The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPepe Escobar Archive
XI and Putin Make the Case for Win-Win vs. Zero-Sum
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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

So the Davos Agenda has come and gone.

That was the virtual Great Reset preview, hosted by Kissinger acolyte cum World Economic Forum (WEF) oracle Herr Klaus Schwab.

Still, corporate/political so-called “leaders” will continue to wax lyrical about the Fourth Industrial Revolution – or its mild spin-offs such as Build Back Better, the favorite slogan of the new White House tenants.

The WEF co-sponsors – from the UN and the IMF to BlackRock, Blackstone and the Carlyle Group – will continue to expand their synchronicity with Lynn Forester de Rothschild and her corporate-heavy Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican – pop Pope Francis at the helm.

And yes, they they accept Visa.

Predictably, the two really crucial events at Davos received minimal or non-existent coverage across the wobbly West: the speeches by President Xi and President Putin.

We have already highlighted Xi’s essentials. Aside from arguing a powerful case for multilateralism as the only possible road map to deal with global challenges, Xi stressed nothing substantial may be achieved if the inequality gap between North and South is not reduced.

The best in-depth analysis of Putin’s extraordinary speech , hands down, was provided by Rostislav Ishchenko, whom I had the pleasure to meet in Moscow in 2018.

Ishchenko stresses how, “in terms of scale and impact on historical processes, this is steeper than the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk combined.” The speech, he adds, was totally unexpected, as much as Putin’s stunning intervention at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, “the crushing defeat” imposed on Georgia in 2008, and the return of Crimea in 2014.

Ishchenko also reveals something that will never be acknowledged in the West: “80 people from among the most influential on the planet did not laugh in Putin’s face, as it was in 2007 in Munich, and without noise immediately after his open speech signed up for a closed conference with him.”

Putin’s very important reference to the ominous 1930s – “the inability and unwillingness to find substantive solutions to problems like this in the 20th century led to World War 2 catastrophe” – was juxtaposed with a common sense warning: the necessity of preventing the takeover of global policy by Big Tech , which “are de facto competing with states”.

Xi and Putin’s speeches were de facto complementary – emphasizing sustainable, win-win economic development for all actors, especially across the Global South, coupled with the necessity of a new socio-political contract in international relations.

This drive should be based on two pillars: sovereignty – that is, the good old Westphalian model (and not Great Reset, hyper-concentrated, one world “governance”) and sustainable development propelled by techno-scientific progress (and not techno-feudalism).

So what Putin-Xi proposed, in fact, was a concerted effort to expand the basic foundations of the Russia-China strategic partnership to the whole Global South: the crucial choice ahead is between win-win and the Exceptionalist zero-sum game.

Regime-change that commie

The Xi-Putin road map is already being examined in excruciating detail by Michael Hudson, for instance in this essay based on the first chapter of his upcoming book Cold War 2.0: The Geopolitical Economics of Finance Capitalism vs. Industrial Capitalism. Many of these themes have been elaborated in a recent conversation/interview between Michael and myself.

The whole Global South is figuring out how the contrast could not be starker between the American model – neoliberalism redux, in the form of turbo-financialization – and East Asia’s productive investment in industrial capitalism.

Alastair Crooke has outlined the dubious “appeal” of the American model, including “asset markets…severed from any connection to economic returns”; markets that “are not free, but Treasury managed”; and “enterprise capitalism…morphed into monopolistic oligarchism”.

The glaring counterpoint to Xi-Putin at Davos has been a so-called “strategy paper” released by NATO think tank The Atlantic Council, pompously titled The Longer Telegram, as if this was as relevant as George Kennan’s 1946 Long Telegram that designed the containment of the USSR.

Well, the least one can say to the anonymous “former senior government official with deep expertise” on China is, “Mr. Anonymous, You’re No George Kennan”. At best, we’re dealing with a sub-Mike Pompeo with a massive hangover.

Amidst a tsunami of platitudes, we learn that China is a “revisionist power” that “presents a serious problem for the whole of the democratic world”; and that the Chinese leadership better get its act together and operate “within the US-led liberal international order rather than building a rival order”.

The usual toxic mix of arrogance and condescension totally gives away the game, which boils down to “deterring and preventing China from crossing US red lines”, and applying good, old Kissingerian Divide and Rule between Russia and China.

Oh, and don’t forget regime change: if the “strategy” works, “Xi will in time be replaced by the more traditional form of Communist Party leadership.”

If this is what passes for intellectual firepower in Atlanticist circles, Beijing and Moscow don’t even need enemies.

The Asian center of gravity

Martin Jacques, now a visiting professor at Tsinghua University and a senior fellow at the China Institute of Fudan University, is one of the very few Westerners who actually has real “expertise” on China.

He’s now focusing on the main battlefield in the evolving US-China clash: Europe. Jacques notes that, “the trend toward a growing distance between Europe and the US will be slow, tortuous, conflict-riddled, and painful.” We are now “in new territory. American decline means that it has increasingly less to offer Europe.”

As an example, let’s jump cut to a distinct feature of the BRI/New Silk Roads and one of its key hubs, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC): the Digital Silk Road .

In partnership with Huawei, fiber optic cable is being laid out all across Pakistan – as I saw for myself when I traveled the Karakoram Highway, the northern part of CPEC. This fiber optic cable all the way from the Karakoram to Balochistan will link with the Pakistan-East Africa Connecting Europe (PEACE) submarine cable in the Arabian Sea.

The end result will be high-end connectivity between a host of BRI-participating nations and Europe – as the Mediterranean section is already being laid, running from Egypt to France. Before the end of 2021, the whole 15,000 km-long fiber optic cable will be online.

This shows that BRI is not as much about building roads, dams and high-speed rail networks but especially the Digital Silk Road, intimately connected with state of the art Chinese cyber-tech.

It’s no wonder Jacques fully understands how “the gravitational pull of China, and Asia more generally, is drawing Europe eastward. Nothing illustrates this phenomenon better than the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative.”

ORDER IT NOW

In ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, an extraordinary book published way back in 1998, the late, great Andre Gunder Frank exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism, demonstrating how the rise of the West was a mere historical blip, and a consequence of the decline of the East around 1800.

Now, only two centuries later, the planet’s center of gravity is back in Asia, as it’s been for most of recorded history. The fate of those blind to the evidence and unable to adapt is to telegram themselves to utter irrelevance.

(Republished from Asia Times by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics, Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Davos, Eurasia, New Silk Road, Russia 
Hide 453 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Wyatt says:

    In ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, an extraordinary book published way back in 1998, the late, great

    Andre Gunder Frank

    exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism, demonstrating how the rise of the West was a mere historical blip, and a consequence of the decline of the East around 1800.

    “Frank was born in Germany to Jewish[1] parents”

    Couldn’t find anything on him being an anti-Zionist. That increases his chances of having a shit opinion to 95%.

    • Agree: stevennonemaker88
    • Replies: @Richard B
  2. Oh, great. The 3rd world gets more computers. That will solve everything. They’re edible you know.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @SteveK9
    , @Malla
  3. Mikael_ says:

    Thanks, Pepe.
    Need to read Putin’s whole speech now!

    • Replies: @frontier
  4. anon[738] • Disclaimer says:

    I am skeptical of the idea the West is a blip on world history. The history of the West is not yet finished so any such conclusion is moot. Still, given the current situation, a more assertive Asia seems a very good omen. The West is a mess and certainly requires a good house cleaning. Whatever happens afterwards can be worked out then.

    I am convinced that Western policies will break the West. Social policy is identity division. Economic policy is industrial and financial feudalism, with technology dissolving into pure fantasy. This will reduce the West to penury and irrelevance. Therefore Mr. Escobar is right about Asia by default. It need only remain rational to win the game, barring war.

    However, world war is still a possibility which could change or end the game. This should not be taken lightly. The leadership of the West is hubristic and insane. Under stress it will be open to anything. Others may also conclude that war is the only hope to end a growing insanity.

    A world war three may be the better prospect than to see the rise of a world grasping Oceania. The threats to submit to the Western lead “rules based” order must be taken seriously. Particularly so if the West sees itself as unable to achieve this goal.

    Not only Asia is threatened by the lunatic governments of the West. Domestic populations will suffer from growing chaos and may support war in the hopes the West will lose. It is an old strategy to help an enemy to do what he wants to do in the expectation his actions will destroy him. Let things get bad enough and that idea could make even thermonuclear war attractive to many. The rise of Asia comes with a serious risk of war. The West could yet end all history.

  5. The US-led Western banking cartel can’t even count on the support of the people under its rule.

    Stolen elections, illegitimate leaders, currency over-extended, controlled media, woke ideology, ethnic divisions, failing infrastructure, bloated military, bellicose foreign policy, a population who has zero confidence in what its rulers say, and a small, parasitical Mediterranean state wagging the dog.

  6. … Andre Gunder Frank exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism, demonstrating how the rise of the West was a mere historical blip, and a consequence of the decline of the East around 1800.

    The rise of the West was driven chiefly by the Industrial Revolution.

    Now, only two centuries later, the planet’s center of gravity is back in Asia, as it’s been for most of recorded history. The fate of those blind to the evidence and unable to adapt is to telegram themselves to utter irrelevance.

    This is true. Asia has adapted to the Industrial Revolution and modern technology, and it is bound to catch up with the West – and surpass it, because its population is so much larger.

    • Agree: AriusArmenian
    • Replies: @anon
  7. El Dato says:
    @anon

    Domestic populations will suffer from growing chaos and may support war in the hopes the West will lose.

    Judging from the Twitter sewer, “Westerners” are quite convinced that the West is the Best and should take on all Evils (via sanctions or more) about which they hear in meedja.

    Most will support war and believe they can win.

    I won’t even talk about the politicians and so-called “managerial elites” who seem to mostly low-quality Vaucanson ducks running on outdated clichés, some from the pre-WWI era (did I recently hear some German chick wanting to deal with Russia “from a position of strength”? Yes I did.).

    Meanwhile the populations are getting replaced by superior and more harmonious black bodies to the point that in 50 years there will be nobody left who knows how to hold a manual on mechanical engineering anymore. Probably will feed it into a open fire. Oh well.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
    • Replies: @Emslander
  8. For those wishing to read the Kremlin official translation of Putin’s speech, here is the link:

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/64938?fbclid=IwAR1tE8YTkF-3tSi7UCueeoSVEKGvOnK3Lq_w9H9NDU80p_Yj6kFb4qJDN4Y

    I think Pepe summarizes Putin’s speech reasonably well, but he keeps on with the Russia-China love-fest as being the real core of the future, and I’m not so sure that’s Putin’s view.

    My take away was that Putin views Russia as European, period. Read the last few paragraphs where he answers Klaus “Anal” Schwab’s final question about the future of Russian-European relations. Here is the first portion of Putin’s response:

    “You know there are things of an absolutely fundamental nature such as our common culture. Major European political figures have talked in the recent past about the need to expand relations between Europe and Russia, saying that Russia is part of Europe. Geographically and, most importantly, culturally, we are one civilisation. French leaders have spoken of the need to create a single space from Lisbon to the Urals. I believe, and I mentioned this, why the Urals? To Vladivostok.”

    Not much room there for China, except as simply a trading partner. Putin’s last words make abundantly clear he views Russia and its future as an integral part of Europe, that Russian culture is European culture and they are the natural partners of one another.

    Sure, the question Schwab posed was about Europe and Russia, no doubt. But the flavor and tenor of his response was unmistakable. One wonders if Putin/Russia would throw China under the bus (like they did Libya) if necessary to preserve relations with the West. I cannot believe he would be that silly, but he sure makes it clear that Russia has ‘excellent’ relations with Israel, a country that openly tried, and is trying, to actively destroy both Syria and Iran, two absolutely critical countries for Russia’s protection and future safety. Israeli ministers have stated publicly they’d prefer ISIS to Assad in Syria, and all that entails for the region. Same holds true for Iran, I’m sure.

    And we all know how eager the EU is to punish Russia for the most idiotic reasons, always at the behest of the US, despite the US consistently using the EU as its floor mat and Russia doing all it can to kiss up and make nice to the Europeans, no matter how much crap they throw at the Russkies, and how many provocative NATO exercises they allow to be conducted on Russia’s doorstep.

    I think Putin needs to focus a little less on pleasing Europe and Israel, and more on really widening Russia’s role in the far east and establishing even better trade and defense cooperation with China and Russia’s eastern neighbors.

  9. roonaldo says:

    The last time Putin addressed this forum was 2009. In reading the transcripts of that, and now this, address, one sees his emphases on recognizing challenges, finding international mechanisms to find solutions, and helping people.

    The Europeans host this forum, and he knows the importance of persuading them away from confrontations and sanctions, especially when the Germans seem serious about completing Nordstream II and the EU has made an important economic agreement with China, which means there are a few sane Europeans left. Russians are undeniably tied to Europe and he does not pretend otherwise. He laid down the gauntlet in his Munich speech in 2007 and Europe knows if they want war with Russia they’ll pay dearly.

    The U.S., pushing the NATO/Atlantic Council garbage, is a joke, and further demonstrates that the mentally failing Biden, incapable of addressing the forum, represents a pathetic approach to world affairs in a country wasting its energy bickering over pronouns and microaggressions as it targets half the adult population as enemies of the state that must be crushed.

    • Agree: Peripatetic Itch
  10. @Mustapha Mond

    Yes, the Russia-Israel closeness involving possibly part-Jewish Putin (mother’s name given as Shalomovitch in the past), against Russia’s interests, that is one thorny item … but there are several thorns here

    Even tho the critique of the NATO West is justified … something always seems off about these Escobar, Saker etc type articles cheer-leading for China, Russia, Iran as the ‘good guys’ … the rah-rah for the ‘New Silk Road’ and so on making it seem the writer is on someone’s payroll

    China & especially Iran are significantly inhumane countries … China with its mass executions, ‘economic hit man’ debt enslaving of other nations … Iran with its judicial floggings, limb amputations, stonings, slow-torture-strangulation mass hangings

    It is long understood in schemas for the ‘New World Order’ that a likely scenario is staged downfall-collapse of USA, the NWO to be introduced as a multi-polar concoction, led by China LOL … pumped by people like Escobar & Saker? … tho there are contradictions in the dialectic

    On the one hand, Klaus Schab types (his son in Beijing) praise China and its crushing surveillance and digital control as the great model

    On the other hand, the West, Jewish neo-cons, etc, are hitting hard against China for its anti-migration, pro-nationalist, anti-LGBT stance, Russia and Iran of course as well hit for not being in line with the ‘globohomo poz’ agendas as they are derisively called

    Is the plan to collapse the West first, then bring China on board with ethnic mixing and LGBT once the full NWO is in place? Or just leave the world with a Chinese-dominated East, and a Jewish-dominated West?

  11. @Mustapha Mond

    The Europeans are currently subservient to the US, but that’s changing. As the US gets inevitably weaker, the Europeans will shift their allegiance to where their bread is being buttered. These European “leaders” are just after the money and where the money goes so does their interest.

    Europe’s feeling towards the US and their feelings towards Russia and China are in direct proportion to their trading ratios. Since the US produces less and less of what anyone wants, it is destined to lose the reserve currency status, not by any overt declaration, but by quiet neglect. It’s just a matter of time before the Dollar loses what little purchasing power it has left due to 40% of all dollar having been created in the last 12 months. More dollars chasing the same or even lower quantity of goods is a recipe for price inflation, probably hyperinflation in the not too distant future. That would be the end of the US regime and the probable dissolution of the Fed Gov as states also need to find new trading interconnects to survive.

    The Russians and Chinese just have to wait for the Dollar to collapse. No overt activity is necessary because the US Fed Gov is on a well worn path to its end of empire. The Europeans understand this and are shifting their priorities already.

  12. Unfortunately, the new Biden administration seems oblivious that it is on course for a global conflict against a Sino-Russian alliance, a path governments must step off if they want to avoid lose-lose for all – nuclear war. It is time to recognize the pattern of history.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

    • Replies: @Silicon Silence
  13. @anon

    The history of the West is not yet finished so any such conclusion is moot.

    The history of the West is definitely finished. How else could a top Western “political scientist” have declared in early 1990 that even History itself had ended?!!!

    …American political scientist Francis Fukuyama which argues that with the ascendancy of Western liberal democracy—which occurred after the Cold War (1945–1991) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991)—humanity has reached “not just … the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: That is, the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

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

    • Replies: @Realist
  14. Cowboy says:

    the necessity of preventing the takeover of global policy by Big Tech , which “are de facto competing with states”.

    This shows that BRI is not as much about building roads, dams and high-speed rail networks but especially the Digital Silk Road, intimately connected with state of the art Chinese cyber-tech.

    Peepee wants us to think the “art” of Chinese tech is holy whilst the Big Tech they be evil. I’ll take neither thanks.

  15. Realist says:
    @Deep Thought

    The history of the West is definitely finished.

    Indeed…when the United States elects…through fair or foul…a brain-dead asshole like Biden. The West is done.

  16. Rahan says:
    @RoatanBill

    Yes, the Russia-Israel closeness involving possibly part-Jewish Putin (mother’s name given as Shalomovitch in the past), against Russia’s interests, that is one thorny item … but there are several thorns here

    There are at least ten villages in Russia called “Shelomovo” and they are not Jewish; direct and warped taking of names and sounds from the Bible was common back in the day with peasants, and more so Cossacks.

