving the general social condition, and augmenting the collective wealth, of the whole community. Those instruments are railroads and irrigation works. . . .”
    After examining in detail the principles on which the development of railroads and irrigation works should be carried out, he summed up the policy in the following words : ‘ The Government of India is convinced, upon a careful review of its financial position and prospects, that the heavy obligations imposed upon it by the calamitous circumstances of recent years can only be discharged without serious risk to its financial stability by a strict and patient adherence to the principle affirmed in the financial measures we introduced last year, and developed in those which are now before the Council. That principle involves the enlargement, with adequate precautions, of the financial, and consequently also of the administrative, powers and responsibilities of the local Governments. In the next place, we believe that, if this principle be fairly carried into effect, the new imposts which the Council is now asked to sanction will, when added to the resources already created, provide the State with sufficient means for the permanent maintenance of a national insurance against famine, without heavily increasing the pecuniary burdens of its subjects. For the attainment of this object the material appliances we intend to promote, by means of additional revenue, are cheap railroads and extensive irrigation works. We are conscious of the reproach we should justly incur if, after such a declaration as I have now made, the prosecution of these necessary works were commenced, suspended, or relinquished according to the increased or relaxed pressure of annual circumstance or the intermittent activity of spasmodic effort. We therefore propose to entrust, in the first instance, to the local Governments the duty of framing a sufficient and carefully considered scheme of local railroad and irrigation works. We are prepared to provide them with the means whereby they may, from year to year work systematically forwards and upwards to the completion of such a scheme. The funds locally raised for this purpose will be locally applied. But provincial Governments will have to meet the cost of provincial famines out of provincial funds, to the fullest extent those funds can bear. They will find that thriftless expenditure in one year may involve the risk of diminished allotments in subsequent years; and I cannot doubt that the unavoidable recognition of this fact will make them wisely eager to spend the requisite proportion of their annual income upon well planned and carefully estimated railway and irrigation works, which will be their best insurance against the losses of famine, and the postponement of all administrative progress which famine generally entails. It will be the special duty of the Public Works Department of this Government to keep those objects constantly in view of the local Governments, and to assist them no less constantly in their endeavours to give a rational preference to really useful and remunerative works over those more captivating, but less compensating, subjects of expenditure which in all comparatively small communities so powerfully appeal to provincial pride, professional proclivities, or popular pleasure.
    ‘ The specific projects now announced to this Council I have not presumed to put forward as the enunciation of any new policy. On the contrary, I should have spoken with much more hesitation if I imagined myself to be treading upon ground not long since surveyed by experienced authorities ; and the strongest recommendation I can claim for the views I have expressed is that they differ in no important particular from those of the eminent statesmen have preceded me in the office I now hold. But Famine between the present and all previous occasions on which the Government of India has declared its policy and principles in reference to the prevention of famine, there is one essential difference which I am anxious to impress upon your attention. I can well imagine that many of those I am now addressing may be disposed to say to me: ” Your good intentions are possibly sincere ; but the path to the nethermost pit is already paved with good intentions. Promise is a good dog, but Performance is a better; we have often heard the bow-wow of the first ; we have yet to see the tail of the second. We have been told over and over again by the highest authorities that India is to be insured against famine in this way, or in that, but when famines come upon us we find that the promised way is still wanting. The current claims upon the activities and resources of the Government of India are so numerous, so pressing, so important, official forces and imperial funds so necessarily limited, that when once the daily, hourly strain of a great famine has been removed from a wearied administration and impoverished treasury, its fearful warnings are soon forgotten ; its disquieting ghosts are quickly exorcised by the conventional declaration of some unexceptionable principle ; its bitter memories decently interred beneath the dull hic jacet of a blue book ; and there, for all practical purposes, is an end of the matter.”

  141. Malla says:
    @last straw

    How can you talk about the movement of India independence without mentioning Gandhi?

    Gandhi was castist and a prime grad hypocrite. You are not Indian right? Thought so, Gandhi is one of the most hated man in India. The most popular is Subhash Chandra Bose among the youth of India.

    Dr. Ambedkar, the fighter for the rights of lower castes against discrimination, architect of the Indian Constitution and labour leader, on the reality of Gandhi, the hypocrite and casteist.

    Dude, in India most people hated Gandhi, it is only westerners who are idiots taking his name.

    • Replies: @last straw
  142. Malla says:
    @last straw

    [It’s much better not to include very long excerpts, especially when they’re extraneous to the main topic. Just a link is enough for those interested.]

    Here is a detailed article quoting Ambedkar and Gandhi proving without any doubt that Gandhi was a hypocrite who believed in the superiority of the upper caste Hindus over the lower castes. Dr. Ambedkar on the other hand represented the lower castes who have been ill treated for 2000 years in the most brutal way in human history.
    https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/dismantling-sainthood-ambedkar-on-gandhi
    Dismantling Sainthood: Ambedkar On Gandhi

    [MORE]

    Gandhi was not a liberal – his beliefs on societal structure, on economy, on a concept-state, on what Indians should eat or drink, would make even the most ardent of conservatives blush. His theories were based less on logic and more on a bizarre sense of faith-based entitlement that can only be described as an inseparable emulsion of homeopathy and spirituality. Gandhi was an intelligent and cunning god-man. He was made for India. He held her pulse, pumped her heart. Ambedkar, on the other hand, was the only true liberal this nation has produced in the last many centuries. Gandhi was a theologian pretending to be a politician; Ambedkar, a supreme scholar. Gandhi was a Social Darwinian; Ambedkar, a Darwinian. Gandhi said he would not “weep over the disappearance of machinery”; Ambedkar wanted an industrialised India. Gandhi could have ruled independent India had he chosen to for as long as he wanted; Ambedkar lost an election by some margin. Twice. Gandhi saw the village as India’s liberator; Ambedkar called it a cesspool and a den of ignorance. Gandhi’s self-confidence was buttressed by the blind devotion of his countless followers; Ambedkar’s stemmed from his ability to speak his mind, stand all by himself, and appease no one.
    Gandhi had an army of men; Ambedkar was a one-man army.
    Ambedkar saw through Gandhi. Worse, the Mahatma gauged this, but, like a stunned ostrich, pretended to hold fort, employing as bulwarks his minions who were also petrified of Ambedkar’s intellect.
    India has forever been a land of such tragedies. The one who truly was a Mahatma fought a man pretending to be one, and lost. But he went down fighting. And how.
    That Gandhi was dealing with a different kind of man should have become obvious to him after their very first formal extended meeting. The conversation, which took place on 14 August 1931, has been recorded for posterity and is revealing beyond measure.
    “Gandhi: I understand that you have got some grievances against the Congress and me. I may tell you that I have been thinking over the problem of Untouchables ever since my school days – when you were not even born.
    Ambedkar: It is true, Mahatmaji, that you started to think about the problem of Untouchables before I was born. All old and elderly persons always like to emphasize the point of age.”
    Gandhi 0, Ambedkar 1.
    “Gandhi: The Congress has spent not less than rupees twenty lakhs on the uplift of the Untouchables.
    Ambedkar: The Congress is not sincere about its professions. Had it been, it would have surely made the removal of Untouchability a condition, like the wearing of khaddar, for becoming a member of the Congress. No person who did not employ untouchable women or men in his house, or rear up an untouchable student, or take food at home with an untouchable student at least once a week, should have been allowed to be a member of the Congress. Had there been such a condition, you could have avoided the ridiculous sight where the President of the District Congress Committee was seen opposing the temple entry of the Untouchables. You might say that Congress lacked strength and therefore it was unwise to lay down such a condition. Then my point is that Congress cares more for strength than for principles. This is my charge against you and the Congress. You say the British Government does not show a change of heart. I also say that the Hindus have not shown a change of heart in regard to our problem, and so long as they remain adamant, we would believe neither the Congress nor the Hindus. We believe in self-help and self-respect.
    Gandhi: It is really surprising that men like you should offer opposition to me and to the Congress.
    Ambedkar: We are not prepared to have faith in great leaders and Mahatmas. Let me be brutally frank about it. History tells that Mahatmas, like fleeting phantoms, raise dust, but raise no level.”
    Game over.
    When the Great War ended with the disbanding of the Ottoman Empire, Gandhi persuaded the Congress to support the Khilafat Movement – a violent agitation for restoration of the Islamic Caliphate deposed by the victorious British. Before long, he pinched his nose and plunged into the murky waters of religious appeasement and terror rationalisation in the wake of the ghastly anti-Hindu violence perpetrated by the Malabar Muslims (Moplahs) in 1921.
    Ambedkar, who saw Gandhi’s advocacy of the Khilafat Movement as a pernicious political stunt (“The movement was started by the Muslims. It was taken up by Mr Gandhi with a tenacity and faith which must have surprised many Muslims themselves.”), viewed the Moplah rebellion as nothing but jihad. The Muslim agitators, he said, “preached the doctrine that India under the British Government was Dar-ul-Harab [The Abode of War; a place where the Muslims are not in power] and that the Muslims must fight against it and if they could not, they must carry out the alternative principle of Hijrat”.
    Ambedkar continued, pulling no punches. “The aim was to establish the kingdom of Islam by overthrowing the British Government. Knives, swords and spears were secretly manufactured, bands of desperadoes collected for an attack on British authority. On 20th August a severe encounter took place between the Moplahs and the British forces at Pinmangdi. Roads were blocked, telegraph lines cut, and the railway destroyed in a number of places. As soon as the administration had been paralysed, the Moplahs declared that Swaraj had been established. A certain Ali Mudaliar was proclaimed Raja, Khilafat flags were flown, and Ernad and Wallurana were declared Khilafat Kingdoms. As a rebellion against the British Government it was quite understandable. But what baffled most was the treatment accorded by the Moplahs to the Hindus of Malabar. The Hindus were visited by a dire fate at the hands of the Moplahs. Massacres, forcible conversions, desecration of temples, foul outrages upon women, such as ripping open pregnant women, pillage, arson and destruction – in short, all the accompaniments of brutal and unrestrained barbarism, were perpetrated freely by the Moplahs upon the Hindus until such time as troops could be hurried to the task of restoring order through a difficult and extensive tract of the country. This was not a Hindu-Moslem riot. This was just a Bartholomew [reference to the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572].”
    To Ambedkar’s horror, Gandhi laid the blame squarely on the Hindus. “Hindus,” said the Mahatma, “must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbour, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Muslims in general.”
    If such rationalisation wasn’t unpleasant enough, Gandhi went further, blaming everyone else for the Moplah barbarity but the Moplahs themselves. “The Government has thoroughly exploited the Moplahs’ madness,” he said. “They have punished the entire Moplah community for the madness of a few individuals and have incited the Hindus by exaggerating the facts. Malabar Hindus, like the Moplahs, are an excitable people and the Government has incited them against the latter.”
    The outbreak, said Gandhi, “would not have taken place if the Collector had consulted the religious sentiment of the Moplahs”.
    That religious sentiment, as analysed by Ambedkar, was jihad. Indeed, Muslim leaders themselves agreed with Ambedkar. Maulana Hasrat Mohani, the eulogised freedom fighter and a friend of the Mahatma, and one who had coined the slogan “Inquilab Zindabad”, justified the massacre of Hindus by saying that this was Islamic jihad and that according to the rules of jihad, those who help the enemy become enemies themselves.
    …snip….
    Gandhi couldn’t stomach the rise of Ambedkar. Time and time again, he tries to show Ambedkar his place, is patronising to the extreme, displays uncharacteristic rudeness, and gets into banal contests as to who truly represented Dalits. And right through their duels, one cannot help but imagine Ambedkar eyeing the Mahatma with a wry smile while steaming his glasses and massaging them with his tie-end. The battle was over even before it had begun.
    …snip….
    Things came to a head on the subject of untouchability, caste, and varna. Ambedkar’s views were well-known. He had honed them through decades of studying Hinduism. His thoughts weren’t meant to win political battles, but, rather, philosophical, even existential ones. The scholarship was astounding, as also seen later in The Annihilation of Caste and the Ranade Speech; each word a distillate of thoughtful reflection, each quote an exposition of philosophical depth. Gandhi stood no chance.
    “The outcaste is a by-product of the caste system,” Ambedkar told Gandhi. “There will be outcastes as long as there are castes. Nothing can emancipate the outcaste except the destruction of the caste system. Nothing can help to save Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu faith of this odious and vicious dogma.”
    The Mahatma’s responses exposed him wholly for what he was – an unintentional casteist bigot. “I do not believe the caste system, even as distinguished from Varnashrama, to be an odious and vicious dogma,” he asserted. “It has its limitations and its defects, but there is nothing sinful about it as there is about untouchability, and, if it is a by-product of the caste system it is only in the same sense that an ugly growth is of a body, or weeds of a crop. It is as wrong to destroy caste because of the outcastes as it would be to destroy a body because of an ugly growth in it, or a crop because of the weeds.”

    As for casual casteism, he spoke of Ambedkar thus, thinking he was giving Ambedkar a compliment: “His exterior is as clean as that of the cleanest and the proudest Brahmin.”
    When asked by a Dalit delegation about his views on the varna system, Gandhi replied: “All occupations should be hereditary. Millions of people are not going to become Prime Ministers and Viceroys.”
    There was nothing sinful about the caste system. It was not a vicious dogma. It was wrong to destroy it. Said the father of our nation.
    Indeed. Millions of people are not going to become prime ministers. A chaiwalahmust remain a chaiwalah and his progeny must carry forward the family tradition of pouring a steaming cup of milk tea in a kullarh without spilling a drop.
    Gandhi was an ardent, almost militant supporter of the caste system, not just early on in his life (when one could be forgiven for subscribing to uninformed opinions) but well into his mature political and spiritual avatar. “I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system,” he declared as late as 1921, by which time he had already anointed himself as the saviour of Dalits.
    “The seeds of Swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of military division. Each division is working for the good of the whole. A community that can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organisation. Caste has a ready-made means for spreading primary education. Every caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the Caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defence force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade. I believe that inter-dining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion. To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation, which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is the natural order of society. I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the Caste System.”
    A few years down the line, Gandhi watered down his love for the caste system a little (without abandoning it) and bestowed his tenderness, instead, on the varnasystem. Except that now his views became even more bizarre and bigoted. “I believe that the divisions into Varna is based on birth,” he asserted. “There is nothing in the Varna system which stands in the way of the Shudra acquiring learning or studying military art of offence or defence. The Varna system is no bar to him. What the Varna system enjoins is that a Shudra will not make learning a way of earning a living. There is no harm if a person belonging to one Varna acquires the knowledge or science and art specialised in by persons belonging to other varnas. But as far as the way of earning his living is concerned he must follow the occupation of the Varna to which he belongs which means he must follow the hereditary profession of his forefathers. The object of the Varna system is to prevent competition and class struggle and class war. I believe in the Varna system because it fixes the duties and occupations of persons. Varna means the determination of a man’s occupation before he is born. In the Varna system no man has any liberty to choose his occupation. His occupation is determined for him by heredity.”
    These, then, were the views of the self-anointed Redeemer of Dalits – that a Shudra could gain and dispense knowledge, fight in a war, do business, but he must earn his living through serving others. Reading, fighting, and doing business were to be his hobbies, nothing more.
    One cannot but appreciate the herculean restraint Ambedkar would have had to exercise in the face of such theories. Gandhi had become the supreme test for ahimsa (non-violence) himself.
    There was no way out. The Mahatma just wouldn’t admit he could be wrong, that he was building a house of cards while tormented by a sneezing fit. Sadly, his crude, unscholarly churnings only increased in their ferocity and obstinacy with time, even as he could see he was on thin ice. Hereditary Varnashramadharma was Hinduism’s greatest gift to mankind, he said, while what Ambedkar desires, he complained, “is complete destruction of Varnashramadharma of his imagination. Varnashrama to him means the essence of superiority and inferiority. I admit that today Varnashrama does mean that, if it also means much more, but the evil of high-and-low-ness is represented by untouchability. When, therefore, the latter is demolished, Varnashrama will be purged of the very thing for which Dr Ambedkar abhors it.”
    This was nonsense, and Ambedkar told him as much. “I shall have nothing to do with Varnashrama that would keep me and mine for ever at the bottom of the social scale.”
    On caste and the cruelty of it, Ambedkar’s masterpiece, The Annihilation of Caste, remains unsurpassed in its literary distinction and sheer raw energy. It has the power to move mountains. But not saints.
    “I have questioned the authority of the Mahatma whom they revere,” says Ambedkar of his invitees in the opening pages of The Annihilation. “They hate me,” he laments. They hated him, alright. His invite was cancelled at the last moment.
    Step by step, page by page, Ambedkar lays out in astonishing detail the evil nature of the caste system and the ambivalence in Hinduism that propagated and preserved it. Next, he turns to the varna system and demolishes its logic with stunning analytical precision, while emphasising that “destroying Caste would not destroy Hinduism”. It is the work of a scientist-philosopher. Never has clarity of thought jumped out from every paragraph, every sentence, so effortlessly.
    Ambedkar understood, experienced, and witnessed that the varna system was inherently and irrevocably intertwined with the caste system. Only a congenital idiot would believe in the Chaturvarna as an ideal form of society, he once said.
    “The names Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra are names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu. That notion is that of a hierarchy based on birth. So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and to act accordingly. The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen, if the old labels remain, and continue to recall to his mind old notions? If new notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people, it is necessary to give them new names. To continue the old names is to make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on birth, is a snare.”
    What Ambedkar says next is crucial for understanding the intertwining of the varna and the caste, a point missed by some who support the varna and not the caste, or others like Gandhi who support both the varna and the caste. “Chaturvarnya is based on worth. How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth, without reference to their worth, to vacate that status? How are you going to compel people to recognize the status due to a man, in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a lower status based on his birth? For this, you must first break up the Caste System, in order to be able to establish the Chaturvarnya system. How are you going to reduce the four thousand castes, based on birth, to the four Varnas, based on worth? This is the first difficulty that the protagonists of the Chaturvarnya must grapple with. Modern science has shown that the lumping together of individuals into a few sharply-marked-off classes is a superficial view of man, not worthy of serious consideration. Consequently, the utilisation of the qualities of individuals is incompatible with their stratification by classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable. Chaturvarnya must fail for the very reason for which Plato’s Republic must fail – namely, that it is not possible to pigeonhole men, according as they belong to one class or the other. That it is impossible to accurately classify people into four definite classes is proved by the fact that the original four classes have now become four thousand castes.”
    Gandhi, true to his nature, hung on till his last in claiming there was a distinction between varna and caste, even though to him both were hereditary cohorts. No amount of brilliant, methodical, and detailed reasoning provided by Ambedkar could convince him to think otherwise. Gandhi’s rebuttal to The Annihilation of Caste was predictable and lacking in intellectual depth. “Dr Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism,” began Gandhi, and then tried to counter Ambedkar’s arguments on the need for forgoing caste and forgetting varna. It was secluded and patronising in tone.
    Ambedkar rebutted Gandhi’s rebuttal. “I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with my opponents unless there are special reasons which compel me to act otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean and obscure person, I would not have pursued him. But my opponent being the Mahatma himself, I feel I must attempt to meet the case to the contrary which he has sought to put forth.”
    Yet again, Ambedkar was forced to channel all his energies into countering Gandhi, and yet again he did it with precision and aplomb, ending with words that continue to resonate long after they have been read. “The Hindus, in the words of Matthew Arnold, are wandering between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born. What are they to do? The Mahatma to whom they appeal for guidance does not believe in thinking, and can therefore give no guidance that can be said to stand the test of experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses look for guidance are either too dishonest or too indifferent to educate them in the right direction. We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In the face of this tragedy all one can do is to lament and say – such are thy Leaders, O Hindus!”
    Ambedkar’s dismantling of the Mahatma was not linear or chronological in the sense that his rebuttals and critiques were not always immediate follow-up responses to Gandhi’s arguments. But Ambedkar made sure he never missed an opportunity to critique them in the strongest possible terms even if years had lapsed since they were uttered.
    And it is then that one realises what Ambedkar was up to. He was preparing for posterity an enormous counter-balance resource against someone who, he knew only too well, was soon going to make the jump from a Mahatma to a deity, the keeper of truth and purity of thought, a messiah who could not err. The entire world would fall at this apostle’s feet and any criticism of him would soon be considered blasphemous. Ambedkar was preparing us for that day. He even wrote a big fat book and titled it What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables with chapter headings that were self-explanatory: ‘Beware of Mr Gandhi’; ‘Gandhism: The Doom of the Untouchables’.
    ‘Beware of Mr Gandhi’ contains 14,075 words and each one of them speaks a thousand pictures. Ambedkar, as was his nature, charts out in piercing detailGandhi’s political timeline beginning 1894, demonstrating beyond doubt that Gandhi was a fraud when it came to the Dalit cause.
    In the next chapter, ‘Gandhism: The Doom of the Untouchables’, Ambedkar unwearyingly peels away all vestiges of Gandhi’s remaining credibility and his principles, leaving the reader breathless.
    From caste to varna to economy to hamlet utopia to industrialisation to class war to coercion to starvation blackmails to appeasement – the point-by-point exposé is unnerving, to say the least. Stop, Babasaheb, stop for the love of god, cries the reader; this is our Mahatma you are taking on, the great soul, the father of our nation, the saint who adorns our currency notes, the apostle who cannot be faulted. Stop, Babasaheb, I beg of you.
    What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables is one spectacular demolition of Mahatma Gandhi, just as The Annihilation of Caste was of the proponents of varna and the caste system. Indeed, it could so easily have been titled ‘The Annihilation of Gandhi’. Some claim that the Congress banned this book, although one could find no evidence of this. In any case, very few know of its existence and even fewer have read it. Just as well because after absorbing its contents chapter and verse, one is forced to reflect on who really was this man we call ‘Mahatma’ and the father of our nation.
    Ambedkar had, of course, reflected on this very question for decades. In a rare radio interview to the BBC one year before his death, he explained the duplicitous core of the Mahatma with chilling lucidity. “I knew Gandhi better than most people because he opened his real fangs to me, and I could see the inside of the man. Gandhi was all the time double-dealing. He ran a paper in English and another in Gujarati, and if you read them both you will see how he was deceiving the people. In the English paper he posed himself as an opponent of the caste system and of untouchability and that he was a democrat, while in the Gujarati one he supported the caste system and professed all the orthodox dogmas that have kept India down all through the ages. Someone ought to write his biography by making a comparative study of the statements he made in these papers. The West reads only the English paper. Gandhi never wanted real upliftment of the Dalits. All he cared about were issues of absolutely no consequence to us like temple entry. Gandhi was never a reformer.”