    List of the various Shelomovos:
    http://wiki-org.ru/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE

    Also three Shalomovo villages:
    http://wiki-org.ru/wiki/%D0%A8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE

    Although, in the end, one can’t trust anything these days without a verified DNA test…

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  17. antibeast says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    Not much room there for China, except as simply a trading partner. Putin’s last words make abundantly clear he views Russia and its future as an integral part of Europe, that Russian culture is European culture and they are the natural partners of one another.

    You’re confusing Schwab’s question which had nothing to do with China. The rest of Putin’s reply to Schwab’s question clearly shows that Putin view the current hostility of Europe towards Russia as ‘not normal’, which has absolutely nothing to do with the current Russia-China ‘partnership’ against the USA. Here’s Putin’s reply that was omitted in your last post:

    I personally heard the outstanding European politician, former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, say that if we want European culture to survive and remain a centre of world civilisation in the future, keeping in mind the challenges and trends underlying the world civilisation, then of course, Western Europe and Russia must be together. It is hard to disagree with that. We hold exactly the same point of view.

    Clearly, today’s situation is not normal. We need to return to a positive agenda. This is in the interests of Russia and, I am confident, the European countries. Clearly, the pandemic has also played a negative role. Our trade with the European Union is down, although the EU is one of our key trade and economic partners. Our agenda includes returning to positive trends and building up trade and economic cooperation.

    Europe and Russia are absolutely natural partners from the point of view of the economy, research, technology and spatial development for European culture, since Russia, being a country of European culture, is a little larger than the entire EU in terms of territory. Russia’s resources and human potential are enormous. I will not go over everything that is positive in Europe, which can also benefit the Russian Federation.

    Only one thing matters: we need to approach the dialogue with each other honestly. We need to discard the phobias of the past, stop using the problems that we inherited from past centuries in internal political processes and look to the future. If we can rise above these problems of the past and get rid of these phobias, then we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations.

    We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make this happen. But love is impossible if it is declared only by one side. It must be mutual.

    The fact that Russia is ‘European’ does not preclude Russia from partnering with Asian countries like China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Russia’s strategic depth comes from its long-standing ties to Asian countries due to its unique geography, straddling Central Asia, North Asia and East Asia. Removing those Asian ‘partners’ will turn Russia into just another European country, albeit with nukes.

    Sure, the question Schwab posed was about Europe and Russia, no doubt. But the flavor and tenor of his response was unmistakable. One wonders if Putin/Russia would throw China under the bus (like they did Libya) if necessary to preserve relations with the West. I cannot believe he would be that silly, but he sure makes it clear that Russia has ‘excellent’ relations with Israel, a country that openly tried, and is trying, to actively destroy both Syria and Iran, two absolutely critical countries for Russia’s protection and future safety. Israeli ministers have stated publicly they’d prefer ISIS to Assad in Syria, and all that entails for the region. Same holds true for Iran, I’m sure.

    You answered your own question as to why Russia needs Asian partners such as Syria, Iran, China, etc. Russia borders Central Asia, North Asia and East Asia. What happens in those Asian countries will affect Russia’s national security. The fact that it is culturally ‘European’ does not negate that GEOPOLITICAL reality.

    You’re confusing cultural affinity with geopolitical realities. Japan shares the closest of all cultural ties to China and Korea but which it nevertheless invaded several times during the last century.

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  18. @RoatanBill

    The EU’s move towards China is already underway……..

  19. Rubicon says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    Mustapha writes: “My take away was that Putin views Russia as European, period.

    If you take the time to read Western-Russian history, you will see that, without a doubt, Putin rightly points out that the two have been intertwined regions for centuries.

    Before submitting opinions, may we suggest you consult with READING HISTORY.

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  20. anon[228] • Disclaimer says:

    Putin is between 2 hard places- America and America . All current existing democracies are tied to the USA not only militarily financially but also ideologically with geographical variations of minor ( minor importance to the elite or the structure that runs the country ) nature – like access to health education housing or LGBT issue . Putin cant escape this trap. This is one of the reasons that Iran and China cant be fully democratic . Democracy allows openness which can be and will misused by USA more easily and openly .
    Putin also needs to look into whats the chances that his achievement will be protected continued and nurtured by future leaders . Bribes assassination and public uprising cost little for USA to mount . Preventing these possibilities in open country become a function of money and local laws Local laws can be maintained only by military power . USA’s laws on foreign influences if implemented in Russia Malaysia or Indonesia or India or Greece or Armenia or S Korea or Japan will generate disdain hatred anger and badmouthing of intemperate nature from US state run media .The country will come under pressure . Putin cant fight and win this battle always consistently.Will the next leader show even interest?

    China and Iran escape this by suppressing any valid locally grown protests and muzzling media and robbing the shysters any opportunity of stabbing the country like Guaido or Navarly does. This is the price—- maintaining national character ideology and long term stability , freedom from exploitation like the way Congo or Bolivia or Niger gets exploited with total silence about democracy law equality and peace for the citizen from the west .

    China bashing and Iran bashing then take an organized 24/7 well orchestrated shape . Nothing gets deleted from the lists of the charges but more get added . People swallow lies on Uighur genocide or Tibetan genocide or Iranian culture of stoning,mutilation hanging and cruel death – blah blah blah blah . ( It has consequences – we can kill Iranian and Chinese much easily by WMD than it would be if they were depicted as human with legit interests .) China or Russia can also point to BLM, Capitol attack, execution of minor , cruel and inhuman punishment to the drug abusers ,violation of Native laws culture and habitat, poor condition of the health care or housing for millions of Americans and so on..

    Russia also has its own 5th columnist and traitors opportunists and real believer in democracy . It is possibly the very cultural separation from the Western Europe that has so far kept Russia form being smothered by the west- financially culturally and politically ensuring its survival.

    Putin’s olive branch is going to shrivel and dry then be dropped . Russia will never be reciprocated despite its eagerness to play second fiddle to USA in geographical areas far from the border of Russia. At the same time Putin is also prisoner of old Euroepan mindset of racial differences and superiority that preclude him and his gov from fully aligning with China +Iran.

    • Replies: @Sean
  21. frontier says:
    @Mikael_

    Pepe:
    (Putin’s speech) is steeper than the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk combined… (some nobody) exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism… Amidst a tsunami of platitudes…

    A tsunami indeed, not only of platitudes but also of meaningless hyperboles. A lot of what Putin does is indeed good and necessary… but not nearly enough. His actions are pretty much forced but they do not reduce the long-term risks for Russia which are quite serious and not so remote. Unfortunately, there’s no indication that Putin is aware of it, or if he is, he hasn’t found a winning strategy yet, thus the “steeper” speeches entertainment.

    As far as Eurocentrism goes, it was smashed not by the words of nobodies but by the sloppy trade and financial policies of the dysfunctional Western governments. Not coincidentally, those same policies built China, even Trump took part in it despite noises to the contrary. I’m waiting for a sane politician in the larger European sphere to wake up and smell the covfefe and stop pushing further into the swamp they entered some 30 years ago. Although he still comes up short, Putin is the best candidate by far, his Western counterparts are fast asleep with no signs of awakening.

    • Replies: @Mikael_
  22. Sean says:
    @anon

    It doesn’t matter whether China is morally pure or not; it is going to become the world’s most powerful economy. The brilliant plan of the US establishment is to let China be the largest commercially, and rely on America remaining cutting edge in technology. But Nazi Germany was cutting edge and still lost to the Soviet Union. China coped with Covid-19 far better than America did even though America had the first effective vaccine. It is selling the pass to trade with China, one day people will realize that.

    • Replies: @KA
    , @Bill Jones
  23. This nugget from the Davos web page, “COVID-19 is making it more difficult for everyone to obtain decent work and education – especially marginalized and vulnerable populations.” is typical of the entire presentation.

    Okay, class, does anyone see what’s wrong with this statement?

    Yes, you, in the third row.

    It’s like, it says the same thing in the predicate as it does in the….it’s a tautology. I mean, of course the “most vulnerable” would find the going more difficult because, when we look, after the fact, at those who failed, then we label them “vulnerable”. Right? So the sentence really says nothing.

    And then the Davos essays throw a bunch of vapid generalities at the problem.

    Yawn. Wake me up when they’re casting about for the poor slob to blame for their failure. That should be fun. If you like watching people getting nailed to a cross. (with much pomp and solemn ceremony)

  24. SteveK9 says:
    @obwandiyag

    Very good point. ‘Digital Silk Road’ sounds like the garbage coming out of the WEF. What China is doing that matters is: building nuclear power plants, bridges, roads, buildings, machine tools, EV’s.

    And sadly, the underlying subtext here, is that America and West HAD a fantastic model, much better than centrally-planned BRI. It was called classical liberal capitalism … i.e. the America of the 1950’s. Sadly we are willfully throwing it all away. So we can live in Wokeistan, under Chinese-style lockdown, with our social score constantly monitored.

    China can do what it likes but Covid has convinced me that I want no part of their culture or civilization. Of course, I don’t want the Democratic Party’s vision of America either.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  25. @anon

    Indeed the western “rules based order” – which is “I make the rules so you follow my orders”. That is why the shift of wealth is very dangerous in their minds. They can’t force their rules on others.

  26. @Mustapha Mond

    I think Putin had on his KGB psychology hat. There isn’t much European culture past the Urals…
    As an aside – Putin knows he can’t trust Western Europe. No matter they say – Western Europe looks down on those to the East. Slavs?

  27. @brabantian

    It has nothing to do with them being the “good guys”. The point is the economic and strategic and military realities… Aside from the fact – I don’t see any of them claiming to be the “city on a hill” to the world. That is a western construct.

    Also – explain about the supposed mass executions. You mean because they actually use the death penalty??? Yeah a former official was just executed this past week for embezzling over $200 million dollars through bribes. I can think of many governments that need such a housecleaning…

    As to Iran – you talk about their punishments… Tell me what is the crime rate in Iran…

    • Thanks: Joe Levantine
  28. @anon

    The survival of Europe–Russia included–is more vital than is the survival of America.

    Going forward, humanity can recreate a renewed America out of Europe but we cannot create Europe out of present day America. Europe is the womb. America is the bastard child who has gone astray by indulging in beastiality, mating with more primitive hominids. As someone above said…entropy.

    • Agree: Alfred
  29. KA says:
    @Sean

    Democracy cant survive in countries who want to be and remain accountable to its citizen . Countries have to compromise vital interests to appease USA and its master . China and Iran have refused to do so. Here lies the predicament for the democracy. To survive and do the job a gov is meant to do, these countries have to follow a political system that is immune to the destructive toxic effects of American system cloaked in democratic verbiage. Purity of motive is much easier to express and hang on to . China does try. It sounds dishonest hubris when USA does -thanks to its perfidy
    American technology is just like the Corona virus – it will spread it spreads and mutates despite USA’s efforts not to allow .

    America is not going to disappear into a shithole country . Problem is that a lot of shithole countries will occupy the table and share in the pie . China is facing military threats along its shore lines and borders . Either America blinks and leaves or it takes it few notches up which will entail war resulting into speedy decline of USA and marginally impact China progress .
    American technology does command healthy respect but countries have alternative.
    Second the world is not run on ethics but on muscle and money . American position doesn’t have shelf life left of more than few years .

    • Replies: @Sean
  30. @Rubicon

    Before submitting replies, may I suggest you make sure your head isn’t firmly planted in your ass.

    Russia’s east is asiatic, in case you haven’t noticed (which you apparently have not.)

    Just to rub in your ignorance, here’s a quote from a reply (comment #26, supra) to my subject post from another, obviously more worldy and geographically/geopolitically cognizant Unzer, showmethereal:

    “I think Putin had on his KGB psychology hat. There isn’t much European culture past the Urals…”

    Bingo!

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @EugeneGur
  31. @anon

    The West represents a worldview based on dominance and genocide. From the time of the Torah/Old Testament injunction to slaughter ‘God’s enemies’ ‘down to the last suckling babe’, the oldest extant exhortations to genocide and instruction in how to pursue it, Western states have sought to subjugate and o0ften exterminate, one another, various ‘enemies within’ and then hundreds of millions of ‘savages’, ‘heathens’, ‘barbarians’ etc in lands far from Europe. As long as these killers dominate the world, human self-destruction is certain, and Life itself being also targeted through capitalist destructiveness and greed, so too we will probably destroy all Life on Earth, or set it back hundreds of millions of years.

    • Replies: @Onan the Barbarian
  32. @SteveK9

    Steve, ‘classic liberal capitalism’ in the USA resulted from the rest of the advanced world lying in rubble, America rigging the economic system to give them the ‘exorbitant privilege’ of the dollar as global reserve currency, the uitilisation of the USA unmatched natural resources such as abundant and cheap hydrocarbons and deep, rich, agricultural soil, and 200 years of ruthless exploitation of black slaves, white indentured labour, the waves of European migration and the genocide of tens of millions of Indigenous people. All those boons are now dissipated and all that remain is psychopathic self-delusion and aggression.

    • Agree: Showmethereal
  33. Win-win? It should’ve materialised ages ago with countries like Venezuela and Iran, both with more than enough resources to pay for it, being transferred tech and know-how and trade privileges to develop their military and civilian industries, just like the Western Ziocorporate terrorists did with the Rothschild neocolony in Palestine, and to a lesser extent Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan and China itself.

    Today, Xi and Putin want to tweak Ziocorporate globalism so they’re accepted as full peers with geopolitical-designing rights, not mere business partners, and people who think themselves as “patriotic” in the West shouldn’t be idealising them for being “sovereigntists”.

    See Putin in Syria, babbling about sovereignty and self-determination until the Rothschild neocolony sends its terrorists in F-15s to bomb Damascus whenever they want, then the Russian foreign ministry mostly stays mum. They even voted at the UN for sanctions on Iran in 2007 and the destruction of Libya in 2011.

    • Replies: @Petermx
  34. anon[263] • Disclaimer says:

    This shows that BRI is not as much about building roads, dams and high-speed rail networks but especially the Digital Silk Road, intimately connected with state of the art Chinese cyber-tech.

    Why is China out doing America’s dirty work for us? As soon as these countries are connected to the internet, their citizens will turn into zombies addicted to American content — YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, porn, online gaming, online gambling, US media aka the real WMD, Weapons of Mass Deception. After all, no one understands Chinese outside China, and English is the de facto lingua franca of the world.

    Conservative governments of the world may be able to contain US degeneracy and brainwashing up to this point by curtailing/censoring Hollywood movies and US media, but they don’t have any effective tools to censor internet content. Even in China everyone has a VPN to let them access officially censored Western content.

    AngloZionist filth might have the last laugh after all.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  35. Petermx says:

    Both those countries have leaders that strive to improve the lives of their people, improve the standard of living in their countries and make the world a better and safer place to live. Putin has overseen great improvements in Russia and China has uplifted the lives of hundreds of millions of people. By contrast, the West, which claims to be morally superior and claims to always champion the most moral causes has started most of the wars in the last 50 years (the USA), insults their own people as racists, anti-Semites and NAZIS (USA and Europe) and has overseen the decline of these countries over the last 40 years. As soon these countries get some people whose priority is not to signal what a good person they are by trying to please the Lying Media (example: Donald Trump) they will be able to think more clearly and improve things.

  36. Petermx says:
    @shylockcracy

    Russia has been a lot better for Syria than the USA. Syria and Assad invited Russian forces into their country to fight the terrorists that Israel and its poodle the USA supported. I also don’t see any great desire of these countries to join the failing West and globalism. The new estimated date that China will have surpassed the USA in the size of its economy is 2028. If you haven’t noticed it yet, the US is a failed state and unless drastic improvements are made fast (which is unlikely) that will be obvious to everyone soon. Yes, Russia does some things to please Israel but they provide 100 times more resistance to those psychopaths than the US and Europe. If the failing West joined Russia, they could tell Israel to drop dead and tell Israel what is expected of them, not the other way around.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  37. Sean says:

    Ishchenko stresses how, “in terms of scale and impact on historical processes, this is steeper than the Battles of Stalingrad and Kursk combined.”

    As Bock wrote in his diary: “I do not want to ‘capture Moscow’; I want to destroy the enemy’s army and the bulk of that army is right in front of me”. One thing is certain, had Bock’s planned attack of August 17 on Moscow gone ahead, the Soviet army would have been defending the capital with the eroded forces available at that time and place, rather than what was there 76 days later when Bock’s attack actually started–five days before the muddy season bogged it down. All this was in 1941, well before Stalingrad and Kursk.
    Anyway Russia (currently fighting 300 miles from Moscow) is largely important to China as an object lesson in how to not try and take on the West.

    his drive should be based on two pillars: sovereignty – that is, the good old Westphalian model

    The Treaty of Westphalia happened because the Thirty Years war had ended in stalemated exhaustion with no prospect of gains for anyone by continuing or restarting the conflict; both sides agreed to limitation on the sovereignty of their proxy principalities. China is buying up ports, building nuclear power stations, and trying to get their 5G accepted in the West, which is consequently to a nontrivial extent giving up its freedom of action.

    • Troll: Mikael_, Petermx
  38. In today’s world China-Russia is, if not the good side, certainly the sane side. The Five Eyes-EU side is both evil and insane.

  39. onebornfree says: • Website

    It’s sad to see Mr Escobar endorsing/promoting the speeches of two lying, murdering, criminal scumbags like Putin and Xi.

    He might as well endorse Biden, or any of his 45 predecessors.

    This is all just kabuki theater- Putin and Xi have no intention of making the world a better place for their citizens, they only want a better world for their kind [government], which means even more laws and even less freedom for their already enslaved slave/citizens.

    No “win win” for them. Such a “win win” for them would mean that they would , for example, all individually be able to freely trade with anyone else, anywhere in the world who wanted to trade with them – that’s “win win” for the little guy.

    Anyone who thinks that either Putin or Xi [ or Biden, or Macron, or Merkle, or Trudeau, or any other of these world leader scumbags ] have, or want, anything to do with “win win” for their people needs to have their head examined.

    This just in: Government Solutions Never Work:

    Besides which, even if one of these grandiose, pontificating, self-inflating , lying, murdering, totalitarian criminal scumbags was serious about enabling “win win” for his/her citizens, they couldn’t bring it about simply because government solutions _always_ fail to work [other than by enriching the government and its sycophants- i.e. the establishment].

    Again: Government solutions never work!

    “Everything government touches turns to crap” Ringo Starr

    “The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic” H.L.Mencken

    Government doesn’t work” Harry Browne
    https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    • Troll: HeebHunter
    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
  40. anon[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Agree 100%!

    there are posters here, one in particular here and over on the Saker who projects older sage intellectually superior, experienced and mature persona, that is until one makes the mistake of expressing doubt about Putin based on the actual evens that take place as described above, like those UN votes against Iran-sanctions, and Libya-genocidal way.

    point out these facts about Putin and this poster loses all reason and holds permanent, very hostile grudges against all those dare to speak what appears to be truthful about Putin. but it is most revealing the confidence with which Israel attacks Syria in the face of the Russian military in that country. there appears to be no Russian Red Lines there even with the lives of their troops on the line.

    or do the Israelis, in collaboration with the Russians take care to avoid hitting Russian assets when they bomb Syria?

    it all looks way too cozy to me!

    But it is still mind-boggling that Russia actually voted in tandem with Obama, a Black man to destroy a dark African country, Libya, which actually has a large Back African population itself.

    I do not know where Putin actually stands on the issues of our day. and under Putin’s watch Russia did reconstitute itself, pick itself up as a nation and is now the most powerful military force on earth. yet Putin appeases the west way too much, unnecessarily so, prolongs situations that ought to be resolved to greater extent forthwith..as in Syria. simply stop Israel from Bombing that country by providing Syria will all the means to take care of it, as well as to expel the Americans

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  41. Pepe can sure make you laugh. But the east vs west narrative is another hoax.

  42. MLK says:

    Give credit where credit is due — CCP China has played its hand well since 1989. It had and still has enormous help from elite and institutional interests in the West.

    As I’ve mentioned previously, if you didn’t get it when the USG consciously drove Russia into a Strategic Alliance with China then you never will.

  43. Mikael_ says:
    @frontier

    I was also at first wondering after reading the whole speech –
    but then one has to remember the place where he (virtually) gave it, and that was the most diplomatic in-your-face you can imagine.

    What Pepe reads out of it I can mostly confirm; only very few times he goes one or two steps beyond what was directly stated/implied by Putin, and even then I find Pepe’s conclusions reasonable.

  44. The western culture of hatred between nations, the divide and conquer that lasted two millennia and the diplomacy of money and for money are coming to an end. And principles, morals and ethics must be reborn.
    But the West is not prepared for something like that, nor do they imagine living in any other way than man being the wolf of man.

  45. @onebornfree

    450,000 died needlessly under Trump and USA stealing Syrian Oil and contract killing at large. 760 worldwide military bases and USA budgets for war totaling close to 1 trillion per annum.

  46. Alfred says:
    @brabantian

    China & especially Iran are significantly inhumane countries

    These countries are a heck of a lot safer for a foreigner or a local to wonder about in. I guess victims of crime don’t matter. 🙁

  47. The problem with this approach- and similar ones- is that it mixes real observation, naive wishes & lack of knowledge of human nature & history.

    As much as I detest contemporary “financial” capitalism (by the way, it is an old trope, coined by Hilferding & adopted by Lenin), globalism, parasitism, Western freak show …. it remains the crucial global fact that it was the West that has created super-successful modern world, which is, as far as we can tell, a combination of individualism, democracy & law, creative chaos & innovation- all wrapped into liberty & sanctity of the individual (and not extreme fake egoism which denies the fundamental importance of human collectives, peoples).

    Putin’s & Xi’s approaches are different. Moreover, they differ between themselves because China is a truly Asiatic civilization, while Russia an Euro-Asian one, the accent being on Euro.

    Only fool will dismiss huge energy projects. But- even greater foolishness is to think that the world’s problem can be solved by variants of 5-years plans & central planning, and that Africa & most of Islamistan’s woes can be “solved”, lifting these peoples from the abyss of combined genetic inadequacy & completely suicidal world-view. When your faggy & tranny West will have been living in a futuristic environment of quantum computers & gene engineered lives, China will still be struggling with elementary needs.

    All autocracies, however enlightened, sooner or later turn into – shit.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @frontier
  48. Malla says:
    @obwandiyag

    LOL China lays the cables while scammers from here in India and Nigeria make more billions.

  49. anon[776] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    The rise of the West was driven chiefly by the Industrial Revolution.

    As character is destiny for a man, geography is destiny for nations and regions.

    Asia fell behind because global trade shifted from land to sea. Three key technologies, time keeping, multi-regional banking, and printing press categorically changed European society, power projection, and knowledge base, and ultimately created the conditions for the “industrial revolution” (which happened a couple of centuries later).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_spread_of_the_printing_press#Asia

    And Mr. Escobar,

    Regarding Michael Hudson, the other day he had a column published here. I posted a comment that basically asked two questions:

    1 – Some claim his prominent role at ICIJ makes him suspect, as it appears he is certainly an accepted voice of the Western usual supsects/establishment.

    2 – Some claim that his “debt forgiveness”, promoting new modality of capitalism, etc., are ultimately aligned with The Great Reset.

    He was asked “Care to comment?” And of course, he would not even publish the questions. The comment was censored.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  50. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Mumblebrain is apt.
    No one genocided anyone. The asiatics in North America succumbed largely to disease, over 90%, and to the inevitable conflict over land resources. They didn’t practise animal husbandry and thus had no immunity to all the poxes and influenza we unwittingly brought with us. Read a history book you lying leftist.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  51. Pakistan and China are natural partners because the former is dumbshit and the latter is greedy as shit… it should work out just fine in the long run!

    • Replies: @Deep Thought
    , @Malla
  52. Mefobills says:

    What Pepe and even Michael Hudson seem to forget is that the west evolved the very systems that are driving the Eurasian Integration. The West invented mixed economy with money matching physical production. The West did not get a chance to learn how to jubilee debts, because the (((Atlantacists))), who are agents of Mammon, fought back. The bible was also converted to obscure its true meaning, as Hudson has noted in his latest book, “and forgive them their debts.” The West was made possible by Christendom.

    It is the Atlantacists out of London, who short circuited the ultimate evolution of the West into industrial capitalism and national socialism. The West is not a blip on history, it was short-circuited by the usual suspects. The West carries a parasite and was unable to root it out. Another failure to root out the parasite was Atlantacism winning in WW1 and 2.

    Atlantacism is a form of mammonism and usury that arose out of England after our (((friends))) invaded, and especially after Bank of England formation in 1694. BOE was the first debt spreading privateer bank in history to control a country.

    The revolutionary war was fought against this new construct of Atlantacism, which in turn is a form of finance capitalism.

    https://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Benjamin-Franklin-Caus-by-Mike-Kirchubel-110711-773.html

    Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of the Currency Act that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just like in England. The amount of circulating money had been cut in half. Franklin stated that the British Currency Act was the true cause of the American Revolution – and not the tax on tea or the Stamp Act. Franklin wrote, “The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.

    The American System that Franklin operated in the Philadelphia Colony found its way into the Constitution, especially with the general welfare clause. Hamilton’s first report on manufacturers noted how much American credit from the first bank was flowing into industry and the commons.

    The mistake that Hamilton and the founders made, which destroyed the American system, and ultimately destroyed the west, was making the first bank 50:50 stock owned by Treasury and (((others))).

    There was a sinking fund to pay off the (((others))) and return the bank to full Treasury ownership, but it was never used.

    The other big mistake was article 1 section 8, the power to borrow. The government does not need to borrow credit from privateers. China has state banks, and this is the key variable for their economy.

    https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C2-1/ALDE_00001056/

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 2:

    [The Congress shall have Power . . .] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    Between these two mistakes, Atlantacists were able to wedge their way into the U.S. and ultimately convert it from the American System to Atlanticism by 1913.

    The U.S., and especially the Colonies invented industrial capitalism and physical economy that China now operates.

    The belt and road had their forerunner in the American system, especially the rail system that McKinley was going to implement before he was assassinated by atlantacists.

    Do, I need to say it again.. that the west is parasitized, the patient is sick, but it should not be written off as a blip of history.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/06/anarchist-assassination-of-us-president-william-mckinley-and-its-links-murder-tsar-alexander-ii/

    In 1901, there was a political coup d’etat in the United States that transformed the world and nobody noticed. A beloved and twice-elected nationalist president was assassinated and replaced by a passionate supporter of the British Empire and America was on its disastrous path to empire in Asia and war in Europe.

  53. Sparkon says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    “I think Putin had on his KGB psychology hat. There isn’t much European culture past the Urals…”

    Bingo!

    More like Splat!

    Meanwhile, out in Siberia, a few pictures may be worth a few thousand words:

    Irkutsk street scene,
    Photo: RussiaTrek

    [MORE]

    Krasnoyarsk street scene
    Photo: RussiaTrek

    Novosibirsk
    Photo: Artel Troika

    Novosibirsk at night
    Photo: Artel Troika

    Maria Ovechkina
    2010 Miss Russia contestant from Irkutsk region
    ZUMA Press, Inc. / Alamy Stock Photo

    The straight-line distance from the Urals to Irkutsk is 1,672 miles, or just over 2,500 miles by car. Irkutsk is not far from Mongolia, but very far indeed from Germany.

    Certainly I’m not suggesting anyone believe his lying eyes in the face of all the ignorant hot air issuing from the expert babblers at UR.

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Showmethereal
  54. FerW says:

    It was very interesting to contrast the speeches of Putin (particularly) and Xi with the ones coming out of the Western bloc representatives (not to mention the “Reset” megalomaniacs).

    Sure, we should assume that all of them are politico-diplomatic speeches edited, when not composed in whole, by professional PR/marketing/propaganda writers, liberally sprinkled with platitudes and seductive, when not deceptive, propositions. And yet the contrast is informative.

    About the “Munich-esque Davos” article, I think its only value is in the title, in recognising the approximate parallel to the 2007 speech, the rest sounds like annoying dithyramb from an unbridled optimist or an overconfident patriot.

    I recommend people to read the transcripts in full. From national media you will only get tiny pieces suitably spun to push the local agenda. (This article is, at best, a limited summary.)
    Full address by Putin: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/64938
    Full address by Xi: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-01/25/c_139696610.htm

    Finally, can you imagine what a Biden speech would have been like ;^)?

  55. Mefobills says:

    Gilpin in 1890 wrote the Cosmopolitan Railway, which is the forerunner to the Belt and Road.

    Nothing is new under the sun, and both Hudson and Pepe are ignoring vast swaths of monetary history, history that was put on fast-forward in the American Colonies.

    • Replies: @Malla
  56. anon[510] • Disclaimer says:

    There’s actually a binding constraint on US pols’ ability to dance for their Izzie paymasters. Bet you never heard about it:

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4953320/175-20181003-ORD-01-00-En.pdf

    In this case Iran wiped the floor with USG legal hacks again. The court rebuts US pilpul legal cant with case law in which the US got its ass kicked, including Oil Platforms and Nicaragua v. United State of America. So the US is just digging itself in deeper as the ICJ reaffirms its rulings.

    There is no forum for appeal of this order. The only US recourse is to take its ball and go home and piss away its last driblets of standing and influence. The US role in international law is reinforced as the universal bad example, setting case law each new time they shit on the rug and the world’s apex court cleans it up. The US is inherently beyond the pale, exactly as Putin set it out in the Bush II years: “You don’t want to be like them, do you?”

    CIA’s British poodle got kicked off the court for the crime against humanity of forcible population transfer of Chagos Islanders, a crime committed so the USA could have an airbase. It will be fun to see the US wheedle and cajole and suck ass for its chosen judge’s spot on the bench after an emergency ICJ rebuke:

    http://cilj.co.uk/2012/11/02/selection-procedure-for-the-election-of-judges-to-the-international-court-of-justice-2/

    The world is going to say, Why do we need you asshole scofflaws on the World Court bench?

    People listened to Putin this time at Davos because Russia is a law-abiding state and the US is just a wasteland of predatory animals.

  57. Mefobills says:
    @anon

    Hudson did reply and said he was not that Michael Hudson. Stop spreading mis-information:

    • Replies: @anon
  58. antibeast says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    When your faggy & tranny West will have been living in a futuristic environment of quantum computers & gene engineered lives, China will still be struggling with elementary needs.

    You’re absolutely right. China is still struggling with satisfying elementary needs such as public transportation by high-speed rail:

    https://i.insider.com/5af54f56ab624824008b4844?width=500&format=jpeg

    https://www.businessinsider.com/china-bullet-train-speed-map-photos-tour-2018-5

    USANUMBERONE! Amen! Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  59. GoodTwin says:

    There is no solving the problems of the Third World when their most ambitious and intelligent citizens flee to the West. Give out work visas and those who find a mate can join the national family. This is how it has always beem done and things will work themselves out in the genetic and social spheres naturally. But of course the elites don’t want things to work themselves out, they want crises which can be exploited for greater control.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  60. Mefobills says:
    @anon

    But it is still mind-boggling that Russia actually voted in tandem with Obama, a Black man to destroy a dark African country, Libya, which actually has a large Back African population itself.

    Medvedev is an atlanticist integrationist. Russia has a fifth column of atlantacists that has not been completely routed by Putin.

    The Russia central bank still operates under BIS rules.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12810566

    Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev has said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s description of the UN resolution on Libya is “unacceptable”.

    The rare rebuke came after Mr Putin said the resolution resembled “medieval calls for crusades”.

    • Thanks: Marshal Marlow
  61. anon[185] • Disclaimer says:

    DoS apparatchik Donoghue is stinkin up the place right now,

    https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/members-of-the-court-biographies/donoghue_en.pdf

    They could replace her with a traffic-court judge from the Satrapy of East Gondwonaland. When her slot ends in 2014, every country in world will be thinking, How bout we try it without any American assholes?

  62. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:

    All fine and well. But lets not forget, that China started this whole Covid-Hoax-Bullshit. So whatever secret deal was made between them and the Woke-Biden-West, which did include Russia as well btw, nobody can say that they are totally apart from each other in terms of global plans e.g Schwab and his gang. And in this regard this terrifying vaccine isnt even mentioned yet. If Mr. Escobar would indeed cover these topics as well, Id be glad for that.

  63. Alfred says:
    @Sparkon

    Victory day in Vladivostok. 6,500 kilometers east of Moscow, 50 kilometers from China and 120 kilometers from North Korea.

  64. anon[413] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    Thank you. I missed that.

    And my apologies to this Michael Hudson.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  65. Balcus says:

    Remember this when you read PePe:
    He is an outlet for official Chinese and Russian lines of information; his articles always concern whatever concerns the CCP. He is the presenter of their positions.
    He doesn’t cover Russian or Chinese methods, think Uhigurs, Navalney.
    He praises the Chinese system while spending his days between Paris and Bangkok.
    He apparently is OK with having the Chinese and Russians run the global show. He believes they’ll do a better job.

    • Troll: Majority of One
  66. @antibeast

    You are talking to someone existing only in your fevered imagination.

    I never thought that China was a cardboard cartoon, as presented in the US MSM. But your, as is the case with Fred Reed’s approach, lacks a wider knowledge of history, people & culture. American shit is visible to the whole world; Chinese & Russian shit are, mostly, hidden. These countries have enormous weaknesses simply due to their authoritarian nature, and these weaknesses no amount of natural wealth & central planning can cover.

    Without individualism, democracy, law & order, creative chaos & liberty, even a streak of publicly exposed anarchy & decadence – everything, at the end, collapses in the modern world.

    China is vastly, vastly overrated.

    China will never be global hegemon, even after US ceases to be.

    1. they’re the same- the same names, all other people can’t tell one from another

    2. language barrier, insurmountable

    3. they don’t want to, they’re satisfied with themselves

    4. if they would try, really, then US, Russia, Europe, Indonesia, India, Japan..would team against it & that would be the end of Chinese power

    5. they’re not attractive, nor interesting to the “world” enough

    ———

    * Russians are extension of Europe & all Euro-Asian talk is balderdash

    * when I think of deep currents, I see that Russia basically does not exist outside of Western culture. China…. another planet.