  143. Malla says:
    @last straw

    woefully inadequate both in its analysis and in the factors it considered

    How so? Explain in details. Mr. Roy has taken a comprehensive view on famines during British Rule to come to his conclusion. Explain how it is inadequate.

    Now try to debunk Davis’s book.

    Your Davis is a liar and a lowly propagandist. He did not even study original sources. I have shown from Lord Lyttons own letters that he was no Emperor Nemo. He personally traveled to famine areas and he was deeply disturbed by the mass deaths. Indeed it was Lord Lytton who proposed public works like Railways and Irrigation to prevent any future famine.
    I do not think any sensible person would take his book seriously.

    • Replies: @last straw
  144. Again Lies Lies Lies.

    Are you trying to tell me that a book that “won the World History Association Book Prize in 2002” and “was also featured in the LA Times Best Books of 2001 List” lied about some very important topics?

    • Replies: @Malla
  145. @Malla

    Dude, in India most people hated Gandhi, it is only westerners who are idiots taking his name.

    I think we are living in different worlds.

    • Replies: @Malla
  146. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Are you trying to tell me that a book that “won the World History Association Book Prize in 2002” and “was also featured in the LA Times Best Books of 2001 List” lied about some very important topics?

    I have proven it. Posts 141, 143, 145, 147 on this page.

    • Replies: @last straw
  147. Malla says:
    @last straw

    I think we are living in different worlds.

    Are you Indian?
    And listen to that video by Dr. Ambedkar.

    • Replies: @last straw
  148. @Malla

    How so? Explain in details. Mr. Roy has taken a comprehensive view on famines during British Rule to come to his conclusion. Explain how it is inadequate.

    It’s only 24 pages, compared to 480 pages, need I say more?

    Your Davis is a liar and a lowly propagandist. He did not even study original sources. I have shown from Lord Lyttons own letters that he was no Emperor Nemo. He personally traveled to famine areas and he was deeply disturbed by the mass deaths. Indeed it was Lord Lytton who proposed public works like Railways and Irrigation to prevent any future famine.

    Personal attack again, and one last time, why should I believe what you said instead of a book that won the World History Association Book Prize in 2002 and was also featured in the LA Times Best Books of 2001 List?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  149. @Malla

    I have proven it. Posts 141, 143, 145, 147 on this page.

    You have proven nothing. You gave me one wall of words after another, for which you probably do not fully understand yourself.

    • Replies: @Malla
  150. @Malla

    Are you Indian?
    And listen to that video by Dr. Ambedkar.

    No, I’m not Indian. In real life, Gandhi tried to cooperate with Ambedkar, although Ambedkar hated him very much:

    Untouchability and castes

    [MORE]

    Gandhi spoke out against untouchability early in his life.[337] Before 1932, he and his colleagues used the term Antyaja for untouchables. One of the major speeches he made on untouchability was at Nagpur in 1920, where he called untouchability as a great evil in Hindu society. In his remarks, he stated that the phenomena of untouchability is not unique to the Hindu society, but has deeper roots because Europeans in South Africa treat “all of us, Hindus and Muslims, as untouchables; we may not reside in their midst, nor enjoy the rights which they do”.[338] He called it intolerable. He stated this practice can be eradicated, Hinduism is flexible to allow this, and a concerted effort is needed to persuade it is wrong and by all to eradicate it.[338]

    According to Christophe Jaffrelot, while Gandhi considered untouchability to be wrong and evil, he believed that caste or class are based neither on inequality nor on inferiority.[337] Gandhi believed that individuals should freely intermarry whoever they want to, but no one should expect everyone to befriend them. Every individual regardless of his or her background, stated Gandhi, has a right to choose who they welcome into their home, who they befriend and who they spend time with.[337][338]

    In 1932, Gandhi began a new campaign to improve the lives of the untouchables, whom he started referring to as Harijans or “the children of god”.[339] On 8 May 1933, Gandhi began a 21-day fast of self-purification and launched a one-year campaign to help the Harijan movement.[340] This new campaign was not universally embraced within the Dalit community. Ambedkar and his allies felt Gandhi was being paternalistic and was undermining Dalit political rights. Ambedkar described him as “devious and untrustworthy”.[341] He accused Gandhi as someone who wished to retain the caste system.[150] Ambedkar and Gandhi debated their ideas and concerns, where both tried to persuade each other.[342][343]

    In 1935, Ambedkar announced his intentions to leave Hinduism and join Buddhism.[150] According to Sankar Ghose, the announcement shook Gandhi, who reappraised his views and wrote many essays with his views on castes, inter-marriage and what Hinduism says on the subject. These views contrasted with those of Ambedkar.[344] In actual elections of 1937, except for some seats in Mumbai where Ambedkar’s party won, India’s untouchables voted heavily in favour of Gandhi’s campaign and his party, the Congress.[345]

    Gandhi and his colleagues continued to consult Ambedkar, keeping him influential. Ambedkar worked with other Congress leaders through the 1940s, wrote large parts of India’s constitution in the late 1940s, and converted to Buddhism in 1956.[150] According to Jaffrelot, Gandhi’s views evolved between the 1920s and 1940s, when in 1946 he actively encouraged inter-marriage across castes. However, Gandhi’s approach to untouchability was different from Ambedkar’s, championing fusion, choice and free intermixing. Ambedkar envisioned each segment of society maintaining its identity group, and each group then separately advancing the “politics of equality”.[337]

    The criticism of Gandhi by Ambedkar continued to influence the Dalit movement past Gandhi’s death. According to Arthur Herman, Ambedkar’s hate for Gandhi and Gandhi’s ideas was so strong that after he heard the news of Gandhi’s assassination, remarked after a momentary silence a sense of regret and then “my real enemy is gone; thank goodness the eclipse is over now”.[262][346] According to Ramachandra Guha, “ideologues have carried these old rivalries into the present, with the demonization of Gandhi now common among politicians who presume to speak in Ambedkar’s name.”[347

    • Replies: @Malla
  151. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Website of the Indian Heart Association, an organisation honored by an appointment by the Government of India to the Thoracic and Cardiovascular Instrumentation Subcommittee of the Bureau of Indian Standards of the Bureau of Indian Standards.

    http://indianheartassociation.org/why-indians-why-south-asians/diabetes-and-south-asians/
    What is the reason for the increased risk among South Asians?
    While research is still underway, the risk for DM is thought to be related to a combination of genetic and lifestyle related changes. The genetic contributors appear to be related to a prior history of “feast” and “famine” cycles in South Asian countries. It makes genetic sense that in times of plenty, more fat is stored so that in times of famine, starvation can be stopped. However, this feast-famine cycle is no longer applicable to many South Asians who face an increasingly sedentary lifestyle with an excess of food choices.
    Also
    Developmental origins of adult metabolic disease: The Indian scenario, driving toward a unified hypothesis
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401741/

    https://www.intechopen.com/books/diabetes-and-its-complications/diabetes-mellitus-in-south-asia
    Asian populations are much more likely to possess thrifty genotypes than Europeans. The reason for this is believed to be because South Asian populations have not had sufficient time to adapt from this variant genotype to a normal genotype, as Europeans evolved in environments where they were relatively unaffected by famine cycles

    https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/L0yV3tO2o9DmYLAjpq5JJJ/The-deal-with-diabetes.html
    The “thrifty genes hypothesis” explains the Indian phenotype. It states that in ancient times the human race lived through alternating times of famine and abundance— especially in the subcontinent. During times of abundance, the body would store energy to survive drought and famine by way of fat.

    • Replies: @last straw
  152. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Your post gets comfortably debunked with Gandhi’s real qoutes in my post 149.

    Christophe Jaffrelot is obviously ignorant or is lying. I am not surprised about this as in the interview given by Ambedkar to the BBC, I have linked earlier, Gandhi wrote in English papers against the Caste system (to fool dumb Western liberals like you) but supported the caste system in Gujrati papers. Gujrati is the language of Gujrat in Western India, Gandhi was from Gujrat.

    “I believe that if Hindu Society has been able to stand it is because it is founded on the caste system,” Gandhi declared as late as 1921, by which time he had already anointed himself as the saviour of Dalits.
    “The seeds of Swaraj are to be found in the caste system. Different castes are like different sections of military division. Each division is working for the good of the whole. A community that can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organisation. Caste has a ready-made means for spreading primary education. Every caste can take the responsibility for the education of the children of the Caste. Caste has a political basis. It can work as an electorate for a representative body. Caste can perform judicial functions by electing persons to act as judges to decide disputes among members of the same caste. With castes it is easy to raise a defence force by requiring each caste to raise a brigade. I believe that inter-dining or intermarriage are not necessary for promoting national unity. Taking food is as dirty an act as answering the call of nature. The only difference is that after answering call of nature we get peace while after eating food we get discomfort. Just as we perform the act of answering the call of nature in seclusion so also the act of taking food must also be done in seclusion. To destroy caste system and adopt Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation, which is the soul of the caste system. Hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder. I have no use for a Brahmin if I cannot call him a Brahmin for my life. It will be chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is the natural order of society. I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the Caste System.”