    * I understand modern bozos, but life is more than food & basic entertainment. What can Russia get from China except some dishes? And exotic high culture for aficionados? Films, music..? No. The same with China re Russia.

    * global popular culture is 90% American. Out of this 90%, perhaps 80% is moronic, but universal in some respects (although less than 20-40 years ago), while many things are only superficially popular in other cultures (for instance sports, sport movies, superhero movies, …). Americans are conquering the world through idiocracy.

    * I’d say: Russians basically think: well, not bad for now, but they’re too numerous, too powerful & too close. And, after all- who they are? Chinese think: some land for grab, but it’s not worth it, it is some old stuff. We’re growing & we’ll dominate them. But- who they basically are? We don’t understand them. It’s America we want, they are our fascinating frenemy with all that glamour, women, money & material stuff of combined richness & dreams & fun (music, movies). And there is so much accessible stuff to make life better- because Anglosphere is the center of the world, and we want to suck in the best from them, and there is plenty of it we can use to enrich ourselves without contaminating at the same time.

    Global West did, and can in any foreseeable future, come up with something truly & revolutionary new. Such NEW that will change everything.

    China, India, even Russia …. no.

  67. the favorite slogan of the new White House tenants thieves and squatters.

  68. anon[505] • Disclaimer says:

    Balcus 65, before you go pulling catchphrases out your ass, here

    https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

    Explain to us, on the basis of accepted world-standard performance criteria and documented inputs, why you think the US kleptocracy sucks less than the governments of Russia or China. Show your work. Do your homework like an adult or shut the fuck up.

    • Replies: @Balcus
  69. @Mustapha Mond

    Russia does not get much more from China then some kitchen Gadgets.
    More important for Russia is to have good relationship with Germany.

  70. Rdm says:
    @brabantian

    Let’s say, if they are on someone else payroll, I’d repeat, IF THEY ARE ON SOMEONE ELSE PAYROLL,

    Don’t you get annoyed with the idea that it’s getting on your nerves and killing you inside why they have taken such an approach to cheerlead China?

    Here’s the real events that you should be familiarized yourself with.

    1. Dalai Lama said his Tibet is happy to stay inside China and would like some development aid from China. This conversation was never reported. But CIA funded Dalia Lama said the opposite when the US MSM needs some fodder to condemn China. Dalai Lama was paid US$300k a year by CIA. Go and study. Are you happy? Or you’d say “It’s not my matter. It’s their problem.” C’mon man. You were saying Pepe and Saker are two guys cheerleading for China and you’d suspect they’re on someone else payroll. What about the Dalai Lama situation? Someone must be on payroll and it’s getting under your skin. But only when one is reporting the truth and you’d see as “cheerleading” news.

    2. There was an American guy who used some vague Asian face in his twitter account. The account was an imposter to trick the NYT to think that he was actually a HongKonger. The account kept reporting the HK riot as if he was there in person and how rudely the HK police suppressed the activists and stymied the democracy. NYT proudly published the incident as one true democracy loving HK citizen shining the lights on brutality displayed by China. Lo and behold….. It turns out the guy was an American imposter who purposely misled the riot as democracy movement. NYT never retracted their article and never apologized. Hold on, someone must be on payroll to cheerlead the democracy movement in other sovereign territory. Don’t you get pissed at brutality of Chinese media? The guy was innocent American guy who just want the freedom for all Hong Kong citizens and he’s doing his part by faking as a HK citizen.

    3. Back in 2016, Philippine President Duterte said to shoot any drug addicts on street, vows to kill 3 million addicts if they don’t come forward and clean in rehab. That was back in early 2016 in Obama administration. So all MSM were worshipping Obama and gaslighting on all foreign nations as rogue. They first reported the Duterte’s outrageous claim to test the American public sentiment. It turns out All Americans were for cheering for newly elected Philippine President to tackle such an issue. American MSM backtracked their waters after testing. They damn well know how to play trick on dumb Americans. Philippine President Duterte publicly said he’d wish his country was under Chinese territory to make a huge development. Wait …. Was Duterte on Chinese payroll? Someone must be on payroll to make such an outlandish claim.

    4. Greek Economics Professor Yanis said “Don’t worry about China.” Wait, was he on Chinese payroll?

    Imagine a situation like 2020 Election results or some life events that make your blood boil and you just want to vent out all the profanity at the top of your lungs because it gets so much ridiculous and you can’t believe why on this earth such a lowly earthers exists and spew out nonsense.

    Because after all, you don’t want to hear the Truth. You just want to live in a bubble. Any reality that hurts your brain and couldn’t accept the truth, must be because someone is on someone else payroll.

  71. EugeneGur says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    I think Putin had on his KGB psychology hat. There isn’t much European culture past the Urals

    Putin is a hell of a lot smarter than all his critics put together. There are Russians living in the Russian cities way past the Ural, and where there are the Russian there is that Russian culture that is on some level European. Russia is Russia; it doesn’t have to become Europe or China but it can embrace both. That’s what Putin meant.

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  72. @RoatanBill

    Absolutely and totally agree. Time without war will solve everything.

  73. Why single out Putin and Xi? Practically all Asian countries act on what they said. You won’t hear any hypocritical sermons about freedom of speech or human rights (both of which are shamelessly trampled in the West) from any Asian leader. They mind their own business, which is trade and economic development of their countries, in sharp contrast to plentiful hot air and self-defeating sanctions of sinking West. It is said that when God wishes to punish a person, He takes his mind away. The same is true for countries.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  74. Excellent comments! Better than the article. This thread is a jewel.

  75. Miro23 says:

    He’s now focusing on the main battlefield in the evolving US-China clash: Europe. Jacques notes that, “the trend toward a growing distance between Europe and the US will be slow, tortuous, conflict-riddled, and painful.” We are now “in new territory. American decline means that it has increasingly less to offer Europe.”

    Having read Putin’s speech, he/Russia is also focusing on Europe.

    For example, he says,

    Obviously, the era linked with attempts to build a centralized and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin . A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this too is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilization’s cultural and historic diversity.

    Allusion to Nord Stream 2:

    Or it may be a concerted effort of sovereign states to resolve specific problems for common benefit. In this case, this may refer to efforts to settle regional conflicts, establish technological alliances and resolve many other issues, including the formation of cross-border transport and energy corridors and so on and so forth.

    Question from Klaus Schwab: “How do you see the future of European-Russian relations? just a short answer.

    Major European political figures have talked in the recent past about the need to expand relations between Europe and Russia, saying that Russia is part of Europe. Geographically and, most importantly, culturally, we are one civilization. French leaders have spoken of the need to create a single space from Lisbon to the Urals. I believe, and I mentioned this, why the Urals? To Vladivistock.

    … then of course, Western Europe and Russia must be together. It is hard to disagree with that. We hold exactly the same point of view.

    Europe and Russia are absolutely natural partners from the point of view of the economy, research, technology and spatial development for European culture, since Russia, being a country of European culture, is a little larger than the entire EU in terms of territory. Russia’s resources and human potential are enormous. I will not go over everything that is positive in Europe, which can also benefit the Russian Federation.

    Only one thing matters. We need to approach the dialogue with each other honestly.

    And Putin sums it up this way:

    We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make it happen. But love is impossible if it is declared by only one side. It must be mutual.

  76. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    The revolutionary war was fought against this new construct of Atlanticism, which in turn is a form of finance capitalism.

    How about the American Civil War? Would you say that was a war between the Yankees practicing Industrial Capitalism in the North vs the British ‘Atlanticists’ practicing Financial Capitalism in their semi-colony of the American South with African slave labor picking cotton for export to England? Didn’t the British ‘Atlanticists’ finance the African slave trade to the USA which is another form of Financial Capitalism? Could the whole US-led system of ‘neoliberal globalization’ be considered a late 20th and early 21st century revival of the British System of Financial Capitalism of the 18th and 19th centuries? With 900 US military bases all over the world to protect the USD issued by the privately-owned Federal Reserve System as the world’s reserve currency, the USA does behaves like the successor to the British Empire 2.0, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  77. anon[295] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    you just need to live long enough to see it since you simply can’t foresee it

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  78. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    How about the American Civil War? Would you say that was a war between the Yankees practicing Industrial Capitalism in the North vs the British ‘Atlanticists’ practicing Financial Capitalism in their semi-colony of the American South with African slave labor picking cotton for export to England?

    Yes, that is how I see it too, and also your other conclusions.

    The English Malthusians want to enclose lands; with the lands of the south and west enclosed for finance oligarchy. Labor was to be reduced to slavery to then produce king cotton for export at a price.

    The south and west of the U.S. was to be reduced to an extraction economy, with drawers of water and hewers of wood – and growers of cotton. The American south and west would have become negro-landia had the south won, with the “elites” of Europe winning their unearned income.

    Cotton as a raw material would be exported into the Colonial system, and then the increment of production would be taken in English industry, while “international finance” would do their rake off for consummating their “international” deals.

    A ships bill of lading can even be used to hypothecate new bank credit for goods in transit.

    The anti-beasts of the American system wanted labor value INCREASED through physical economy and scientific progress, not have labor reduced to slavery with lands enclosed for an “elite” oligarchy.

    It’s a tragedy Lincoln was assassinated by our usury (((friends))) as he had intended on extending green-back Treasury money and and national banking into the south and west after the war, to then develop the south and west along American System ideas, in accordance with Henry Carey’s guidance.

    It’s also a tragedy that Hitler and Lincoln before him, did not know how necessary it is to interdict shipping, to then damage the Achilles heel of antlantacism.

  79. A.K.Patal says:
    @Mefobills

    Excellent and very informative comment! According to William Guy Carr, the author of the brilliant book, Pawns in the Game, Alexander Hamilton was a front for the Antlanticists. And when he enabled them to get all they wanted from him, they had him killed (through a duel with Aaron Burr, an expert in that art) because Hamilton knew too much. The problem with many patriotic Americans and specially with white nationalists is that instead of focusing on the source of what really ails America, the Atlanticists, they are easily manipulated and distracted into the peripheries of invented cultural wars or going after the Latinos, the blacks, and Muslims, etc. etc. 75 million white Americans voted for Donald Trump. That is they voted for the guy who worships the Atlanticists who ruined America! How can America get anywhere with such a short thinking?!

    • Agree: Mefobills
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  80. Mefobills says:
    @anon

    Thanks for admitting your error. It takes a real man of fortitude to admit when they are wrong, and to own up to it. Impressive. Thank you.

    All is forgiven.

    • Agree: Marshal Marlow
  81. Mefobills says:

    He apparently is OK with having the Chinese and Russians run the global show. He believes they’ll do a better job.

    Western blue-haired neo-liberal women are busy running around injecting their son’s with hormones to turn them into women and cutting off their pee-pees.

    It isn’t China that is invading my country with millions of non-americans, deracinating my population, and over-turning my history, all the while telling me I am evil.

    I welcome my new Chinese over-lords, who are in a pitched battle to death with our (((friends))) although China might not realize it yet.

    The Atlantacists do not play around, and they exhibit all the hallmarks of psychopathy; they are hidden beasts who pull puppet strings and start wars, while hiding in the dark.

    China’s leaders are out in the open, do long range planning for civilization, and are beholden to their population and the common good.

    • Agree: Robjil, GeeBee, Mustapha Mond
  82. Hillaire says:

    Once again myopic escobar, either through mendacity or ignorance, fails to mention the asian tiger would still be a basket case if the davos ( financier) parasites hadn’t decided to move all your means of production and intellectual properties to chinkerbells sweatshops.

    perhaps this was motivated by greed and avarice, perhaps they just hate western man.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  83. @Rahan

    Thank you for your response to Roatan on his misconstruction of Putin’s mother’s surname. I become very suspicious at any such denigration of the president of Russia, as such happens to be the policy of the Bank$ter finance capital elite, their primary minions, the mass media and the pro$titicians in the Di$trict of Corruption. The “hate on Putin” meme rarely comes connected with a possible personal Khazarian background.

    Where I happen to be leery of Russia is that they are still saddled with an apparently privately-owned central bank. Most Unz posters understand what that implies…and may implicate.

    Has someone here actually done the research on the central bank to determine its ownership and its possible influence over the government of that country? If a poster can find the time to provide that service by posting the info here on the site, I’m sure that many fellow posters will be avid to read the data.

  84. Mefobills says:
    @A.K.Patal

    Alexander Hamilton was a front for the Antlanticists. And when he enabled them to get all they wanted from him, they had him killed (through a duel with Aaron Burr, an expert in that art) because Hamilton knew too much

    Hamilton was a bit of a riddle. Jefferson didn’t know if he was an enemy or not. In 1798 Jefferson wrote to John Taylor, arguing for a do-over. That is: forbid government from borrowing its credit. In 1815 Jefferson wrote Gallatin, that the U.S. had delivered itself bound hand and foot to bankrupt adventurers pretending to have money.

    Usually at end of life, if you want one do-over, that is a pretty serious regret. Jefferson, Paine and others thought metal was money, and it took them years to realize it was not paper money, but private issuance of bank credit at debt, that was the problem. Considering that the Atlantacist finance capital beast system was fairly new in history, it is amazing they figured it out.

    When the first bank was shut down, 18000 of the bank’s 25,ooo shares were owned by Dutch and English (yes you can guess the ethnicity). The single largest stockholder was a slaver, Stephen Girard. So, the first bank was not 50:50 as Hamilton had promised but instead 80:20, with only 20 percent of shares owned by Treasury.

    Maybe that is why the sinking fund was never used, a historical enigma?

    Hamilton was both good and bad when viewed in hind-sight. He was right on many things, and wrong on others.

    In Hamilton’s “Report on a National Bank” he echoed Adam Smith that government could not be trusted to operate a bank.

    Hamilton had faith that greed of the bank’s owners would prevent them from abusing their power, exactly the same kind of thinking we heard in modern times from Greenspan.

    Hamilton did object to the first bank forcing Government to sell its 5000 shares to reduce debt owed to the bank. In 1802, the remaining 2200 shares were sold to Baring Brothers in London, and Hamilton objected to that too.

    So, between the sinking fund, and objecting to Government shares being sold, I’m going to come down on the side of Hamilton not being an Atlantacist, and just being confused. Hamilton probably thought some sort of mixed share arrangement was good. Hamilton is a riddle, and you will have to decide for yourself. In his report on manufactures he is reporting on physical economy gains using American credit. Credit production which paid profits to first bank stock owners, including Treasury.

    Hamilton thought it was necessary to give bank stock to those who were making claims on the country immediately after the revolutionary war. Hamilton made debt perform, by converting the debt claims into new bank stock, and then using government tax authority on imports and whiskey to pay the now bank stock owners.

    Hamilton was probably right, in that the new country would have fallen backwards into debt peonage to the Atlantacists, making winning of the war a moot exercise. At it is, the country fell later, as Hamilton’s mistakes made later failure inevitable.

    • Replies: @Sean
  85. @Petermx

    If some threatened nation or nations were backed up against the wall by the deviou$ Devo$ crowd; it is a logical presumption that their primary targets for garbage removal services would be firstly the heads of the Rottenchild and Rottenfeller Crime Clan$ and then their closest fellow highest finance capital associates and if need be, such primary minions as Ki$$inger and $orrow$.

    Removal of the primary predatorial parasites might be the only thing necessary for humanity to begin getting itself back together as responsive to the needs of its peoples and to the natural world. Certainly, the places to begin would be the U$ and the others of the “Five $tars.”

    Corruption permeates American governments and corporate businesses. Incompetents abound. In these cases, garbage removal might only entail the primary perps among them to face the loss of everything but a single home and a Social Security level income…movers and shakers, indeed!

    I$raelis, finding themselves alone, surrounded by vengeful enemies, might see the wisdom in buying off a chunk of the largely unpopulated northwestern corner of Australia to be their new Zion—one with excellent beaches and a subtropical climate. Of course, they would be off by themselves and would need to learn how to make do without parasitizing everyone else. Who knows, but in a few generations the lot of them might make excellent back to the land Sabras.

    • Replies: @Petermx
  86. Richard B says:
    @Wyatt

    In ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, an extraordinary book published way back in 1998, the late, great Andre Gunder Frank exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism, demonstrating how the rise of the West was a mere historical blip, and a consequence of the decline of the East around 1800.

    The first clause of the last sentence demonstrates not the slightest comprehension of either the West or history itself and the second clause has the usual anti-Western resentment with more than a tinge of Marx, ie; instead of “We’re poor because you’re rich.”, it’s “You only rose because we were in decline.”

    It’s just yet more ahistorical childishness.

    Now, only two centuries later, the planet’s center of gravity is back in Asia, as it’s been for most of recorded history. The fate of those blind to the evidence and unable to adapt is to telegram themselves to utter irrelevance.

    What the West accomplished in the last 500 years has no comparison. It’s downfall was a combination of complexity and openness. Both of which were unprecedented in world history. Western Civilization is like a theory that produces two kinds of data. One of quantity and the other of quality.

    1. a kind of data that is too great in quantity to respond to. It can respond to the data, but it’ll never get around too it because they’re simply too much.
    2. a kind of data it can’t respond to at all, because the theory has no means of responding to the quality of data, yet. It might be able to one day. But in the mean time……..

    It was exactly this that made the West so vulnerable and, ultimately, helpless. And by vulnerable is meant vulnerable to infiltration and subversion by people who are not Westerners.

    But what the West did truly was unprecedented. All other civilizations without exception were, and are, held together by four sanctions: economic deprivation, imprisonment, torture, and death.

    The West tried to do two things: They tried to circumnaviage the use for force and they tried to introduce the four inversions of those sanctions: economic ease, the privileges of freedom, value of the individual and respect for life.

    They nearly succeeded. And they did it by creating a culture of individual conscience, as opposed to a culture of blind obedience to authority. Their method was twofold, by circumnavigating the use of force and by inverting the four sanctions.

    All the rise of China means is that we are now returning to a culture of blind obedience that imposes by force the four sanctions. The West is following them in this because, again, it is run by people who are not Westerners.

    That they have had no problem recruiting Westerners is merely symptomatic of the very culture crisis the West is succumbing to. In short, it’s not simply the West that is in decline, or the East that is rising. It’s the human race that is fast rendering itself maladaptive to the many demands its global civilization is placing upon it.

    Whatever one has to say about this crisis, it does exist and cannot be resolved with technology, money, and power.

  87. Sean says:
    @Mefobills

    When the first bank was shut down, 18000 of the bank’s 25,ooo shares were owned by Dutch and English (yes you can guess the ethnicity). The single largest stockholder was a slaver, Stephen Girard. So, the first bank was not 50:50 as Hamilton had promised but instead 80:20, with only 20 percent of shares owned by Treasury.

    You can invest in a country and make paper profits, but have trouble taking your money home. China does not really permit repatriation of profits.

    China sets forex rates and prints a currency that not exposed to the international trading market, so is worth what the Chinese say it is worth. China is making physical economy gains using American corporations’ investments, which are virtually held hostage in China.

  88. @Mefobills

    Generally a well-informed and useful perspective.

    Hamilton was the fly in the ointment. George Washington was quite enamored with him and also with the handsome Marquis De Lafayette. That contributed to Hamilton’s rise into the exalted company of banking speculators who bought up the Continental Congress’ bonds and notes (after the war) for pennies on the dollar from largely impecunious demobilized Revolutionary War soldiers.

    In the company of those mostly Philadelphia-based bankers, the Caribbean-born Hamilton ultimately became an agent of the London Bank$ters efforts in taking over the First Bank of the United States via the 50% proportion (which you pointed out). Though Hamilton received his just desserts in his duel with Aaron Burr; those Philly Bankers and their lawyer buddies left their genetic legacy (as well as financial and status ones) to proliferate till this day—a generally spoiled rotten bunch of sons of riches.

    Perhaps the single greatest positive that can be attributed to the internet is that highly informed observers like yourself can now share your insights with a far broader audience than the ol’ boys at the local tavern, along with family members who may not want to hear much about matters which they have been conditioned to believe to be “just politics”.

    The awakening continues, despite the looming crackdown on informed dissent.

    • Thanks: Mefobills
  89. Are headlines like this true or false? Uyghur advocates speak out after horrifying accounts of rape and torture in Xinjiang camps in China. Rape and torture of people in China??? Organ Harvesting??? If true this does not reflect well on the Chinese Government.

    • Replies: @d dan
    , @Mefobills
    , @AnonfromTN
  90. While the Trump impeachment side show goes on…. discussions about the economy and the great reset. The evilness of the Democrats Biden Harris and the new administration side show…. Vaccination warp speed continues on….. Are the Chinese getting vaccinated at this time?? are the Russians really getting vaccinated at this time, if so those Governments are evil to their own people. The Deal is that NO ONE SHOULD BE GETTING VACCINATED who knows what is in those vaccinations??? Those bad shots could also have a delayed effect. It seems the Government of the United States is out to kill the citizens of the United States????

  91. “Now, only two centuries later, the planet’s center of gravity is back in Asia, as it’s been for most of recorded history. The fate of those blind to the evidence and unable to adapt is to telegram themselves to utter irrelevance.”
    Hmmm, seems to coincide with the beginning of the end of Christian influence in American life and culture into our present CORRUPTION INC.

  92. @Mefobills

    It becomes ever more evident that the long corrupted British upper classes need to be deported to a penal colony…perhaps the Falkland Islands, since the Brits went out of their way to re-take them some years back.

    The British Isles could be reformulated into a loose confederation. Cornwall and Wales would join with the Scots and Irish in a Celtic alliance within that confederation. England would and should stand alone, bereft of all its colonies (especially the ones where many of the biggest crooks sequester their ill-gotten gains.) In that confederation, the population balance between the Celts and the English would be relatively close. Thus, no dominant power arrangement.

    See, just as by Franklin’s efforts, the original American Articles of Confederation and perhaps, ultimately that of the British Isles, along with a reconstituted “THESE United States of America; will have benefited by the Great Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy.

    The Swiss have happily maintained their cantonal confederation for Centuries. Because of their small population, Iceland has remained a very democratic culture since the days of the Althing, a general outdoor council held in the plains of the Thingveillar. They were actually the only European nation to voluntarily adopt Christianity–that in order to maintain the peace, as the pagan majority accepted Christianity in the Millennial year of 1,000 Anus Dominated because the Christians were ready to run amok, due to the imminent Second Coming (somewhat similar to the beliefs of certain sects today—particularly those who are confidently awaiting the Rupture, where believers would magically be shed of their garments, waft off to Jesus’ spaceship and be transported to the Pearly Gates and streets of gold.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  93. Emslander says:
    @El Dato

    Most will support war and believe they can win.

    The faggots of the current techno-elite may favor war, but they’ll never put their lives or the lives of their non-gendered friends on the line for it. No Southern or Midwestern country boy will ever fight anything to the advantage of the globo-homo construct.

    The article is a good example of under the blanket solo mind pleasuring. I think he brought Putin into it for window dressing.

  94. @Richard B

    The central crisis is precisely spiritual in nature. “Civilization”, you say. Etymologically, that term is congruent with cities. It is the Bank$ter hierarchy in the big cities who call the shots. Today, the U$ population alone is over 70% urban. Western “civilization” is predicated on rule from the cities over the serfs and slaves of Neo-feudalism.

    The basis for that alleged civilization, was that Great Historical Double-Cross when the machinations of the Roman Emperor Constantine, combined the political structure of the Roman slave state, with a priestcrafty faction of Christians who created from ancient Hebrew rootstock, the notion of the populace becoming slaves to the god-concept.

    What was lost in the shuffle of the new deck were the wisdom schools, the libraries, the philosophical realizations inherent in Hellenic civilization on the urban level and the naturophilic and cosmically connective shamanic and intuitive relationships of indigenous cultures of the “pagani” (pagans) living on the land.

    It required a dozen and more centuries for slender beams of light to emerge from Italian city-states, an era we have come to know as the Renaissance. Prior to that age of gradual awakening, essentially all of Europe was mired in priestcraftly superstitions and its concomitant illiteracy. Such were the Dark Ages.

    Humanity needs to recover its historical heritage in order to escape from the materialistic, rationalist, “scientific” paradigm which threatens our future with Megadeath. Hellenic theatre dealt with the sins and perils of hubris, a prideful engrossment of false values driven by elements such as ego, greed, envy and suchlike spiritually negative attitudes. Those materialistic doctrines arose as a reaction to domination by impositional organized religion, which itself masked itself falsely as spiritual.

    So the ultimate question: Who Will Win the Human Race?

    • LOL: Emslander
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  95. d dan says:
    @ImaBotKnot

    “Are headlines like this true or false? Uyghur advocates speak out after horrifying accounts of rape and torture…”

    FALSE. You may want to read the following link from “b” about the various constant changing stories of “rape and torture” in Xinjiang that have been going on for a long time. Read the comment section as well because many well-formed commenters there also provide further links and background. You may be interested to know also that Chinese papers like Global Times today are challenging BBC for evidences for those unfounded accusation of “mass rape”.

    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/02/they-dont-only-rape-but-also-bite-all-over-your-body-horror-stories-told-by-chinese-defectors-contin.html#more

  96. Mefobills says:
    @ImaBotKnot

    You might want to do a rethink about responding to manufactured consent, as if you are an unthinking lab rat. Seek out other sources about the Uyghurs and think for yourself.

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/22/udo-ulfkottes-book-exposing-cia-control-of-western-journalism-now-available-in-english/

    The U.S. press was consolidated under Bill Clinton’s telecommunication act of 1996.

    Clinton was a (((CFR))) stooge. The deep state includes CFR stooges (Atlantacists), the CIA (and MI6), and MIC, along with corporate finance, and their tied “international” corporations; especially banking corporations.

    Narrative control is imperative in order to continue their “international” rake-offs and takings of unearned income.

    Thinking people accept the evidence of what Udo Ulfkotte told us before he was murdered. He knew in advance he would probably be killed for dropping the dime on the CIA.

    The recent reveals about how elements within the FBI are corrupted should only add credence to the fact that you should not be listening to the corporate presstitute media. Seek out other sources on the Uyghurs.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
  97. @anon

    “This should not be taken lightly. The leadership of the West is hubristic and insane. Under stress it will be open to anything. ”

    I couldn’t have said it better. More every day are starting to say the same about elites in the West.
    The US is marching straight into a Cuban Missile like Crisis.
    We might survive it, or perhaps not.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  98. Mefobills says:
    @Majority of One

    those who are confidently awaiting the Rupture,

    LoL. Judeo-Christianity is a perversion. The Rapture is made up B.S., and if we follow history back to the inventors of these doctrines we find the usual (((suspects))) manipulating for their selfish ends.

    You might enjoy:

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6483026/

    The Spider Web, Britain’s second empire.

    Your other points are well taken, thanks.

  99. @Zarathustra

    there’s been some interesting posts on xinhua regarding shoigu’s visit to myanmar prior to the coup. russia has been selling weapons to the military…it seems, to me, that china & russia work in tandem. where china cannot show its hand, russia will work to see the agenda through. china providing loans to iran works in a similar way. both china & russia understand together they will win, & with them so shall the world.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  100. MayRay says:
    @brabantian

    The Jews already run China. The Li family, the actual rulers, did a deal with the Rothschild family, to fund China.

    You happily ignore Guantanamo and the fact the US has the highest prison population pro rata to its nation (nation being people).

    You ignore the million plus Indonesians murdered by the US plus the millions upon millions murdered in Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq and 50 other countries over the last 70 years.

    You ignore the genocide of the German people, over 20 million, from 1941-1945 by you and your friends.

    You are very selective and do not seem to understand that the US exists to line the pockets of its top 5% along with its criminal politicians such as Biden, Clinton, Obama and Trump.

    You fail to see that at least 50% of US citizens live in poverty or hand to mouth, while thinking (a process which appears to escape you in actuality) that anyone anywhere else would want the shit you seem to feel is so wonderful.

    You come across as being untraveled, poorly educated and brainwashed with your ridiculous US propaganda about being indispensable.

  101. Derer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Bragging, bragging…so why is there a need for “Lets make America great again”. US militaristic economy is sustained by the reserve currency status which will finish, by the latest CIA estimates, in 7 years.

  102. Prieborn says:

    You say “… the planet’s center of gravity is back in Asia, as it’s been for most of recorded history.” You really think that ancient Greece and Rome were influenced or even dominated by Asia. That’s – pardon me – ridiculous.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  103. Any move towards greater amity between Europe and China will be ferociously resisted by Western supremacist racists and ‘Clash of Civilizations’ devotees, led by the USA, the UK and the all-powerful, for now, Zionist Fifth Columns.

  104. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Not just a Holocaust denier, but an apologist for it as well. Dear me.

  105. frankie p says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    It’s hard to reply to this comment, as it is so bereft of logic and rational analysis that it resembles more a child’s argument that “My Dad is better than your Dad.”

    “China will never be global hegemon, even after US ceases to be.”
    You answered this one in number three, “they don’t want to, they’re satisfied with themselves.”
    You neglect to delve into what China actually wants to be. I would say that they want to be a great power in a multi-polar world. I would go on to say that they ARE a great power in an increasingly multi-polar world.

    “1. they’re the same- the same names, all other people can’t tell one from another”

    I just don’t know how to respond to such idiocy. I have lived for over 30 years in Taiwan, which is certainly culturally Chinese, and they are well able to tell each other apart.

    “2. language barrier, insurmountable”

    Keep watching. Note the great increase in foreign Chinese speakers already, and keep watching as more and more from many different countries learn Chinese. The statement that any human language is insurmountable is ridiculous.

    “3. they don’t want to, they’re satisfied with themselves”

    I would much rather deal with a country whose aim is to be what I describe above: a great regional power, a strong trading nation looking for win-win relationships.

    “4. if they would try, really, then US, Russia, Europe, Indonesia, India, Japan..would team against it & that would be the end of Chinese power”

    China, as you say, doesn’t want to be the global hegemon. Only one nation, blinded and driven by the greed of its elite parasitic banking and corporate interests, has mistakenly deemed the situation suitable for its own hegemony. That nation, the USA, is now paying the price for its arrogance.

    “5. they’re not attractive, nor interesting to the “world” enough”

    Not enough porn for you?

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  106. @Bardon Kaldian

    Being one of the Herrenvolk and being required to dismiss the global untermenschen from time to time, with magisterial contempt, must be quite a burden.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  107. Prieborn says:

    I forgot to mention that the author should be aware of the fact that most, and really most of the scientific and technological inventions in the last 500 years had been made in Europe (mainly Britain, Germany/Austria/Switzerland, France and Italy) – that is by White men. There was no Asian influence. I really don’t understand you. May be, you want to make a favor to Asia Times, which has a clear anti-White stance. Greetings from good old Europe.

  108. Seraphim says:
    @Majority of One

    The ultimate question is: Who will the ‘Human Race’ bet on if it wants to delay for a while its inevitable demise. On the ‘man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God’ or on the one ‘who now restrains it until he is out of the way’, the Church against whom all of ‘wisdom schools’, ‘shamans’, ‘pagans’, fight to take out of their way?
    It is your choice.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  109. JM says:

    “In ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, an extraordinary book published way back in 1998, the late, great Andre Gunder Frank exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism, demonstrating how the rise of the West was a mere historical blip, and a consequence of the decline of the East around 1800.

    Now, only two centuries later, the planet’s center of gravity is back in Asia, as it’s been for most of recorded history. The fate of those blind to the evidence and unable to adapt is to telegram themselves to utter irrelevance.”

    Some “blip”! It was European wealth that – through the Banker-Transnational tearing down of Western trade barriers that allowed the limitless dirt cheap labor of the over-populated near-failed states of the ‘East’ to enrich themselves and rise ‘again’ freely accessing western markets at the expense of the masses of people in the European based nations. The careful restoration of these barriers would most certainly reverse the process.

    Mainstream Marxism used to regard the likes of Andre Gunder Frank – and his numerous Latin American (speaking of ‘Failed States’) and other Third World whining followers – as a ‘petty bourgeois’ trend, backed by those who preferred to whine at the success of the West rather than take on the more daunting task of transforming their societies at home.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  110. frontier says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    [despite today’s] Western freak show …. it remains the crucial global fact that it was the West that has created super-successful modern world

    My short note at the beginning of you claim is super important. The crucial global fact is that the West is no longer West, having sold itself out for the illusion of “profits” and at this point it’s little more than a former emperor in new clothes. The US was elevated in an environment of pre-1963 immigration laws, generally Christian culture, heavy tariffs on imports, highly productive industry, low debt, breaking the trusts, functional anti-trust enforcement and a couple of world wars that leveled competitors. None of it is here today. That heritage has been squandered away, be it political, cultural, economic, scientific, etc. Only the military is hanging on there but another WW would be as destructive for US as for the would be adversaries. And don’t forget the current debt overhang, reckless demagogy, political blindness, and an escalating blame-game going down a deadly spiral.

    I’d say, you aren’t presenting anything even remotely resembling the reality on the ground.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  111. Malla says:
    @Mefobills

    There was no starvation policy by the British Raj in India. Famines were a common occurrence before the British got ruler-ship and it were the British Govt who fought against famine by building huge irrigation networks and railways and even working to get rid of farmer debt. Famines stopped after the British Raj only because the Green Revolution happened after the British Raj ended.

  112. @Zarathustra

    Russia having a good, strong relationship with German companies needing Russia’s resources would be an excellent situation for both parties, I heartily agree. It is the EU leadership that blocks such obviously mutually beneficial relationships, at the behest of Uncle Shmuel.

    But China and Russia share a long border and are also natural partners. While the EU leadership is busy sabotaging German-Russian relationships, Russia should place even more focus on its eastern neighbors and less on trying to please the EU bureaucrats who incessantly interfere in what should be a very natural partnership between Russia and European countries with needs for what Russia has in abundance.

    Besides, asia is rising quickly, while Europe is being internally hampered and hamstrung by disastrous policies that will, over the long haul, cause immeasurable harm to Europe’s future security and strength, which appears to be the plan, sad to say.

    European culture is being destroyed, and that is a terrible thing to witness, I must say……

  113. antibeast says:
    @Mefobills

    The anti-beasts of the American system wanted labor value INCREASED through physical economy and scientific progress, not have labor reduced to slavery with lands enclosed for an “elite” oligarchy.

    There are also interesting parallels between the American Civil War and WWI.