    When asked by a Dalit delegation about his views on the varna system, Gandhi replied: “All occupations should be hereditary. Millions of people are not going to become Prime Ministers and Viceroys.”
    There was nothing sinful about the caste system. It was not a vicious dogma. It was wrong to destroy it. Said the father of our nation.
    Indeed. Millions of people are not going to become prime ministers. A chaiwalah (tea seller) must remain a chaiwalah and his progeny must carry forward the family tradition of pouring a steaming cup of milk tea in a kullarh without spilling a drop.

    Sorry Mr. Jaffrelot is ignorant with very superficial knowledge of the Indian political scene.

  153. Malla says:
    @last straw

    You have proven nothing.

    How have I not proven anything?

    You gave me one wall of words after another, for which you probably do not fully understand yourself.

    You are getting emotional. Control yourself and give a rational response. Wall of words? Walls of words are to be read and comprehended. What do you understand from Lord Lytton’s letters and speeches?

    • Replies: @last straw
  154. Erebus says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Who said anything about…

    “Blowing it to bits”

    … ???

  155. Malla says:
    @last straw

    It’s only 24 pages, compared to 480 pages, need I say more?

    Yes 4800 pages of propaganda versus 24 pages of comprehensive analysis.

    Personal attack again,

    Not at all, a correct judgement. How could this man who claims Lord Lytton was an Empreror Nero of India, not read his letters and speeches and have no idea of his actions? Such as his visit to the famine struck areas. His instructions that those who are too weak for works should not be put put to work but be offered immediate relief. His determination to take steps to prevent famines from ever occurring in India again. His sadness for the death of so many Indians. Hardly an ‘Emperor Nero’.
    What kind of dubious scholarship is this Davis up to?

    why should I believe what you said

    Lord Lyttons own letters?

    • Replies: @last straw
  156. Malla says:
    @last straw

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Bulwer-Lytton-1st-earl-of-Lytton
    Encyclopedia Britannica on Lord Lytton:
    “Though Afghanistan received the most attention during Lytton’s viceroyalty, he also did much for Indian administration. He supervised effective measures for famine relief, abolished internal customs barriers, decentralized the financial system, proclaimed Queen Victoria Empress of India, and reserved one-sixth of the civil-service posts for Indians. ”

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lytton,_Edward_Robert_Bulwer_(DNB00)

    [MORE]

    “The internal condition of India then appeared satisfactory. But the new ruler was at once engrossed as a diplomatist with our uneasy relations with Afghanistan, and with the congenial task of preparing for the proclamation of the queen as empress of India in the presence of all the native sovereigns and feudal princes. This pageant was held at Delhi on 1 Jan. 1877, and, though criticised from a western point of view, impressed the oriental imagination. Meanwhile, however, a great calamity had occurred by the total failure of the crops throughout southern and western India. Lytton’s first direct personal action was when on a visit to Bombay in December, and shortly afterwards at Delhi, he adjusted the differences which, during his absence from Simla, had grown up between the majority of his council and the Bombay government: Lytton’s decision was substantially in favour of the latter. Shortly afterwards he despatched Sir Richard Temple to inspect the famine districts, especially in Madras, where the envoy found much to criticise, and where the state of affairs became so bad that in the following August the viceroy repaired thither in person. Before his departure he recorded his views in a very elaborate minute, printed in Mr. Digby’s ‘Famine Campaign in Southern India.’ He arrived in Madras on 29 Aug., accompanied, among others, by Sir Alexander Arbuthnot, representative of that presidency in his council, and by General (afterwards Sir Michael) Kennedy, public works secretary at Bombay. Arrangements were speedily made for placing the relief system mainly under the latter, whose management at Bombay had been highly efficient, and the situation rapidly improved. In Mysore, which Lytton also visited personally, and where great mismanagement had prevailed, sweeping changes were made by the appointment of Sir Charles Elliott and Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff as virtual chiefs of administration. Early in 1878 the famine had ceased in most districts. It remained to provide against its recurrence. Lytton appointed a commission, under the presidency of General Strachey, with the object of studying facts and placing principles on record. Its report resulted in the enactment in every province of India of a code of rules prescribing, always with reference to special local circumstances, the system to be pursued on the occurrence of dearth. A great scheme was at the same time devised for the rapid extension throughout India of railways and works of irrigation. But the home government thought Lytton too bold, and the expenditure he deemed necessary was greatly curtailed. To make provision for the future, it was also determined, in the words of Sir John Strachey, ‘that, in addition to the necessary margin of revenue over expenditure, a surplus of 1,500,000l. must every year be provided on account of famine relief alone, and that this sum, when the country was free from famine, must be regularly devoted to the discharge of debt, or the prevention of debt which would have been otherwise incurred for the construction of railways and canals.’ This system of famine insurance, as it was called, has since been modified, and sometimes suspended in crises of financial pressure, but in essentials it has been maintained and has worked successfully.”

    • Replies: @Malla
  157. Malla says:
    @peterAUS

    Like WHO determines what are those “minor personal sacrifices for the common good”. HOW are they applied?

    Yes, I understand, psychopathic elites using morality to control populations via guilt, duty, shame etc…. I do not know how we can find a solution to this problem.
    Human history is basically elites ruling over masses may it be Communism or Democracy.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  158. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Waita second
    From
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lytton,_Edward_Robert_Bulwer_(DNB00)
    “One was the abolition of the inland customs, which had bisected India with ‘an immense impenetrable hedge of thorny trees and bushes,’ fifteen hundred miles long, and watched by twelve thousand persons. Another was the repeal of the duties on cotton goods, effected by the viceroy’s own action against the opposition of a large majority of his council, and accompanied by radical changes in the entire customs tariff, preliminary to, and intended to necessitate, the system of absolute free trade now in operation. Another was the promulgation of new rules for the civil service, by which one-sixth of the vacancies were reserved for natives. These rules have not as yet realised all the results anticipated, but no viceroy has been more entirely exempt from race-prejudice than Lytton, and one of his first official acts was a warm, indeed an over-warm, espousal of the cause of an oppressed native. The system of decentralisation, giving increased liberty of action, especially in financial matters, to local governments, was also greatly extended by him. ”

    So lemme get this straight, Lord Lytton was one of the most friendly Viceroys towards us native Indians and he cared about us Indians. Reserved 1/6th of the vacancies for Indians. And THIS is the person the leftist academia attacks? Wow. Just wow. These Commies are truly shameless liars.

  159. peterAUS says:
    @Malla

    ….. I do not know how we can find a solution to this problem…..

    I don’t think it can be found.

    I guess it all boils down to how much is taken by elites and how much is left to be given to the ruled. Especially the latter. That’s the key. If/when/while the ruled get enough they’ll be fine with the setup.
    Any setup.

    Including this one.

    • Replies: @Malla
  160. Malla says:
    @peterAUS

    I don’t think it can be found.

    That is sad reality.

    That’s the key. If/when/while the ruled get enough they’ll be fine with the setup.
    Any setup.

    But what if their greed knows no bounds?
    Look at the USA today. The working class has been decimated and now followed by even the middle class. Compare the middle class odf the 60s to today’s American middle class. High taxation, insurance costs, easy credit and thus debt and inflation has eaten away into the wealth of most people.

    At the same time the Government keeps on growing big and we see more and more corporate consolidation up to point we have a oligopoly (instead of real capitalism) in many such countries. Big corporations destroying small independent businesses. And after that the big fish eat the small predatory fish who are in return eaten by sharks. Check out Blackstone investment company, which owns so many companies behind the scenes. Hell Blackstone has been secretly buying up huge amounts o f real estate in India too. And worse of all, soul mating of big business and big government. The elites keep on sucking wealth out the population, while wages remain stagnant, the number of billionaires increase.
    We see the same phenomenon in India where it seems the company Reliance Industries will eventually own the whole country of 1.2 billion. Behind them are the Adanis who are very cozy with the ruling Modi Government. Adanis are the same guys who bought politicians in Australia for their coal mining operations which would pose a great threat to the Great Barrier Reef, BTW.

    Eventually I think the whole thing will end up with a Global Corporate Communist system where money will be abolished and we will have a distribution system. Cash–>Cashless—>Distribution system. The state will own everything and the state in return would be owned by ‘the Corporation.’ Our descendants will be slave labour (racially mixed, sexually androgynous), owning nothing while the Global elites will live like royalty. Some form of Brave New World mixed with 1984. Of course my second paragraph is just speculation but I fear that is where we are heading.

    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    , @peterAUS
  161. Half-Jap says:
    @Malla

    Korea was a ruthless war to help what today is now an ungrateful people (from the jap view anyways) so they have remained free as they let themselves and prosper quite amazingly. But I also agree it was one of the few that was worth it.

    I find it so intellectually lazy if not an attempt at dishonesty, when some accuse another of lacking citation, when a simple search would yield it. I grew up with atrocity stories, and there are plenty of inconsistencies between official acts and the accusations, such as one mentioned about colonial Congo. Likewise my skepticism with Tien an men square as much as with the Nanking massacre. Seems to suit a narrative than what was reported contemporaneously.

    • Replies: @Malla
  162. @Malla

    You are getting emotional. Control yourself and give a rational response. Wall of words? Walls of words are to be read and comprehended. What do you understand from Lord Lytton’s letters and speeches?

    Not at all. Please give both us a break and stop quoting any sources that use the British lords’ own writings. Honestly, do you really believe those British lords would incriminate themselves in their own writings? No. On the contrary, they would try to exaggerate their good deeds and hide their guilt. It’s Mike Davis’s job to dig the truth out. I would say Davis did a superb job, judging by his award-winning book.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  163. @Malla

    The Wet Dream of all NWO, Shabbos ZOG riders is One World everything, including currency. I read where all the local pubs in GB are being bought out by national companies.

    The ideal for the Super Elites: make the world a hive, an ant colony, Borg. “Resistance and insistence is futile”. “You have broken a rule or regulation, therefore you will be taken and genetically modified so that this behavior will not reoccur”.

    That is the gleeful and focused aim from the MPP, Megalomaniacs, Psyopaths, and Psychotics.

    • Replies: @Malla
  164. @Malla

    The “thrifty genes hypothesis” also applies to food inadequacy, not necessarily famine. It was quite possible that there were many more episodes of food inadequacy than famine in India’s history, as a result, food inadequacy might have played a far more important role in the evolution of “thrifty gene” than famine. It’s a little bit dubious to me that there could be so many famines in India’s history. Food inadequacy is a far more likely explanation to me. On the other hand, without the “thrifty genes”, more would have died in the famines under the British rule.

    • Replies: @Malla
  165. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Honestly, do you really believe those British lords would incriminate themselves in their own writings? No.

    Oh please. They are not only all his letters.

    It’s Mike Davis’s job to dig the truth out. I would say Davis did a superb job, judging by his award-winning book.

    Mike Davis is trying to push a narrative driven by ideology.

    I have provided other sources (post 163). No one can disprove that Lord Lytton visited the famine struck areas. Indeed the villagers in Madras considered this visit a good omen as it rained soon after his visit, well superstitious people. No one can disprove that Lord Lytton did not propose building a vast system of irrigation canals and railways to prevent any further famine in India.
    Read post 147, Lord Lytton was not writing some letter to hide his “guilt” but proposing actions to prevent any more famines.

    • Replies: @last straw
  166. Malla says:
    @last straw

    It was quite possible that there were many more episodes of food inadequacy

    All speculation. India has very little recorded history. Indeed one of the few recorded history, the edicts of Ashoka 263 BC war in between the Mauryas and Kalinga indicates of huge deaths due to famines. You are trying to push a narrative that before the British came, India was paradise, evul colonial British made everything hell. But things are not so simple.
    Also you forget that contact with Europeans (Portuguese) caused a boom in the Indian population. Indeed under British rule thanks to Western medicine and hygiene, the population boomed. Thus we were dealing with a much more concentrated population in the 1800s than anytime in Indian history, on the same piece of land. And in a period when there was no green revolution, railway networks were still not more developed. The British Indian Govt may have blundered here and there but there was definitely no desire on the part of the Government to commit genocide. Indeed the Govt of British India learnt hard lessons and created famine codes and built up infrastructure and after that famines stopped until the Bengal famine during the WW2 war period.

    • Replies: @last straw
  167. Malla says:
    @Poupon Marx

    Sadly that is where we are heading, it seems.

  168. @Malla

    Not at all, a correct judgement. How could this man who claims Lord Lytton was an Empreror Nero of India, not read his letters and speeches and have no idea of his actions? Such as his visit to the famine struck areas. His instructions that those who are too weak for works should not be put put to work but be offered immediate relief. His determination to take steps to prevent famines from ever occurring in India again. His sadness for the death of so many Indians. Hardly an ‘Emperor Nero’.

    You probably did not read what I quoted, so I will put it here again:

    This chapter focuses on the central government, under the leadership of Lord Lytton vehemently opposed stockpiling the grain or otherwise interfering with market forces only to keep the surplus in India to support their own extravagant lifestyle.[18] Throughout the Autumn of 1876, while the kharif crops were withering in the field due to lack of winter rains, Lord Lytton was absorbed in organizing the immense grandeur for the Imperial Assemblage in Delhi to proclaim Queen Victoria as Kaiser-i-Hind.[19][11] An English Journalist later estimated that 100,000 of Queen Victoria’s subjects had to be starved to death in Madras and Mysore in the course of Lytton’s spectacular Durbar.[20] For such, future generations of India would remember Lytton as the Nero of India.[20] In addition, military budgeting was strictly frugal due to the depreciation of the Indian rupee.[20] Adam Smith, a century earlier in his book The wealth of Nations had asserted that, ” Famine had never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconvenience of dearth[21] Even the grain merchants preferred to export a record of 6.4 million cwt. of wheat to Europe in 1877-78 instead of relieving starvation in India.[22] Lytton justified his actions, to be somewhat fair, by weighing what still had value-budget against lives that were doomed or devalued of any civilized human quality.

    It’s J.T. Headley, in the book of “The Travels of General Grant”, called Lord Lytton India’s Nero, not Davis.

    Davis probably read Lord Lytton’s writings, with a huge grain of salt, for the reason I pointed out in post 169.

    What kind of dubious scholarship is this Davis up to?

    Personal attack

    • Replies: @Malla
  169. Malla says:
    @last straw

    How to commit a holocaust? Let us learn.

    http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/irrigation/irrigation-development-in-india-during-british-rule/60643
    Irrigation Development in India During British Rule

    During British rule, the canals of Ancient India were subsequently remodeled, renovated and converted into perennial canals in the first half of the nineteenth century during the British rule. This was followed by a large number of diversion works with extensive canal systems. Important among them are the Upper Ganga Canal, the Upper Bari-Doab Canal, the Godavari delta system, the Krishna delta system, the Sirhind canal on the Sutlej River which were constructed towards the middle of the nineteenth century.
    Then started an era of storage reservoirs. The storage dams like the Khadakwasala near Pune with the Mutha canal system and the Periyar dam in the erstwhile Travancore State to divert the west flowing Periyar waters towards the east were constructed in the later half of the nineteenth century.

    During the closing decades of the nineteenth century the country was stalked by successive famines. It led to setting up of a series of Famine Commissions. As a follow up, schemes like the Betwa canal in Uttar Pradesh, the Nira left bank canal in Maharashtra and the Rushikulya system in Orissa were executed.

    At the turn of the twentieth century First Irrigation Commission was set up to take stock of the existing irrigation facility and to make recommendations for its furtherance. As a result of the findings of the Irrigation Commission special attention was given to the development of irrigation in the country.

    The Godavari canal, the Pravara canal and the Nira right bank canal in Maharashtra, the Sarda canal in Uttar Pradesh and the Gang canal in Rajasthan were some of the important works constructed in the pre-independence period of the twentieth century…….

    • Replies: @last straw
  170. @Malla

    Oh please. They are not only all his letters.

    The vast majority of what you quoted was the British lord’s own words.

    I have provided other sources (post 163). No one can disprove that Lord Lytton visited the famine struck areas. Indeed the villagers in Madras considered this visit a good omen as it rained soon after his visit, well superstitious people. No one can disprove that Lord Lytton did not propose building a vast system of irrigation canals and railways to prevent any further famine in India.

    None of what you mentioned has actual meaning. The important question is, how much food has been imported to prevent and relieve the famine, before and during the famine? Maybe none. On the contrary, Lord Lytton’s actions during the famine, such as “organizing the immense grandeur for the Imperial Assemblage in Delhi to proclaim Queen Victoria as Kaiser-i-Hind”, exacerbated Indian’s suffering during the famine.

    • Replies: @Malla
  171. Malla says:
    @last straw

    Personal attack

    No, outright common sense. The liar left out facts which I have mentioned earlier.

    Davis probably read Lord Lytton’s writings, with a huge grain of salt, for the reason I pointed out in post 169.

    Very doubtful he did and Personal Attack on Lord Lytton.

    [MORE]

    Lord Lytton was absorbed in organizing the immense grandeur for the Imperial Assemblage in Delhi to proclaim Queen Victoria as Kaiser-i-Hind.[19][11] An English Journalist later estimated that 100,000 of Queen Victoria’s subjects had to be starved to death in Madras and Mysore in the course of Lytton’s spectacular Durbar

    It’s J.T. Headley, in the book of “The Travels of General Grant”, called Lord Lytton India’s Nero, not Davis.

    The famine works in Madras was primarily the responsibility of the Madras Presidency government and if you have read my 4 posts, Lord Lytton was reluctant to interfere in the works of the Madras Presidency. When he realised that things were becoming worse, only then did he intervene directly. When the pageant was going on, the Madras Presidency and the Bombay presidency Governments were looking into famine work with Lord Lytton kept informed.

    The durbar ceremony was criticized in the West for its cost but was popular among Indians. Indians were not complaining, “morally superior” Whitey were. Neither Davis nor Mr Headley the righteous clergyman understand how things work in India. Indians both commoners and princes are impressed by grand pageantry.

    There was this homosexual Indian holyman conman Satya Sai Baba. Check him out. Indian presidents and prime ministers would come to him. he conned Western leftards and Indians in different manners according to the different tendencies of both. To Whitey leftards he spoke about world peace, spirituality, one love…etc… whatever b.s can get Whiteys fooled, a trick used by cunning Hindu holyment on dumb Western leftards for years now.
    But for the common Indian people, he held grand pageants with him coming on a huge chariots with Indian devotees throwing flowers. Difference in culture. The pageant was controversial in the west but popular in India. Lord Lytton was doing what he had to do when running a place like India, because the Madras presidency was taking care of famine affairs at that time.

    From the book by Lady Balfour

    ” It was a magnificent and most successful pageant. The Viceroy and staff were followed by the chief
    functionaries, civil and military, of your Majesty’s Indian Government, mounted on elephants spendidly caparisoned. The streets were lined for many miles by the troops ; those of the native princes being brigaded with those of your Majesty. The crowd along the whole way, behind the troops, was dense, and apparently enthusiastic ; the windows, walls, and housetops being thronged with natives, who salaamed, and Europeans, who cheered as we passed.”
    My comment: Why were Native Indian princes and Indian people not showing any concern for the famine in Madras or Bombay? Native princes came to give gifts to the Viceroy.

    Further from the book,
    “….threatened famine in Bombay and Madras, started criticism on the proclamation scheme on the ground that it was ‘ spending money on pageants when the people were starving. Lord Litton, however, writes : ‘ I am strongly of opinion that the Delhi meeting has become more important than ever. In the first place, if we are on the eve of a war, it is of vital importance to rouse the enthusiasm and secure the loyalty of all our great feudatories ; and no such opportunity of doing this has ever occurred before, or is likely to occur again. . . . Again, if we are really threatened with a serious famine, necessitating additional imperial taxation and upsetting all our present financial calculations, the same opportunity will most advantageously enable the Government of India to enter into timely and personal consultation with the heads of local administrations on the subject of the financial policy required to meet the situation.’

    Lytton justified his actions, to be somewhat fair, by weighing what still had value-budget against lives that were doomed or devalued of any civilized human quality.

    Not true.
    Lord Lytton in his own words.
    “After stating that the Government of India, with the approval of Her Majesty’s Government and of the people of India, were resolved to avert death by Starvation by the employment of all means available. The Viceroy first expressed his conviction that ‘absolute non-interference with the operations of private commercial enterprise must be the foundation of their present famine policy.’ This on the ground that ‘ free and abundant private trade cannot co-exist with Government importation,’ and that more food will reach the famine-smitten districts if private enterprise is left to itself (beyond receiving every possible facility and information from the Government) than if it were paralysed by State competition.”
    Now this laissez-faire policy might be controversial, I agree but obviously Lord Lytton’s attitude was not “by weighing what still had value-budget against lives that were doomed or devalued of any civilized human quality” but that “more food will reach the famine-smitten districts if private enterprise is left to itself “.

    • Replies: @last straw
  172. Malla says:
    @last straw

    The vast majority of what you quoted was the British lord’s own words.

    Not everything I posted were letters

    None of what you mentioned has actual meaning.