    After its political unification in 1871, Germany also practiced Industrial Capitalism by institutionalizing Scientific Research as the intellectual capital of German manufacturing industries. Germany also established the first Welfare State in the Western World to promote the social welfare of German workers. That’s how Germany became the leading country of the Second Industrial Revolution which was driven by scientific discoveries in the fields of Chemistry and Physics, and by newly established disciplines of Chemical, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering where Germans quickly became the world’s leaders.

    In contrast to Germany, the UK and France practiced Financial Capitalism by relying on their far-flung colonies for labor exploitation, material extraction and commodity trading. Germany had few colonies to exploit which forced it to rely mostly on its German manufacturing industries driven by German scientific, engineering, technical and professional talent to become the foremost technologically advanced country in the Western World on the eve of WWI.

    WWI as with the American Civil War could thus be viewed in terms of an ideological conflict between two politico-economic systems: Financial Capitalism (Atlanticism) vs Industrial Capitalism (Americanism or Germanism), run as a financial oligarchy vs social democracy, respectively.

    That’s also the difference between the US oligarchic finance capitalism as practiced in Wall Street vs Nordic social democratic industrial capitalism as practiced in Northern Europe today.

    • Thanks: HeebHunter
    • Replies: @Mefobills
  114. @Seraphim

    Understanding your basic Christian position, I still must ask why we should worship the ancient Hebrew Tribal WarGod, whom the book of Leviticus reveals to be a horrible bloodthirsty monster. Jesus spoke of the Father, but I do not believe he mentioned Yahweh in that context.

    • Agree: GeeBee
    • Troll: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  115. @Malla

    The 1943 Bengal famine was huge. Food was being shipped from India TO Britain at that time. The British are notorious for that, as witness the Irish potato famine in the 1840’s. Thousands of tons of food was being shipped from Ireland to England then.

    • Replies: @Malla
  116. @ImaBotKnot

    If true

    This is the key here. I found experimentally that whenever I have sources on the ground to get the real story, I find that everything NYT and its ilk publishes is a lie (some are blatant lies, some just ordinary lies). From that I conclude that you cannot believe anything NYT, WaPo, the Guardian, and similar MSM “report”. So, if NYT or similar “source” claimed that, it’s not true. End of story.

  117. antibeast says:
    @Hillaire

    Once again myopic escobar, either through mendacity or ignorance, fails to mention the asian tiger would still be a basket case if the davos ( financier) parasites hadn’t decided to move all your means of production and intellectual properties to chinkerbells sweatshops.

    Not true at all. China developed its own defense, aerospace, space and science industries without any help from the West due to strict controls on the technology transfer of dual-use technologies based on the Wassenaar Arrangement. Whatever China got in terms of industrial technology to produce consumer goods (apparel, shoes, toys, plastics, electronics, autos) came from EAST ASIAN countries which invested in China when the USA imposed sanctions after Tiananmen. By the time China joined the WTO in 2001, East Asian manufacturers had already been producing low-cost consumer goods for the Chinese domestic market as well as for export markets. That ‘exporting processing’ trade lasted only until 2008 when the GFC struck which forced China to restructure its economy away from export industries to serving its domestic market.

    The basket case is the USA which had been unable to compete against both Northern European (Germany, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands and the Nordic nations) and East Asian (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore) industrial capitalist nations. And all the US politicians do is blame ‘Communist China’ for succeeding in industrializing its economy and building up its infrastructure while the USA has suffered from ‘outsourcing’ its manufacturing industries and neglecting its decrepit infrastructure, not to mention the abysmal state of its public sector, namely, healthcare, education, transportation, etc.

    You better look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself what went wrong in the USA before blaming foreign countries for your own stupid shit.

    • Agree: Onan the Barbarian
    • Thanks: HeebHunter
    • Replies: @Hillaire
  118. Petermx says:
    @Majority of One

    Israel has the support of most of the advanced world while simultaneously spitting in many of their supporters faces. They migrated from Europe and stole the land from the people that lived there for many centuries or longer and then started more wars to steal more land. They threaten, murder and rob with impunity because Americans are impotent against the power of American Jews and most Americans are ignorant to this power. And now, the founding stock of the USA, the people that founded the country and made it into a great power are regularly referred to as racists, white supremacists, anti-Semites, people with “White privilege” and a long list of other insults. The Americans are derided in their own country by Jews that own nearly 100% of the US media.

    Firmly Controlled By AIPAC US President and US Congress Neglect American Interests Over Israel’s

  119. Sean says:

    America still trades with China despite all the things being done to the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs are Muslims, so why so little concern for them, eh? I watched your vid, but let me ask whether America ignoring the human right violations by Israel is any kind of evidence that Israel gets preferential treatment, and why would anyone expect America to diplomatically intervene to stop Israel mistreating Palestinians? The USA backed horrific death squad terror states in Central America such as El Salvador and Guatemala. South Vietnam was hardly a democracy, and the US liberal elite destroyed itself intervening in South Vietnam, seemed helpless to abandon them. In asking for justice for the Palestinians, one would be asking for the US to treat Israel as special case. On what basis is Israel worse than the aforementioned American allies, because Israelis originated in Europe and tend to have a lot of white skin and blue eyes?

  120. This guy is kooky on religious matters but still speaks more truth than 90% of what’s out there.
    The MOST IMPORTANT truth of our age is Jews Control the US.
    Any real truth must begin from that foundational truth.

    CHINA DECEPTION; GAME OF MISDIRECTION!


    • Thanks: Rdm
  121. Malla says:
    @Majority of One

    Food was being shipped from India TO Britain at that time.

    Food was not shipped from India to England. Britain got most of its food from North America which was nearer.
    Bengal was at war (WW2) being a part of the British Empire at that time.
    The mother country Great Britain itself was suffering from food rationing.
    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 of North East India 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 ethnic British, 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 provincesyears 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 U.S. president Roosevelt for some aid for the starving peoples of Bengal, the same Wall Street controlled Roosevelt who was arm twisting the British to give independence to India, flatly refused.

    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

    The fact is; the British Indian Government 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 native 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.
    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 would have made no sense what so ever. Fact is the Famine had nothing to do with the British, that is a lie that is going all over India, 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. These are facts that can be checked . The idea that Churchill caused the famine is nothing but a lie that has spread all over India and is now believed by millions of Indians.

    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, exercising influence but not formally governing in provinces where it had won elections).

    • Replies: @Malla
  122. @Richard B

    Have you been in a coma since the colonial era?

    How can you be talking about freedom and human rights with slavery, colonial rule, and almost yearly war fighting? As we comment here, USA and Europe is supporting the starvation of Yemen by Saudi Arabia.

    You should try to focus on the scientific method and the industrial revolution. You would appear less stupid and less of a hypocrite. At the most you would have anons who argue with you about the origins of the scientific method. Not outright call you blind, deaf, and stupid.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  123. Jiminy says:

    I was trying to remember what ever happened after Israel used fake Australian passports in their assassination of the Hamas leader in Dubai in 2010. They corruptly used another, trusted country’s documents, obviously because theirs are worthless. The mossad agents tracked Mabhouh down to an Arabian hotel, where they electrocuted him. I don’t think our government really responded in any noteworthy manner to it happening.
    I know that here, we have a program where we proactively support local and national companies- when shopping you look for a made in Aus. label on the container. If anything is labeled as a product of Israel, then I know for certain that I would steer clear of it. That is something more people should be aware of.

  124. Seraphim says:
    @Majority of One

    Parroting the silly mantra of ‘Yahweh the horrible bloodthirsty monster’ is a proof that you don’t really know what you are talking about, let alone understanding anything.
    Who do you think was Jesus mentioning when he said: ”Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels”? Not ”YHWH Tzavaot” the “LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel”, ”The Lord of the Army of angels of God”?

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  125. • Agree: frankie p
  126. antibeast says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    That stupid gringo is not even German but behaves like a wanna-be-Aryan.

    “We wuz Aryanz n’ Shiet!”

  127. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Actually you could blame Churchill for the famine, that is by declaring War on Germany and starting WW2. And Roosevelt who with his Soviet agent filled Government goaded the Japanese into war and thus opening the Pacific chapter of WW2. Had the war not taken place, Imperial Japanese submarines would not have dominated the Indian Ocean and Myanmar-Burma would have still been part of the British Empire during the famine and thus rice could be easily imported to Bengal. And yet unlike Churchill, Roosevelt flatly refused to help Bengal, the same Roosevelt tho goaded the Japanese, the same Roosevelt was anti-British Empire and were arm-twisting Britain to hasten the independence of India. Compared to him, with Churchill’s request other parts of the Empire especially Australia sent Bengal hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat in the Middle of such a War. And the kind and humane Canadian Prime Minster Mackenzie King who offered to send grain to Bengal to alleviate the famine in the Middle of the War when every shipping was needed against the Axis forces. Much respect to him.

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

    Also I failed to add, that had the war not taken place, Bengal would not be full of Indian, British, other British Empire (ANZAC, African Rifles etc…), American and even Nationalist Chinese troops (trained in British India to fight Japanese Empire forces) as India and especially Bengal had turned into a WW2 allied war camp against the rapidly approaching unstoppable (until then) Imperial Japanese Army. The presence of so many troops (as well as crop failure) also led to inflation in food prices which played a big part in massive number of famine deaths of poor Bengalis.
    Bengal (and Assam) was very important in keeping the supply channels to the Chinese open from the allies. Cutting off these supply routes to their Chinese enemies was one more reason why the Japanese were expanding in South East Asia.

    There were American troops in Bengal in those days.

  129. Malla says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    The West played a big part in stopping slavery eventually. Colonial rule was mixed and had many positive sides. Without the west, slavery would have been far more common in Africa and the Middle East even now.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  130. FedUp says:
    @brabantian

    I tend to agree with you about a staged collapse of the West, and I feel suspicious of these Escobar types as well.

    Revilo Oliver & others noted that wherever Jews set up shop as a big Jewish colony, so too follows the gold supply. Point being, I am highly skeptical that native “goyim” rule either China or Russia. Certainly hope so, but in a struggle like this, one cannot afford to act solely based upon blind hope (big part as to why Aryan loyalists have kept losing since 1945).

    The “humane” thing though man? Hahaha! In case you haven’t noticed, we here in Amerikwa or the West are under the most “inhumanely” brutal system ever devised.

    [MORE]

    Well, maybe not (YET, absent revolution by loyalists) quite the most bloodthirsty brutal tyranny ever, but certainly the most insidious & diabolical. Generations of “men” who proudly fight for their womenfolk’s ability to be lecherous w****’s and to call upon legions of white knight zombies to come rob they &/or their own sons blind for any reason, even if they cheat or otherwise betray them.

    Males who explode in histrionic rage when hearing opposing viewpoints about this one dystopian reality. Who insist they want their women to be able to steal their kids from them any time & be forced to send her money afterwards, as she is shacked up with a new man.

    Soy in almost all foods. Estrogens polluting approximately half of our pozzed country’s drinking water. Daughters preferring en masse to race mix with negroes. “Very humane,” and it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Unless Aryan loyalists radically change our subculture’s culture wherein we cease allowing the fear of the feds to dominate us, we will get picked off one by one barring a miracle. They’re largely able to pick us off one by one because we don’t back each other to the hilt so long as whoever is in the hot seat is loyal.

    And when i say cease letting fear of the feds dominate, it doesnt mean cease taking precautions – if anything we should be far more vigilant & incidentally, our enemies demonstrate effective tactics. It does mean accepting the reality that this is a deadly thing and broken eggs are unavoidable (if you think any of us are safe in the big picture by solely remaining anon online, you are mistaken…Jews have repeatedly proven that they view our existence as a crime).

    Ignore all you want, smear all you want. I used to think like most of you. Peaceful revolution, informing the masses & there being a great awakening…wish that were true. Hope it doesn’t come to pass, but you will remember this when they roll out what they’re obviously gearing up to implement. “Patriot Act”2.0? Their media calling all Aryans evil, dehumanizing us? Taking away our guns? Overt “hate speech” laws? Idk when they’ll try, but most Aryans never see it coming…refuse to trust their own eyes. Kitos War. The destruction of Rome. The brother wars due to the cult from Judea. The french revolution. There are so many examples where they led us to the slaughter, few where we stopped them.

    If Aryan loyalists alone wrote off normies we obsess about winning over (from a position of impotence…) and resolved to carve out a thing for ourselves, at least we’d have some logical chance. You wanna wind up like Aryan S.Africans? Waiting for rabbi yeshu to return to save them? Saying that its because they stopped following their Jewish “holy” book rather than handed their country over to Jews & blacks that they got in the awful position they’re in? Or do you want to survive? Think it over, if you don’t suffer from paralyzing denial. We could win.

  131. @Seraphim

    Yahweh was created as a tribal WarGod OR he was/is a discarnate evil entity seeking blood-sacrifice by his supporters. “I, thy god am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. That’s the dead giveaway right there. Creator does not seek to be worshipped and would have no problem with evanescent manmade gods. Even the 10 Commandments were cribbed from Hammurabi’s Code. The whole Heebie-Jeebie religion is nothing more than made-up fantasy used to control people.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  132. @frankie p

    There is no use in arguing with idiots. Come back after a few aeons if you have something to say & if you have a reading comprehensibility.

    [MORE]

  133. I expect president Harris would like nothing better than for Europe and Russia to bleed themselves in another war.

  134. @frontier

    What you are writing about is just a description of various forms of Western (or any developed civilization’s, say Japan’s) decadence. In other words, you take a shadow for a whole being.

    There is no way in going back to traditional, 1950’s West. But also, various global civilizations are not reducible to their weak points, and it is as true now as it has been 100 or 200 years ago, that West is, short of global nuclear war, the pre-eminent force that can make or break any non-Western nation. Western dynamism is as dominant as it had been 50 years ago, and while global West will not have been as hegemonistic in some areas as in the past- it will remain, in any foreseeable future, the chief creator of material wealth, wielder of power & shaper of the world.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  135. Miro23 says:
    @AriusArmenian

    I couldn’t have said it better. More every day are starting to say the same about elites in the West.

    The US is marching straight into a Cuban Missile like Crisis.

    We might survive it, or perhaps not.

    Jewish activism is driving policy in the US and Anglo world. The article is saying that this Jewish hijacked Anglo world – presented as a NWO- is not a functional or attractive option for Europe. That’s what Putin is saying, and it makes Europe the principal ideological battleground.

  136. Sean says:
    @KA

    [T]he world is not run on ethics but on muscle and money . American position doesn’t have shelf life left of more than few years.

    I could agree with that; the United States of America has been too pure, not evil and Machiavellian enough. Better to be feared than loved.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  137. @Temporary Insanity

    China and Pakistan are not natural partners. India made them into “all weather friends”. ;-D

    “If India and China come together, they will be a powerful global force to stem the tide of American unilateralism. Second, China today faces a threat from Islamic terrorists in its western back yard and may want to forge a common bond with India. Is there anything wrong about it? China has opposed Indian political moves in the past, but India should blame itself for it. For several decades, India had frozen relations with China and when the latter tried to seek understanding, the former rudely rebuffed her. It was only then that China started opposing India’s political moves [such as membership of the United Nations Security Council] and forging a full-scale relationship with Pakistan. ”

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EF21Df01.html

    Neither are China and Russia. The white West made them into defacto allies. ;-D

  138. Sean says:

    What on earth are you talking about? China and Pakistan have a mutual enemy between them

    • Replies: @Temporary Insanity
  139. @Sean

    And the enemies are themselves unbeknownst to them… typical of shits and dumbshits!

  140. @Sean

    “why would anyone expect America to diplomatically intervene to stop Israel mistreating Palestinians?”
    Straw man argument. The USA is asked to go Home. Not to “intervene”, but to butt out, stop arming the “is”, cease sending billions of dollars to the illegitimate entity, and refrain from vetoing when the whole world censures “israel” in the UN.

    The USA should do the honorable thing: wash its hands of its worst enemy in West Asia.

  141. @peter mcloughlin

    “Forging 21st-Century Strategic Deterrence”
    By Admiral Charles A. Richard, U.S. Navy
    February 2021 Proceedings Vol. 147/2/1,416

    https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/february/forging-21st-century-strategic-deterrence

    [MORE]

    =====
    So, while the ‘woke’ generation are passing out at the thought of using the wrong pronoun or (god forbid) white/black prefix, the current crazies in charge are contemplating the end of the world as we know it. However, on a positive note, it sounds between the lines like some real-world gravitas may be permeating through the clouds of cognitive dissonance.

    Let’s be quite clear, Russia is a decade ahead of the USA in military defense and offence terms. And China has enough missile power to sink the US navy 10-times over (at least) in a matter of 20 minutes.

    Russia’s president Putin announced 2-3 years ago that due to USA/EU/Nato missile warhead ambiguity (under Obama & Trump) the Russian Federation has no choice other than to assume a nuclear attack with any incoming missiles to Russian territory… and the reply will be instant and total towards EU and USA etc. Russian civilization will exist on its own terms, or no one will. End of story.

    “Richard said the US military must “shift its principal assumption from ‘nuclear employment is not possible’ to ‘nuclear employment is a very real possibility,’ and act to meet and deter that reality.””