    Why not?

    The important question is, how much food has been imported to prevent and relieve the famine, before and during the famine? Maybe none.

    Read my those 4 posts again. Especially post 141.

    “Towards the end of July drought was so wide- spread as to threaten a general scarcity, and the Viceroy informed the Governor of the Straits Settlements of the failure of the crops, requesting him to communicate the information to the Governments of Cochin China and Siam, where there was abundant grain for export.

    The condition of affairs at Madras by the end of July was so deplorable that the Viceroy decided to go there himself without delay.”

    • Replies: @last straw
  173. @Malla

    All speculation. India has very little recorded history. Indeed one of the few recorded history, the edicts of Ashoka 263 BC war in between the Mauryas and Kalinga indicates of huge deaths due to famines. You are trying to push a narrative that before the British came, India was paradise, evul colonial British made everything hell. But things are not so simple.

    This is not speculation. This is logic. Which one is more likely, food inadequacy which might have been a seasonal phenomenon, or famine, which probably occurred every dozens of years, during which tens of thousands, or even millions people might have died? All I tried to say was that even if you double or triple the recorded famines in India, and even if you take El Nino into consideration as Mike Davis did, the frequency of famine under British rule was still pretty high.

    Also you forget that contact with Europeans (Portuguese) caused a boom in the Indian population. Indeed under British rule thanks to Western medicine and hygiene, the population boomed. Thus we were dealing with a much more concentrated population in the 1800s than anytime in Indian history, on the same piece of land. And in a period when there was no green revolution, railway networks were still not more developed. The British Indian Govt may have blundered here and there but there was definitely no desire on the part of the Government to commit genocide. Indeed the Govt of British India learnt hard lessons and created famine codes and built up infrastructure and after that famines stopped until the Bengal famine during the WW2 war period.

    I’m not sure what the population growth profile in India would look like without British rule. It’s not that British did not do anything in India. It’s that they often did not do enough, and woefully inadequate at times.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  174. peterAUS says:
    @Malla

    Eventually I think the whole thing will end up with a Global Corporate Communist system where money will be abolished and we will have a distribution system. Cash–>Cashless—>Distribution system. The state will own everything and the state in return would be owned by ‘the Corporation.’ Our descendants will be slave labour (racially mixed, sexually androgynous), owning nothing while the Global elites will live like royalty. Some form of Brave New World mixed with 1984. Of course my second paragraph is just speculation but I fear that is where we are heading.

    That’s possible.

    There are other possibilities too.

    We’ll see.

  175. Malla says:
    @last straw

    This is not speculation. This is logic. Which one is more likely, food inadequacy which might have been a seasonal phenomenon, or famine, which probably occurred every dozens of years, during which tens of thousands, or even millions people might have died?

    Without historical records, it is hard to say anything. Your claim that the “Indian thrifty genes” is because of food shortages and not famine is speculation at best. All the medical professionals are talking about famines causing this effect, you, in your bid to make the British Raj exceptionally evul are speculating that “Well maybe it was not famine, it woz food shortage, which means the bratish Empire was uniquely evul .” All speculation.

    even if you double or triple the recorded famines in India,

    What recorded? Before the Islamic period, there are no proper records. Just bits and pieces.

    I’m not sure what the population growth profile in India would look like without British rule.

    In post 80 on this page, in the first video “What The British Did To India”, check out from 11:46 minutes where population graphs are shown. Also do watch from 12:36 minutes about GENOCIDE in India by evul British.

    It’s that they often did not do enough, and woefully inadequate at times.

    Maybe they could have done more in some instances, I agree with you on this. But it is no denying that they took serious steps in ending famines once and for all.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @last straw
    , @Anon
  176. Malla says:
    @last straw

    I would like to take your attention to the Rajputana famine of 1869. BTW 30% of British India were princely states under native kings and outside direct British rule. The native states could levy their own taxes, had their own currencies.

    The Rajputana famine of 1869 affected an area of 296,000 square miles and a population of 44,500,000, primarily in the princely states of Rajputana, India, and the British territory of Ajmer.
    So this famine took place primarily in those areas which were under native rule of Native Indian Rajput Kings, not direct British Raj rule. Only the area of Ajmer was under direct British Raj.

    The monsoon of 1868 was late in coming. There was a shortage of fodder in most areas of Rajputana, and some areas had water shortages as well. Since the much-needed grain could be brought in only on slow camel trains, the stricken areas were more or less inaccessible.

    Many inhabitants of the famine-stricken regions of Rajputana (for example, two-thirds of the population of Marwar) emigrated with their livestock or herds. Many wandered in search of food until they died from starvation.[1] Late in 1868, epidemics of cholera broke out among the vulnerable population, and there was no harvest in the spring of 1869.

    Remember this was all in Native Indian control outside direct British Raj rule.

    Having been criticized for the badly bungled relief effort during the Orissa famine of 1866, British authorities began to discuss famine policy soon afterwards. In early 1868, Sir William Muir, Lieutenant-Governor of Agra Province, issued a famous order stating that:

    “every District officer would be held personally responsible that no deaths occurred from starvation which could have been avoided by any exertion or arrangement on his part or that of his subordinates.”

    The Government of British India organized famine relief works in the British territory of Ajmer and in neighboring Agra Province of British India. In Ajmer, Rs. 49 lakhs were spent in the relief effort, Rs. 5 lakh in revenue remission, and Rs. 21 lakhs in a new scheme for agricultural credit. In Agra, another Rs. 30 lakhs were spent in relieving 29 million units (i.e., one person for one day).

    The princely states of Rajputana provided very little relief: only Udaipur State spent Rs. 5 lakhs. Consequently, the immigration from the princely states into British India in the later stages of the famine began to overwhelm British efforts. In spite of Muir’s newly defined responsibility for each district officer, the resulting mortality was great. It is thought that over 1.5 million people died all over Rajputana during the famine.

    So famished Indians from the states under native Indian control were flooding into British ruled territory to get famine relief. Those Indians were mad and slavish, they ran to evul White colonialist imperialist demons. They should have stayed away from evul colonialists and starved to death, they would have starved to death like proud men, what say?

    • Replies: @Anon
  177. Malla says:
    @Malla

    To give you an idea, what kind of problem we are facing here regarding pre-Islamic Indian history and records.

    https://www.historytoday.com/archive/india’s-missing-historians

    [MORE]

    “The lack of historical writing has deep roots. Ancient Indians believed poets are not only more valuable than historians but better able to write history. Kalhana, author of Rajatarngini, a twelfth century history of the kings of Kashmir, began his book by saying, ‘who but a poet can bring back the past in sweet composition, and what can make it intelligible if his art cannot?’ As R. C. Majumdar, doyen of Indian historians lamented in Ancient India (1968), ‘One of the gravest defects of Indian culture, which defies rational explanation, is the aversion of Indians to writing history. They applied themselves to all conceivable branches of literature and excelled in many of them, but they never seriously took to the writing of history,’ with the result that `for a great deal of our knowledge of ancient Indian history we are indebted to foreigners’. So to write about ancient India today you have to consult Herodotus and the Greek writers who accompanied Alexander the Great’s campaign to India; Megasthenes, the Greek historian who in c. 300 BC was ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya and collected material there for his work Indica; Ptolemy’s Geographia; and the Chinese travellers Faxian and Xuanzang.”

    Mills writes

    “It is allowed on all hands that no historical composition existed in the literature of the Hindus; they had not reached that point of intellectual maturity, at which the value of a record of the past for the guidance of the future begins to be understood. “The Hindus,” says that zealous and industrious Sanscrit scholar, Mr. Wilford, “have no ancient civil history.” Remarking a coincidence in this characteristic circumstance between them and another ancient people, he adds, “Nor had the Egyptians any work purely historical.” Major Rennel says, that, founded on Hindu materials, there is no known history of Hindustan, nor any record of the historical events of that country prior to the Mahomedan conquests; and since that period, it is not to Hindu, but Mahomedan pens that we are indebted for all our knowledge of the Mahomedan conquests, and of the events which preceded the passage to India, by the Cape of Good Hope. An inclination at first appeared among [61] the warm admirers of Sanscrit to regard the poems Mahabharat and Ramayan, as a sort of historical records. A more intimate acquaintance with those [62] grotesque productions has demonstrated the impossibility of reconciling them with the order of human affairs, and, as the only expedient to soften the deformities in which they abound, suggested a theory that they are allegorical.

    On the geography and chronology, as parts of the literature of the Hindus, I shall express myself in the language of Mr. Wilford. “The Hindus,” says that celebrated Hindu scholar, “have no regular work on the subject of geography, or none at least that ever came to my knowledge.—I was under a necessity of extracting my materials from their historical poems, or, as they may be called more properly, their legendary tales.” In another place he says, “The Hindu systems of geography, chronology, and history, are all equally monstrous and absurd. The circumference of the earth is said to be 500,000,000 yojanas, or 2,456,000,000 British miles: the mountains are asserted to be 100 yojanas, or 491 British miles high. Hence the mountains to the south of Benares are said, in the Puranas, to have kept the holy city in total darkness, till Matra-deva growing angry at their insolence, they humbled themselves to the ground, and their highest peak now is not more than 500 feet high. In the Calica Purana, it is said that the mountains have sunk considerably, so that the highest is not above one yojana, or five miles high.—When the Puranics speak of the kings [66] of ancient times, they are equally extravagant. According to them, King Yudhishthir reigned 27,000 years; King Nanda is said to have possessed in his treasury above 1,584,000,000 pounds sterling in gold coin alone; the value of the silver and copper coin, and jewels, exceeded all calculation: and his army consisted of 100,000,000 men. These accounts, geographical, chronological, and historical, as absurd and inconsistent with reason, must be rejected. This monstrous system seems to derive its origin from the ancient period of 12,000 natural years, which was admitted by the Persians, the Etruscans, and, I believe, also by the Celtic tribes; for we read of a learned nation in Spain, which boasted of having written histories of above six thousand years.””

    Pre-Islamic Indian history is not well documented like Chinese, British, Japanese or Islamic history.