    As I read it:

    1. A long-winded way of saying “we must face reality” …
    “The implications of today’s competition and the associated risk of great power crisis or direct armed conflict are profound; they affect nearly every fundamental assumption we make about the use of armed force in the defense of the nation and its allies. Until we, as a department, come to understand, if not accept, what we are facing and what should be done about it, we run the risk of developing plans we cannot execute and procuring capabilities that will not deliver desired outcomes. In the absence of change, we are on the path, once again, to prepare for the conflict we prefer, instead of one we are likely to face. It is through this lens that we must take a hard look at how we intend to compete against and deter our adversaries, assure our allies, and appropriately shape the future joint force.”

    2. Another key statement:
    “Great power competition does not span four quarters or nine innings, and our competitors are no less committed than we are. Instead, we should view competition as the maintenance of relative advantage over competitors. It is an infinite game, one in which the goal is to remain a dominant player.”

    3. And concludes with key phrases: “across the enterprise”; “adapt”; “their decision calculus”; “our nuclear-capable peers”; “holistic risk assessment process”; “come to a broad understanding”; “risk suffering embarrassment”; …
    ——-
    “While this is a sobering picture, it is not intended to discourage; rather, it is meant to highlight reality and reinvigorate a conversation across the enterprise. Our challenges are not insurmountable. Time and again, DoD has demonstrated its willingness and ability to address changing environments. We must adapt to today’s strategic environment by understanding our opponents’ threats and their decision calculus. We must also accept the gauntlet of great power competition with our nuclear-capable peers. It is through a holistic risk assessment process that we can better align national resources and military readiness to ensure strategic security. In the end, it comes back to the threat. Until we come to a broad understanding of what the threat is and what to do about it, we risk suffering embarrassment—or perhaps worse—at the hands of our adversaries.”

    4. It’s called “The Thucydides Trap” …

    [Story also reflected on ZeroHedge)

  142. @Sean

    rely on America remaining cutting edge in technology.

    And I thought satire was dead,

  143. Mefobills says:
    @antibeast

    Yes.

    Two good ways to decode Industrial Capitalism vs Finance Capitalism, is to analyze debt instruments.

    Industrial Capitalism uses Sovereign power to issue Sovereign debts in the form of loans. Ideally the new debts/loans are accompanied by additional directed spending of debt free money. The debt free pays the interest on the loans.

    Sovereign debts, or debt instruments, are used to hypothecate new credit. Only this new credit is not GENERAL DEMAND, but instead is SPECIFIC DEMAND. Specific demand CHANNELS into industry and the commons, deriving specific outputs. Those outputs are improved labor value, improved industrial capability, and improved commons.

    The ultimate evolution of industrial capitalism is not communism as Marx thought, but instead is National Socialism or Fascism. National Socialist Germany was maybe most advanced industrial capitalist economy until it was smashed by Finance Capitalists by war and intrigue.

    Today, the most advanced fascist and industrial capitalist economy is China. China can be considered as national socialist, with some finance capital, where the finance capital is controlled to not take sordid gain on society. Also, any private oligarchy that arises is smashed by sovereign power. China is not so advanced yet, that they have learned how to use sovereign power to release debts, especially private debts that are making usurious claims.

    Canada had an industrial economy from 38 to 74, where the MOF (ministry of finance) owned all the shares of BOC (Bank of Canada). BOC was a crown bank, wholly owned by MOF. MOF would tell BOC to issue new loans toward infrastructure, such as St. Lawrence Seaway, or national highways and railroads, or even public colleges. MOF would also tell BOC how much debt free to issue. The end result was a happy and well educated population with little private or public debts, along with first class infrastructure and local economy.

    Mathew Ehret, (see link below) like pretty much every body, including Hudson, avoids the role of the Jew in spreading usury and inventing other constructs, like finance capitalism. Finance capitalism was invented by our (((friends))) while in Amsterdam, so obviously the system will benefit themselves as an in-group.

    Industrial capitalism is more of a “general welfare” type system, and is perfectly compatible with nation states and multi-polarity. Communism is a dead end, and not the ultimate evolution of industrial capitalism, as modern history shows, especially with the example of China.

    https://thesaker.is/unipolar-vs-multipolar-the-death-of-mckinley-and-the-loss-of-americas-soul/

    In his thousands of speeches and writings, Gilpin made it known that he understood America’s destiny to be inextricably tied to the ancient civilization of China- not to impose opium as the British and their American lackies were want to do, but to learn from and even emulate!
    In 1852, Gilpin stated: “Salvation must come to America from China, and this consists in the introduction of the “Chinese constitution” viz. the “patriarchal democracy of the Celestial Empire”. The political life of the United States is through European influences, in a state of complete demoralization, and the Chinese Constitution alone contains elements of regeneration. For this reason, a railroad to the Pacific is of such vast importance, since by its means the Chinese trade will be conducted straight across the North American continent. This trade must bring in its train Chinese civilization. All that is usually alleged against China is mere calumny spread purposefully, just like those calumnies which are circulated in Europe about the United States”.

    You can also track Industrial Capitalism through its flag-bearers and inventors. Mass. Bay was John Winthrop, and Cotton Mather, and transmitted to Benjamin Franklin and his protégé Matthew Carey. Matthew wrote on the system, which influenced many, including Henry Carey – the son of Matthew; Henry influenced Lincoln.

    The system was carried to Germany through Frederick List, and to China through Sun Yat-Sen. It was carried to Japan through Peshine Smith. The Tsar’s of Russia were converting to the American System until they were assassinated by the Bolsheviks, who in turn were financed by finance capital out of wall street and London.

    Hamilton used public debt, which was hypothecated into sovereign money, which then channeled into physical economy. So, I still put him on the side of industrial capitalism, even though he screwed up and allowed the first bank to be partially owned by privateers.

    The lesson is that you cannot screw up, and that the money power has to be 100% sovereign, and the money issued is for industry and the common good.

  144. Marckus says:

    Putin and Xi better get it through their head there will be no win win. It is a zero sum game with the US taking all.

    Apparently there is a big black gorilla headed for the Secretary of Defence position. He has
    ordered a stand down in the US Military so they can discuss extremism blah blah etc.

    All extremism and extremists will be “rooted” out. Talk about slavery in the modern age. This poor fellow will do as he is told because he will be oh so grateful that Whitey gave him the job.

    My advice to Russia and China: Keep a supply of bananas, coconuts and peanuts at hand. When General Bongo visits you dont want to piss him off. One has to wonder what the Military Chiefs of the other super powers are going to think when this monkey shows up for a conference.

  145. Mefobills says:
    @Malla

    Malla,

    It is about how Free Trade is used by Finance Capitalism, to then indenture a country.

    Read Perkins books, “Confession of an Economic Hitman.”

    England actually got into balance of trade difficulties with China and silver debts. China didn’t want much from the English colonial system, other than silver.

    In order to balance out the debts that were accruing, England (and our friends – the Sassoons) got China hooked on Opium, where said Opium was grown in India.

    In this way, the total trade balance allowed England to import tea and other labor derived goods from India, while then on-selling Opium into China to balance Colonial trade there.

    The British Raj came about because Corporate Control under East India company lost the ability to extract gains from India. Britain transitioned completely into a corporate finance capitalist state by this transition, where the Red-Coats took over from East India Co. mercenary army.

    The huge irrigation networks and rail were a good thing, but a true industrial capitalist system would use Indian State Credit to build out local industry, rather than borrowing London Capital to the buy English rolling stock (railroad gear) and then going into debt to London.

    The growing debts that do have a counterpart in increased production can be paid, but if they don’t – then send in the economic hitman.

    The economic hitman will then extract his blood toll, which is euphemized by starvation. The modern equivalent is the U.S. using finance capital to do economic hits on South American economies (and others) to keep them from becoming self sustaining.

    Any proper industrial capitalist country will funnel state credit into agriculture as a way of strategic policy, to keep the population well fed and healthy.

    Finance Capitalism is usury writ large, and England by the time of the RAJ, was fully finance capitalist.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  146. @Mefobills

    Perkins’ book is akin to an autopsy delineating the processes of how independent nations are taken down and hit up for their resources on a step by step basis. It is the must read primer to understand contemporary economic imperialism.

  147. Hillaire says:
    @antibeast

    I’m not a yank chinkerbell.. so pull your guts in and rub that little red book.

  148. Malla says:
    @Mefobills

    would use Indian State Credit to build out local industry, rather than borrowing London Capital to the buy English rolling stock (railroad gear) and then going into debt to London.

    India had her industrial revolution earlier than even Japan. After 1880, since revenues in India were so low, the Empire decided that India was to be run as an export based economy. Exports would help balance the budget.
    According to renowned economic historian Tirthankar Roy in a recently published essay in the Economic and Political Weekly, de-industrialization was a myth, simply because factory production and employment had taken firm roots in British India by the early 20th century and grew at a rapid pace in the first half of the 20th century. “Between 1850 and 1940, employment in Indian factories increased from near zero to two million,” writes Roy. “Real GDP at factor cost originating in factories rose at the rate of 4-5% per year between 1900 and 1947. These rates were comparable with those of the two of the fastest growing emerging economies of the time, Japan and Imperial Russia, and without a close parallel in the tropical world of the 19th century. Cotton textiles were the leading industry of the 19th century. Outside Europe and the US, 30% of the cotton spindles in the world were located in India in 1910. Within the tropical zone, 55% of the spindles were in India.” The creation of the three great port cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras spurred India’s industrial boom, as it helped Indian merchants and producers to integrate with the global economy, writes Roy.

    As far as going to debt to London, capital was far expensive in India. For example when they decided to build railways, the British decided to raise the money in India and give Indians a stake in their own railways. But Indian baniya Capitalists charged an interest as high as 18% while capital could be sourced from London at a rate of 3%. Much cheaper capital in London. Even the United States of America, a country outside the British Empire, raised capital for its railways in London for this reason.

    During the early part of the 20th century due to World Wars, India’s war expenditure had naturally increased progressively. The British government has also been spending large sums in India for the purchase of supplies for various theaters of war and for the maintenance of a base in India for operations in the east. All this had been paid for by placing sterling into the account of the Reserve Bank of India. Against this the Reserve Bank of India would issue rupees for actual disbursement. A large Sterling balance in favour of British India had in this way accumulated in the metropole of the Empire, Great Britain, thereby enabling the British Raj Indian Government not only to repay or repatriate the whole of its sterling debt, but also to acquire the remaining interests of the British shareholders of a number of Indian railway companies. By the 1920s, India’s entire rail network was state-owned. Nevertheless a substantial credit balance in sterling in Great Britain was still left owing to British India by the end of WW2. The result was that at independence in 1947, the Reserve Bank of India held the enormous sterling balance of over £1 billion (£36 billion in today’s money).

    During Independence both India and Pakistan (United West and East Pakistan) were totally debt free. Orya Maqbool Jan, a Pakistani civil servant has spoken about this fact often.

  149. Malla says:
    @Mefobills

    Read Perkins books, “Confession of an Economic Hitman.”

    Actually Independence of countries from European and Japanese Empires helped these Wall Street economic hitmen.

    From the book: The New Unhappy Lords

    https://ia800500.us.archive.org/23/items/TheNewUnhappyLords/TheNewUnhappyLords.pdf

    “As far as is known “America’s” anti-British policy was first given concrete expression in the brief that General Marshall took with him to the Quebec Conference in 1943.
    This was to the effect that the greatest single obstacle to the expansion of America’s export-capitalism after the war would be not the Soviet Union but the British Empire. What this meant, in practical terms, was that as soon as the enemies in the field had been disposed of would come the turn of the British Empire to be progressively destroyed and that means to this end would be shaped even while hostilities raged. The moment they were over the campaign could begin in real earnest, the signal for which was to be Truman’s abrupt dropping of Lend-Lease to an ally whose economy had been so closely geared to war production that many markets for her goods had been systematically referred to U.S producers.
    The British Empire was not the only ally marked down for liquidation. The Dutch Empire in the East Indies and the French Empire in Indo-China and Africa were also high on the list ”

    In Page 22 of the book we read

    “However, as has happened time and again throughout history, the money-lenders had tended to overplay their hand. The six million German unemployed who were the victims of the “Great Depression” resulted in a formidable revolt against the Money Power—the revolt of Adolf Hitler. There was also a rebellion, although of a much milder kind, in Great Britain and the British nations overseas, whose representatives met in Ottawa in 1932 to hammer out a system of Imperial Preferences calculated to insulate the British world against Wall St. amok-runs. These Preferences, as we shall see, incurred the unrelenting hostility of the New York Money Power and the only reason why a show-down was not forced was the far more serious threat to the international financial system implicit in the economic doctrines of the Third Reich.”

    Thus by the Imperial preference system of the British Empire, the Empire (close to 25% of the World) put trade barriers to Wall Street to protect them from the Wall Street crazies after the Great Depression. Wall Street scumbags realised that the immediate threat to their global economic system were Third Reich Germany, Japanese Empire and Fascist Italy but in the long term all European Empires were a threat even greater then the USSR. Thus Wall Street financed decolonization movements against all European Empires including the French Empire, Dutch Empire, Belgian Empire, Portuguese Empire and most importantly the largest of them all the British Empire.
    More on that conference in Ottawa
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire_Economic_Conference
    British Empire Economic Conference in Ottawa Canada, 1932
    India was represented by Sir Atul Chandra Chatterjee who had earlier served as the Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom from 1925 to 1931.
    From the above link
    “The British Empire Economic Conference (also known as the Imperial Economic Conference or Ottawa Conference) was a 1932 conference of British colonies and the autonomous dominions held to discuss the Great Depression. It was held between 21 July and 20 August in Ottawa.
    “The conference saw the group admit the failure of the gold standard and abandon attempts to return to it. The meeting also worked to establish a zone of limited tariffs within the British Empire, but with high tariffs with the rest of the world. This was called “Imperial preference” or “Empire Free-Trade” on the principle of “home producers first, empire producers second, and foreign producers last”. The result of the conference was a series of bilateral agreements that would last for at least 5 years.[1] This abandonment of open free trade led to a split in the British National Government coalition: the Official Liberals under Herbert Samuel left the Government, but the National Liberals under Sir John Simon remained.
    The conference was especially notable for its adoption of Keynesian ideas such as lowering interest rates, increasing the money supply, and expanding government spending.
    The United States were annoyed by the implementation of Imperial Preference as it affected them economically.[2]”

    After WW2, thanks to the GATT agreement forced on Great Britain and many Commonwealth countries by the USA (Wall Street), this Imperial preference system was trashed.

    • Replies: @Malla
  150. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Read Perkins books, “Confession of an Economic Hitman.”

    As we have seen in the above comment that Wall Street considered the huge European Empires a threat and wanted them dissolved.
    They also wanted the economies of the colonies to leave the hands of honest European or Japanese colonial officials and go into the hands of corrupt brown and black leaders who would be far more easier to deal with by Wall Street economic hitmen.
    From Churchill’s speech.
    https://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1930-1938-the-wilderness/our-duty-in-india/
    Hitherto for generations it has been the British policy that no white official should have any interest or profit other than his salary and pension out of Indian administration. All concession-hunters and European adventurers, company-promoters and profit-seekers have been rigorously barred and banned. But now that there is spread through India the belief that we are a broken, bankrupt, played-out power, and that our rule is going to pass away and be transferred in the name of the majority to the Brahmin sect, all sorts of greedy appetites have been excited, and many itching fingers are stretching and scratching at the vast pillage of a derelict Empire.”
    To give you an example, this is a video about decolonization in British Gold Coast/Ghana from the British Empire

    From 28:03 minutes to 29:28 minutes native Ghanaian minsters near decolonization during the period where power was shared with “independence” leader Kwame Nkrumah, were making deals with Western economic hitmen. An American economic hitman construction company was going to rip off Ghana/ Gold Coast. It were honest British colonial officials who stopped the deal to the displeasure of the corrupt native ministers. Check out Sam Macdonald Smith, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Communications and works of Gold Coast at 28:32 minutes (till 29:28 minutes) speak about some American hitmen type tried to rip off Ghana, which they stopped, which made them honest British colonial officials very unpopular with corrupt Ghanaian native ministers.

    Independence made it easier for Wall Street types to loot these countries. And that is why they financed all those “liberation movements” against European Empires, so that after the protection of Empire was gone, they would be easy for the looting.

  151. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Of course, the very word genocide is unknown outside the European world.
    I guess what happened in Rwanda in 1998 was called “kwtulu kwamomba” or something like that.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  152. @Bardon Kaldian

    The strength of the West on the global stage is because EU/UK/US/NZ/Australia/Canada present a united front when it comes to foreign policy, and of course as such can crush any small nation they turn their attention to. If however the rest of the world would unite to present a hostile front towards them, with sanctions, boycotts, etc. they would be powerless to dominate anyone. Obviously there is a greater degree of cohesion between these Western countries and they are successful in adopting the divide and rule strategy on others but it remains to be seen how much longer this state of affairs will last. You seem confident that this situation will remain into the future but I’m not so sure. This truly is a formidable block and it is not possible to divide it and turn them against each other in any meaningful way, but others are wising up to them and their machinations, other powers are rising in the world, and all that is needed is for others to ignore them and to cooperate with each other against this block and its interests.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  153. Balcus says:
    @anon

    Are you mad?
    Go live in China or Russia.
    Better yet, go live with the uighars or the Ukrainians.