  178. @Malla

    I did not argue that British did not build irrigation systems. That’s besides the point. What really exacerbates the famine in India was the actions described below:

    Davis argues, for example, that “Between 1875–1900—a period that included the worst famines in Indian history—annual grain exports increased from 3 to 10 million tons”, equivalent to the annual nutrition of 25m people. “Indeed, by the turn of the century, India was supplying nearly a fifth of Britain’s wheat consumption at the cost of its own food security.”[6] In addition, “Already saddled with a huge public debt that included reimbursing the stockholders of the East India Company and paying the costs of the 1857 revolt, India also had to finance British military supremacy in Asia. In addition to incessant proxy warfare with Russia on the Afghan frontier, the subcontinent’s masses also subsidized such far-flung adventures of the Indian Army as the occupation of Egypt, the invasion of Ethiopia, and the conquest of the Sudan. As a result, military expenditures never comprised less than 25 percent (34 percent including police) of India’s annual budget…”[7] As an example of the effects of both this and of the restructuring of the local economy to suit imperial needs (in Victorian Berar, the acreage of cotton doubled 1875–1900),[8] Davis notes that “During the famine of 1899–1900, when 143,000 Beraris died directly from starvation, the province exported not only thousands of bales of cotton but an incredible 747,000 bushels of grain.”[9]

    • Replies: @Malla
  179. @Malla

    The famine works in Madras was primarily the responsibility of the Madras Presidency government and if you have read my 4 posts, Lord Lytton was reluctant to interfere in the works of the Madras Presidency.

    This sounds like dereliction of duty to me.

    Lord Lytton in his own words.

    No more British’s own words, please, because I really do not know if they are worth the paper they are written on.

    • Replies: @Malla
  180. @Malla

    Without historical records, it is hard to say anything. Your claim that the “Indian thrifty genes” is because of food shortages and not famine is speculation at best. All the medical professionals are talking about famines causing this effect, you, in your bid to make the British Raj exceptionally evul are speculating that “Well maybe it was not famine, it woz food shortage, which means the bratish Empire was uniquely evul .” All speculation.

    From the paper you quoted:

    According to the “thrifty genotype” the emerging epidemic of type 2 diabetes and obesity are phenotypic consequences of genetic variants that have undergone positive selection during periods of famine/food inadequacy.

    What recorded? Before the Islamic period, there are no proper records. Just bits and pieces.

    According to Mike Davis, if you can find a better source and number, please let me know. I’m curious.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  181. @Malla

    “Towards the end of July drought was so wide- spread as to threaten a general scarcity, and the Viceroy informed the Governor of the Straits Settlements of the failure of the crops, requesting him to communicate the information to the Governments of Cochin China and Siam, where there was abundant grain for export.

    The condition of affairs at Madras by the end of July was so deplorable that the Viceroy decided to go there himself without delay.”

    What you quoted has no meaning because the actions mentioned did not result in any concrete relieve effort. Yes the Viceroy visited the affected area, but was grain imported? If so, how much? We simply do not know, and the chance is, not much was actually done.

    • Replies: @Malla
  182. Anon[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Anti-colonialism hasn’t been popular in Western countries since the 70s. Nobody is portraying colonialists as evil anymore.

    Outside of India, nobody cares about the British Raj or Calcutta famine. Not even liberals.

    With all the military occupations that the US and Britain are involved with these days, Western media are obsessed with showing American and British troops as benevolent saviors. The only “evil” people on television are the dusky hordes of Muslims, who are said to “hate freedom.”

    The Indian govt still teaches anti-British history lessons, but ordinary Indians don’t care about British.

    Sometimes Westerners are shown as evil for buying black slaves, but nobody cares about India. Indians aren’t a glamorous group and nobody cares about them.

    You seem to live in a strange world in which everybody talks about British colonialism 24 hours per day. In the real world, nobody has cared about any of this for at least 35-40 years.

  183. Anon[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Not true. After 1947, the new Indian govt gave reservations to untouchables and OBCs. The British never did that, instead favoring royal families, landowners, and so called “martial races.”

    Low castes were uplifted much more by the current Indian govt than the British.

    • Replies: @Malla
  184. Anon[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    The Allied troops were always well stocked with food. They never ran short ever.

    When Churchill was told about the Bengal famine, he responded by saying that Indians were breeding too much. He then asked why Gandhi hadn’t starved.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  185. Anon[370] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    The serious steps toward ending the famine were undertaken by new Indian govt, which launched thw Green Revolution with Norman Borlaug.

    Not the British.

    • Replies: @Malla
  186. Malla says:
    @last straw

    No more British’s own words, please, because I really do not know if they are worth the paper they are written on.

    Why not? Because it contradicts Mike Davis’s claims? Indeed to inquire into the matter, this is important.

    This sounds like dereliction of duty to me.

    Yes, this has always been controversial. But It has been explained. Lord Lytton was a viceroy. Running India had many responsibilities. Indian colonial government was federal up to some extent.

  187. Malla says:
    @last straw

    According to Mike Davis, if you can find a better source and number, please let me know. I’m curious.

    You treat Mike Davis as some kind of god. He is a very poor source irrespective of all the awards which impresses you very much. I have proven without a doubt that he cannot be trusted at all. He is known to be a Trostkyite and this obviously colours his writing.
    A historian today will need someone or some proof thousands or years back or centuries back to have written something about famines. Without someone writing something sometime in the past or without some archaeological evidence, you cannot write up and dream up statistics.
    Check out post 185.

  188. Malla says:
    @Anon

    The serious steps toward ending the famine were undertaken by new Indian govt, which launched thw Green Revolution with Norman Borlaug.

    During the British Raj days, the Green revolution did not exist. The British did whatever technology was available such as build irrigation canals and railways. Thus famines reduced during the later period until the Bengal famine, which has its own unique reasons. If the British Raj would have extended past 1970, they would have applied Green Revolution too.

  189. Malla says:
    @Anon

    The Allied troops were always well stocked with food. They never ran short ever.

    Ummm they were fighting a war, India was one of the Allies and even britain saw food rationing during the war. I have already covered the Bengal Famine. Have you asked yourself, why did Punjab not have a famine? Why only Bengal?
    Check out post 69.

  190. Malla says:
    @Anon

    After 1947, the new Indian govt gave reservations to untouchables and OBCs. The British never did that, instead favoring royal families, landowners, and so called “martial races.”

    Not true, Ambedkar wanted more than just quotas in jobs, he wanted separate representation for lower castes just like how Jinnah wanted separate representation for Muslims. It was not the British who opposed it, it was the Indian National Congress. This led to Jinnah, asking for a separate Pakistan. Most Lower caste reformer stalwarts like Phule and Periyar supported British rule as a protection from upper caste domination.

    Jyoti Rao Phule

    Jyotirao Govindrao Phule[a] (11 April 1827 – 28 November 1890) was an Indian social activist, a thinker, anti-caste social reformer and writer from Maharashtra.

    His work extended to many fields including eradication of untouchability and the caste system, women’s emancipation and the reform of Hindu family life. On September 1873, Phule, along with his followers, formed the Satyashodhak Samaj (Society of Seekers of Truth) to attain equal rights for people from lower castes. Phule is regarded as an important figure of the social reform movement in Maharashtra He and his wife, Savitribai Phule, were pioneers of women’s education in India.

    http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/20647/1/Unit-12.pdf

    [MORE]

    British rule had brought to an end the tyranny and chaos of the regime of the last Brahmin Peshwa in Maharashtra. The colonial rulers had not only established law and order but also the principle of equality before law. The earlier regime of Brahmin Peshwas had imposed strict limitations on education, occupation arid living standards of the lower castes and women. The new rulers opened the opportunities in education and mobility in occupation for the members of all castes. Missionary schools and government colleges were ready to admit any student irrespective of caste origins. New ideas of equality and liberty could reach the moderately educated sections of the lower caste. Phule was probably the best product of this process. High caste reformers and leaders also had welcomed the colonial rule. It is not surprising that Phule who was concerned with the slavery of the lower castes also favoured British Rule He hoped that the new government which believes in equality between man and man would emancipate lower castes, from the domination of the Brahmins.
    The British rule opened up new employment opportunities in the administration. The political power at local level was also being given to the Indians. Phule who had worked as a member of the Poona Municipality could visualise how lower castes wouid be able to acquire power at local level during the period of British rule and also enter the colonial bureaucracy. He believed in Colonialism, Cast Order and the Tribal Societies the benevolent attitude of the British rulers towards the lower castes and therefore asked for a number of things from them. He was not sure how long the British rule would continue. Therefore, he wanted lower castes to exploit the
    opportunity and get rid of the tyranny of Brahmins. Brahmin rulers used to collect huge wealth out of taxes levied on poor lower castes population, but never used to spend even a paisa (penny/cent) for their welfare. On the contrary, the new regime was showing the signs of doing good things for the deprived people.
    Phule assured the colonial rulers that if the Shudras were made happy and contented, they need not worry about the loyalty of the subjects. He wanted the British government to abolish Brahmin Kulkarni’s position, and a post of village headman (Patil) filled on the basis of merit. In fact, Phule would have liked the British government to put an end to the balutedary system which was connected with caste specific occupations in the villages. He asked the government to make laws prohibiting customs and practices which gave subordinate status to women and untouchables. Phule wanted Brahmin bureaucracy to be replaced by non-Brahmin bureaucracy. But if the non-Brahmins were not available, the government should appoint, he thought, the British men to these posts. He believed that the British officers would take impartial view and were likely to side with lower castes.
    He knew that education had not yet percolated to the lower castes. The masses had not yet become politically conscious. The high caste elites were claiming that they were the true representatives of the people and therefore weie demanding political rights. This process, Phule thought, would reestablish the political supremacy of the high castes. Phule advised his followers from the lower castes not to participate the-movement for political rights. He argued that
    the Indian National Congress or other political associations were not national in the true sense of the term because they represented only high castes. Phule warned his followers against the selfish and cunning motives of the Brahmins in forming these associations and advised them to keep themselves away from such associations. In his Satya Shodhak Samaj, he had made it a rule not to discuss politics. In fact, we find that he had expressed more than once a complete and total loyalty towards the new government. He firmly believed that the almighty God had dethroned the tyrannical rulers and had established in their place a just, enlightened and peaceful British rule for the welfare of the masses.

    • Replies: @Anon
  191. Malla says:
    @last straw

    FAMINES IN THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT, 1500 to 1767 with historical references.

    http://www.vinlandmap.info/india-famine/

    Click on the link of a year to check out historical reference. It seems famines might have been far more common in Pre British India than British India.

    “It has become common in discussions of famine in the Indian sub-continent to state that Mike Davis, in “Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World” (2001) “points out that here were 31 serious famines in the 120 years of British rule compared with 17 famines in the 2,000 years before British rule.”
    That “120 years” should give a clue to a snag with the claim: its source, as Davis states quite clearly, is a preliminary study of the worldwide history of famine made by Cornelius Walford for the Statistical Society of London back in 1878, just over 120 years after the Battle of Plassey. In 1874, Charles Blair’s “Indian famines: Their historical, financial and other aspects …” had noted a significant problem: “… reliable records are only available from the date of British rule in India; and it will be seen … that subsequent to this time these disasters have been very frequent.”
    Suspecting, as I attempted to edit some India-related Wikipedia articles a few years ago, that modern technology would make it much easier to find pre-Plassey information, I decided to keep a spreadsheet of references to famines in the period from 1500, when the Portuguese were beginning to expand Europe’s first-hand knowledge of India, to 1767, the year before the new British administration in Bengal faced and failed its first major famine challenge (as it happens, others were working on a similar project at the same time, but the fascinating Famine and Dearth website- sadly not always online- has different priorities from mine).”

  192. Anon[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Most of the Lok Sabha is low caste. The OBCs and scheduled castes now dominate Indian politics, having been dominant for many decades. Brahmin domination came to an end a very long time ago.

    When Indian independence leaders wanted to throw out the British, they had to offer concessions to the low castes to gain their support. When India did become independent, huge efforts were made to provide the low castes with jobs, university reservations, and upliftment.

    The low castes gained a lot after Indian independence.

    • Replies: @Malla
  193. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Now Churchill did have a history of brutality. His promotion for bombing of helpless German civilians for example leading to the genocide in Dresden. So one is not surprised about his brutal utterances. Had Churchill not pushed for a war with Germany, the whole problem would have been avoided.
    However this does not give the full picture.
    https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/did-churchill-cause-the-bengal-famine/
    On receiving news of the spreading food shortage Churchill spoke to his Cabinet, saying he would welcome a statement by Lord Wavell, his new Viceroy of India, that his duty “was to make sure that India was a safe base for the great operations against Japan which were now pending, and that the war was pressed to a successful conclusion, and that famine and food difficulties were dealt with.” (Italics mine.)5

    Churchill then wrote to Wavell personally:

    Peace, order and a high condition of war-time well-being among the masses of the people constitute the essential foundation of the forward thrust against the enemy….The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….Every effort should be made by you to assuage the strife between the Hindus and Moslems and to induce them to work together for the common good.6

    Again Churchill expressed his wish for “the best possible standard of living for the largest number of people.”7

    Next Churchill turned to famine relief. Canada had offered aid, but in thanking Prime Minister MacKenzie King, Churchill noted a shipping problem: “Wheat from Canada would take at least two months to reach India whereas it could be carried from Australia in 3 to 4 weeks.”8

    At Churchill’s urging, Australia promised 350,000 tons of wheat.
    King still wanted to help. Churchill feared a resultant loss of war shipments between Canada and Australia,9 but King assured him there would be no shortfall. Canada’s contribution, he said, would pay “dividends in humanitarian aspects….”10

    The famine continued into 1944, causing Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery to request one million tons of grain. Churchill, who had been studying consumption statistics, now believed India was receiving more than she would need. He remained concerned about the shipping problem, “given the effect of its diversion alike on operations and on our imports of food into this country, which could be further reduced only at the cost of much suffering.”11

    The Cabinet cited other causes of the famine rarely mentioned in latter-day denunciations of Churchill: the shortages were “partly political in character, caused by Marwari supporters of Congress [Gandhi’s party] in an effort to embarrass the existing Muslim Government of Bengal.” Another cause, they added, was corrupt local officials: “The Government of India were unduly tender with speculators and hoarders.”12

  194. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Yes, exactly, the Indian national Congress was predominantly upper caste. To increase their popular base, they had to bring the lower caste masses on board which happened quite late in the so called “freedom struggle”. Besides that, the British refused devolution of power to the INC until the Indians came up with a Constitution. That is why the INC were forced to kow tow to Ambedkar who was the architect of the Indian Constitution. If that scumbag Gandhi was left with writing the Indian Constitution, he would have included Manusmruti where lower castes would be licking Brahmin feet forever. But thanks to British demands, the INC had to get Ambedkar on board.

  195. Malla says:
    @last straw

    “Between 1875–1900—a period that included the worst famines in Indian history—annual grain exports increased from 3 to 10 million tons”, equivalent to the annual nutrition of 25m people.

    A lot of the exporting were done by Indian merchants. British India had a laissez faire economic system, so Indian and European merchants exported to the markets which gave the best price. I doubt it was British policy to loot Indian grain to feed the British.
    The only period, I am aware of the laissez faire policy was abandoned and protectionist methods applied was after the Great Depression in the 1920s-30s. The Govt of British India took steps to protect Indian Industries then with protectionist measures. Indeed the British Empire decided on Imperial preferences system to isolate the British Empire from trade with the USA (((Wall Street bankers))) after the shock of the depression where the greedy Wall Street bankers ran amok. That is why Roosevelt and the USA started working against the European Empires, especially the British Empire. The British Empire was considered a bigger threat to American Export Capitalism than the Soviet Union.

    I believe that in times of famine, the laissez faire system should have been temporarily suspended.

    Already saddled with a huge public debt that included reimbursing the stockholders of the East India Company and paying the costs of the 1857 revolt, India also had to finance British military supremacy in Asia. In addition to incessant proxy warfare with Russia on the Afghan frontier, the subcontinent’s masses also subsidized such far-flung adventures of the Indian Army as the occupation of Egypt, the invasion of Ethiopia, and the conquest of the Sudan. As a result, military expenditures never comprised less than 25 percent (34 percent including police) of India’s annual budget…

    Do you have any original documentation on this…just in case. I searched for budgets etc… but could not find any.

    But I would add, the major problem faced by the Govt of British India was low taxation. Now I do not remember where I read but one of the Viceroys was talking about the threat of Russia invading from the North via Afghanistan. He said that the British Indian Army would not be able to resist a Tzarist Russian Army as it was not as well equipped due to low military budgets due in turn to the low taxation in India. The Mughal Tax rate was 20%, the Hindu Maratha tax rate was 25% (Chouth or 1/4th), the British tax rate was 5%.

    Despite continuing fiscal pressures on the British Indian Central Government in New Delhi, the Victorian subjects of the British Crown in the Indian subcontinent were among the lowest taxed populations in the world. In their meticulous study of the political economy of the global British Empire Davis and Huttenback arrived at some surprising figures for British India. By their calculations between 1860-64 and 1910-12, the residents of British India paid on average only £0.26 per capita per year in total government revenue consisting of taxes and fees. By contrast the residents of the United Kingdom, among the highest taxed people in the world, paid £4.76 per capita on average over the same period. Other dependent colonies in the British Empire paid £1.05 per capita; colonies with responsible government (White settler colonies like Australia, Canada, New Zealand) paid far more at £4.17. Foreign developed countries imposed taxes and fees averaging £1.51 per capita on their inhabitants

    In the 1920s, governmental revenues assigned to defense was about 30 per cent. The Indian peoples are taxed about $0.58 per capita or the defense of their country.

    [7. Defence of India, “Arthur Vincent,” Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922, p. 04.]
    [8. India in 1924-25, p. 31.]
    The people of Great Britain paid about $13 per capita on that count, the people of America about $5; those of Japan paid for defense six times as much as the people of India, implying a per capita tax on that score of over $3.50.
    [The Statesman’s Year Book, 1926, p. xix.]

    British India possesses 1,400 miles of constantly dangerous frontier, always actively threatened, and three times in the 19th century ablaze with open war. The British Raj also has an enormous and extremely vulnerable coast line, which without extra cost to her was defended by the British fleet, the most powerful Navy in the World at it’s time. Taxes were light because the people are poor. Revenues were small because taxes are light. Costs of national defense looked large because revenues were small. The maintenance of order and peace is the prime duty of any Government. On that duty any Government must spend what it must. If the total revenue was small, the less was left for other activities. The obvious solution was to increase the revenue, which the British Indian Government was reluctant to do.

    Practically all the pay of the Army stayed in India. The pay of the great body of troops, which was Indian, naturally did so. That part of British soldiers’ pay that went home to Britain was a tiny percentage of the Indian Economy. Equipment and stores, by order, were bought in India whenever Indian firms could provide them in suitable quality and at a reasonable competitive price. Otherwise they were bought abroad, by the High Commissioner for India stationed in London, who in the 1920s was himself an Indian.

  196. Malla says:
    @last straw

    What you quoted has no meaning because the actions mentioned did not result in any concrete relieve effort. Yes the Viceroy visited the affected area, but was grain imported?

    I have no data. Listen Lord Lytton could have acted faster. He could have blocked private trade. Maybe he bungled up a bit. Maybe not the most competent Viceroy in Indian history. But surely it was not intended genocide.
    That is what my complaint is about Davis’s work. He wants to show it as a genocide. Maybe Lord Lytton mismanaged. Maybe he had some blame. But Davis (I believe, I have not read the book), fails to mention the other half.
    And that is
    That Lytton went to the famine sites, he was very concerned, that he instructed that feeble men and women, infirm people, old people be not be worked but be given relief, Planning infrastructure to permanently get rid of this problem palgueing India as well as the British Empire etc….
    The point is, by not mentioning the other half, works like Davis’s, give an image on the reader that Lord Lytton was a brutal monster who cared for no one. That is what I am talking about. If you point out his flaws, point out his actions as well.
    I am thus giving a more complete picture than Davis. I have come across such leftist as well as third world nationalist works before which skew the information to evoke emotions.

    Also there is this floating around that Lytton was a Social Dawinist, Racist etc…. But Lytton pushed for reservation of Indians in Government jobs.

    • Replies: @Half-Jap
  197. Half-Jap says:
    @Malla

    Your efforts are much appreciated and indeed elucidating, but one cannot force the horse to drink the water 🙂 Oftentimes, commitments to belief defines the being, and no god can separate them lest the being perish by one’s own election to hold fast to the belief. Sometimes I envy even my cat for being incapable to have such zealous commitment. Perhaps the ancient Egyptians were on to something 😛

    Tis how I come to the cynical conclusion that the greeks, hindus and such ancient others’ belief in a cyclic history is not off the mark, as the wise and learned are scorned and the dumb and/or stubborn insist on grievances to grind against real or imagined others for all eternity, honing their resentment, as Nietzsche may put it.

    This whole woke history on colonialism is ironic and brings a cynical sad grin.

    • Replies: @Malla
  198. Malla says:
    @Half-Jap

    Thank you for your kind words and what you wrote is true.

    as the wise and learned are scorned and the dumb and/or stubborn insist on grievances to grind against real or imagined others for all eternity, honing their resentment, as Nietzsche may put it.

    Very True, this has done enormous damage to the third World.

  199. @Malla

    Hot damn. You are a bona fide 2019 house Nigger.

    You just proved Israel Shamir’s case with his article.

    • Replies: @Malla
  200. Malla says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    People who accept Communist slavery are the biggest house niggers ever.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Godfree Roberts Comments via RSS