  154. @Sparkon

    Before you call others ignorant you might want to check what adverbs and adjectives do in sentences. The keys are the words “much” vs “any”. There are 20 million people in Siberia past the Urals. There are about 7 million in the entire Russian Far East… 27 million people in – less than Texas – in a landspace that would be the biggest in the world by itself doesnt sound like “much” to me. Unless Euopreans quadruple their birth rates in the coming decades – how on earth could you make that land more Europeans…?? Therent enough bodies. The nomadic indigenous peoples – though smaller in number – cover more square kilometers than ethnic Russians – who are concentrated in cities. That would be like saying Austin and Houston represent all of Texas culture. They dont because they are transplants – and only tiny pieces of the real estate.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
    , @antibeast
  155. @GoodTwin

    Brain drain creates an unstable world…

  156. anon[300] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    In ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age, an extraordinary book published way back in 1998, the late, great Andre Gunder Frank exhaustively smashed Eurocentrism, demonstrating how the rise of the West was a mere historical blip, and a consequence of the decline of the East around 1800.

    The historical achievements of Europeans — cultural, aesthetic, scientific — in just the last few hundred years easily exceeds all accomplishments by all Asian cultures combined over their entire history. The “historical blip” argument really isn’t justified. Compare a Roman republic / empire that lasted ~1000 years to Britain from 1700 onward. The latter was FAR more influential and relevant to the modern world. The same is true of the West compared with the East. The Chinese invented a primitive form of paper, but it was Europe that wrote Hamlet. The Japanese had primitive wood carvings, but Europe painted the Mona Lisa. The Indians invented the concept of Zero, but it was the Europeans who put us on the moon. If any nation in Asia is industrialized at all, it is only due to the West. Without that group, all of Asia would still be farming rice patties and fighting with swords when they’re not dying of third world diseases.

    • LOL: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  157. Sparkon says:
    @Showmethereal

    You’ve mixed up population density with culture.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  158. Seraphim says:
    @anon

    We need some comic relief from time to time, really. The Chinese invented a primitive form of paper, but the Westerners invented the toilet paper.

  159. antibeast says:
    @Showmethereal

    There are 20 million people in Siberia past the Urals. There are about 7 million in the entire Russian Far East… 27 million people in – less than Texas – in a landspace that would be the biggest in the world by itself doesn’t sound like “much” to me. Unless Europeans quadruple their birth rates in the coming decades – how on earth could you make that land more Europeans…?? There isn’t enough bodies. The nomadic indigenous peoples – though smaller in number – cover more square kilometers than ethnic Russians – who are concentrated in cities. That would be like saying Austin and Houston represent all of Texas culture. They don’t because they are transplants – and only tiny pieces of the real estate.

    Siberia and the Russian Far East are located in North and East Asia, respectively, surrounded by 1.5 billion Asians in Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan. Due to the harshness of the natural environment in Siberia and the remoteness of the Russian Far East, Russia has had a hard time convincing White Christian European Russians to move to Siberia or settle in the Russian Far East, even with offers of ‘free land’ to homesteaders. The most common type of people who have moved there had been ‘outcasts’ banished by Stalin to work and die in the Gulags in Siberia.

    The Russian Far East has become more attractive as business opportunities have opened up due to its economic integration with East Asia. Vladivostok has attracted foreign investors from East Asia who sees the city as a gateway to Russia. Regardless of the ethnic composition of Vladivostok, its European residents would have to deal with East Asians in an overwhelmingly East Asian region, which will become the center of the world economy in the coming decades.

    Your example of Texas is apropos because the US Southwest is known as the Hispanic Sunbelt. Even the Anglo settlers had to adapt to the Tejano culture dominant in Texas whose social and economic ties to Mexico has increased due to decades of economic integration between the USA and Mexico as a result of NAFTA.

    Lastly, Russia’s European heartlands share borders with Muslim Kazakhstan in Central Asia while hosting its own restive Muslim residents most of whom live in Moscow or in areas bordering the Caucasus, beyond which lie Muslim Turkey, Iraq and Iran. In a way, these Russian borderlands are equivalent to the US Southwest whose ethnic composition will change over time as the Muslim population grows while the ethnic Russian population declines, a demographic phenomenon that has occurred in Central Asia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russians have not been able to ‘Europeanize’ those Central Asians; it’s the other way around as Russians have become ‘Asianized’ over the course of several centuries living there. In fact, that is what makes Russia unique because it shares borders with Central, North and East Asia, unlike, say, Poland or Ukraine, both of which doesn’t need to deal with Asian countries because they’re in Europe.

    • Agree: Mustapha Mond, Malla
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  160. Seraphim says:
    @Majority of One

    ‘Creator’ does seek to be loved. This is the first and greatest commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment” (Matt 22:37-38). The Second Commandment, next in priority, was as Jesus said, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”.

    ”Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing loving kindness to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments”.
    He has no problem with ‘evanescent manmade gods’. His problem is with the man who does not love Him, and invents his own manmade gods, who loves himself more than God by disrespecting and mocking His commandments and makes a law of his own fantasies and whims, when he fantasizes the he is greater than his creator.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  161. @EugeneGur

    “Russia is Russia; it doesn’t have to become Europe or China but it can embrace both.”

    Absolutely!

    My point was and is simply this: as long as the EU bureaucrats keep screwing the Russians despite the Russians showing good faith and infinite patience time and time again, Putin would be much better off focusing more towards the east, than the EU, certainly at the present time. I’m sure you’ve noted that Heiko Maas and Merkel just today are both openly discussing a ‘terminator’ clause on Nordstream 2, whereby Russia must insure gas supplies to the Russian-hating neo-nazis in the Ukraine, or risk having Nordstream 2, ‘turned off’. (https://sputniknews.com/world/202102061081994236-german-authorities-discussing-shutdown-mechanism-for-nord-stream-2–reports/)

    In possibly the only thing I will ever agree with Victoria Nuland about is her famous admonition:

    “Fuck the EU”.

    And those who want to contend that Russia is “European” simply ignore the enormous non-European elements of Russia, which is to my mind possibly the most naturally multi-cultural country in the world.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Seraphim
  162. @AnonFromTN

    “You won’t hear any hypocritical sermons about freedom of speech or human rights (both of which are shamelessly trampled in the West) from any Asian leader.”

    Not true in Tokyo and Taipei. Both have to tow the US line (South Korea though does shun that kind of thing)…. Taipei went so brazenly far to appease westerners as to violate a referendum vote against teaching gay marriage in school – to just point black legalize it. That’s like a poison pill even if it were to re-integrate with Mainland China. Undoubtedly the forces at work in the Legislature in Taiwan will try to push it everywhere else in Asia. Thankfully for now they are being held in check by the Mainland. You would think an island territory who has one of the lowest birth rates on the planet and has begun to lose population would be smart enough to not promote these things… But nope. It’s a spiritual wickedness – in the false notion of “freedom”

  163. @Malla

    That is like arguing about the good sides of killing people.

    Good for the earth and the environment. Decomposing bodies can fertilize plants. More living space for the remaining humans etc.

    I hope you get the point.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @Malla
  164. @Prieborn

    You only learn European history to not know what was going on throughout Asia during those times.

    • Replies: @Prieborn
  165. @JM

    So many on here who are ignorant of world history. Where did the west get all that wealth??? Through colonizing other continents. Life and history go in circles…

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @JM
  166. Malla says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    simply ignore the enormous non-European elements of Russia, which is to my mind possibly the most naturally multi-cultural country in the world.

    That is true but 85% of Russian Federation’s population are ethnic Slavic Russians. Russia will always have a strong European element in its nature. Why do you think that all of Asia including Indians and Iranians were super excited when Japan defeated Imperial Russia last century? Because for a first time in a long time an Asian power had defeated an European power.

    There is a movie which addresses this question about Russia

    Russian Ark directed by Alexander Sokurov.
    The whole movie is done in one take!!! Imagine the preparation of the whole set of backgrounds and perfection of performance in one try by the actors.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  167. Malla says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    That is the most idiotic misunderstanding of one of my comments I have ever seen here on this website.

    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
  168. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    Where did the west get all that wealth??? Through colonizing other continents.

    Not true.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  169. Seraphim says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    Isn’t what Lavrov told the EU, albeit more politely?

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  170. Anonymous[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    I could agree with that; the United States of America has been too pure, not evil and Machiavellian enough. Better to be feared than loved.

    Before Trump was elected, major elements of the US Deep State had been pushing for a war with China, sooner rather than later when China would be stronger. The intensifying propaganda campaign involving the Uighurs to help “make the case” is part of that:

  171. @Malla

    No, that is the perfect repudiation of what you tried to champion, colonialism.

    I have never read a more stupid opinion on colonialism than yours. Shit, no wonder you guys can’t develop like the Chinese, you are waiting for the return of your masters.

    That is fucking sad.

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Malla
  172. Sean says:

    Of course, but it has to be that way for America unless they take up the international relations equivalent of Zen Buddhism and contemplate their navel instead of playing the same game every other country that survives is forced to play.

    For China there is absolutely only the zero sum way, and they have that reality in the forefront of their minds because they tried not playing the game and all that happened was they got bullied. colonized and annexed by Russia, Western countries and Japan.

  173. @antibeast

    China cannot be ‘thrown under the bus’. It is the bus-and an electric one with on-board 5G WiFi, too.

    • LOL: antibeast
  174. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    That is true but 85% of Russian Federation’s population are ethnic Slavic Russians. Russia will always have a strong European element in its nature.

    Agree. But almost all those ethnic Slavic Russians live in the ‘European’ part of Russia, as shown in the map below:

    The ‘European’ part of Russia has retained its strong European element as evidenced by its overwhelmingly ethnic Slavic Russian population. But that’s not true outside of the ‘European’ part of Russia where Asian countries share a common border with the ‘Asian’ part of Russia.

    Outside of Moscow, Muslims who comprise 10% of Russia’s population live mostly in the areas bordering the Caucasus beyond which lie Muslim Turkey, Iraq and Iran or in the regions bordering Muslim Central Asia. In other words, Russia has to deal with West Asia and Central Asia, both of which are overwhelmingly Muslim.

    In the Russian Far East, the demographic and economic reality is even more pronounced in Vladivostok which has a population of 600,000 Russians surrounded by East Asian countries with a combined population of 1.5 billion East Asians. Whether those 600,000 residents of Vladivostok are 100% ethnic Russians or not is immaterial to the fact that they have to deal with East Asians as their economic prosperity depends upon cross-border trade/investment with/from East Asian countries. Those ethnic Russians can’t pretend that they’re still living in Eastern Europe for the simple reason that Vladivostok is in East Asia!!!

    Here’s a video of Putin addressing the 5th Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia:

    Lastly, there is no reason why Russia can’t retain its ‘European’ cultural identity but at time same time develop its economic ties to Asia. Russia’s weapons sales go mostly to Asian countries while its oil & gas exports could power the economic engines of East Asia which is home to the second (China) and third (Japan) largest industrialized economies in the world. Putin’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy is actually good for Russia because it reduces Russia’s dependence upon oil & gas exports to European markets. Eastern European countries such as Poland or Ukraine don’t have this ‘Asian’ option which is available only to Russia. And this ‘Asian’ option is what gives Russia its strategic depth which Western European countries such as Germany lacks. Despite its industrial prowess and economic wealth, Germany has no choice but to suck up to the British, French and above all, the Americans who rule the West today.

    • Replies: @Malla
  175. @Sean

    The Uighur horror stories are 100% bulldust. Numerous delegations from Moslem countries have visited Xinjiang over recent years and found that no such ‘genocide’ is occurring. However, real genocides, in Occupied Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria HAVE been committed by Israel’s Western stooges, in pursuit of the ‘Oded Yinon Plan’ and Eretz Yisrael.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Jiminy
  176. @Onan the Barbarian

    Rwanda was a genocide by proxy, effected by US stooges Kagame and Musuveni. It’s the age of outsourcing, after all. As with the genocides committed in the east Congo since, by basically the same forces, or in Angola by US stooge Savimbi, or in Mozambique by Western stooges RENAMO, or by al-Qaeda, Daesh and other Wahhabists conjured up by the USA, UK, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Other peoples than the glorious ‘Judeo-Christians’ have, indeed, committed genocides, but only the ‘Gods Upon the Earth’ have made it a religious festivity.

  177. @Seraphim

    Yes, indeed, and I for one welcomed it enthusiastically as long overdue.

    Hopefully, we’ll see more of it.

    Weakness and subservience is never rewarded by the oligarchs that run the West, and thus strength and resolve against continued insults and sanctions on and against Russia should cause Russian leadership to turn eastward more and more, to avoid the harm that anglo-zionists obviously intend for the Russian peoples. Making nice with psychopathic bullies hell-bent on destroying your nation and plundering your resources never works, and is generally an unwise policy…….

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
  178. Malla says:
    @Astuteobservor II

    No, that is the perfect repudiation of what you tried to champion, colonialism.

    Repudiation? Reread it again, it is an idiotic statement.

    I have never read a more stupid opinion

    You are brainwashed.

    Shit, no wonder you guys can’t develop like the Chinese

    Stop blabbering about nonsense you do not understand. For Indians both Chinese and British are one and the same, for most Indians, the Chinese are the new imperialists, the new British. Of course I do not agree with this. In India, both the British and Chinese face false propaganda by our hyper-nationalists.
    And BTW somehow Hongkong developed way earlier than Mainland China as part of the British Empire. British Rule woz so brutal in HK that the entire Chinese population of Hongkong ran away to Maoist paradise in mainland China. LOL ya rite.

    • Troll: d dan
  179. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    Agree

    In the Russian Far East, the demographic and economic reality

    A large chunk of the Russian Far East can be a difficult place to stay. The natives Siberians are more adapted to live there in the countryside.

    Lastly, there is no reason why Russia can’t retain its ‘European’ cultural identity but at time same time develop its economic ties to Asia.

    Of course. Russia should play the part as bridge in between the European World and the East Asian World. All would benefit by this. As well as Central Asia and Iran down south.
    It is just the Western elites Vs Russia which spoils all these possibilities.

    Despite its industrial prowess and economic wealth, Germany has no choice but to suck up to the British, French and above all, the Americans who rule the West today.

    NATO must fall. After the Warsaw Pact became defunct, NATO should have too.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  180. Sean says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    The allegation was of rape, not extermination. I have no difficulty in believing that they are rapes in those camps, where people are sent to be broken. Rape especially public rape, which seems to common, is a way to break women. Part of the degradation and humiliation is being kept a dozen to a cell with one bucket as the only toilet.

    https://theconversation.com/uighur-muslims-novel-coronavirus-could-become-increasingly-virulent-in-detention-camps-131807
    COVID-19 may evolve greater virulence by circulating in a population of people kept in close, unhygienic quarters, such as the estimated one million Uighur Muslims being held in detention camps in Xinjiang, north-west China. […] Unlike what we’re seeing with COVID-19 now, where people must be more or less mobile to infect others, in a detention camp this constraint on the virus disappears. There it can evolve high specialisation and virulence in the species it’s infecting – in this case, people.

    Just like their cruel wildlife wet markets were twice (2002 and 2019), the Chinese detention camps are nature’s laboratory for creating deadly new disease. But we know Xi won’t listen, just lie.

  181. Malla says:
    @Astuteobservor II


    Britain’s War Against the Slave Trade: The Operations of the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron 1807-1867 by Anthony Sullivan Opposing the Slavers: The Royal Navy’s Campaign Against the Atlantic Slave Trade by Peter Grindal Royal Navy Versus the Slave Traders: Enforcing Abolition at Sea 1808-1898 by Bernard Edwards

    On 16 March 1807, the British Parliament passed The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. In the following year the Royal Navy’s African Squadron was formed, its mission to stop and search ships at sea suspected of carrying slaves from Africa to the Americas and the Middle East. With typical thoroughness, the Royal Navy went further, and took the fight to the enemy, sailing boldly up uncharted rivers and creeks to attack the barracoons where the slaves were assembled ready for shipment. For much of its long campaign against the evil of slavery Britain’s Navy fought alone and unrecognised. Its enemies were many and formidable. Ranged against it were the African chiefs, who sold their own people into slavery, the Arabs, who rode shotgun on the slave caravans to the coast, and the slave ships of the rest of the world, heavily armed, and prepared to do battle to protect their right to traffic in the forbidden black ivory. The war was long and bitter and the cost to the Royal Navy in ships and men heavy, but the result was worthy of the sacrifices made. The abolition of the slave trade led to a scramble for empires.

    • Troll: d dan
  182. Malla says:
    @Temporary Insanity

    Ironically before 1962, Pakistan which also shared a disputed boundary with China, and had proposed to India that the two countries adopt a common defense against “northern” enemies (i.e. China), which was rejected by Nehru, the PM of India, citing nonalignment. In 1962, President of Pakistan Ayub Khan made clear to India that Indian troops could safely be transferred from the Pakistan frontier to the Himalayas. But, after the war, Pakistan improved its relations with China. It began border negotiations on 13 October 1962, concluding them in December of that year. The following year, the China-Pakistan Border Treaty was signed, as well as trade, commercial, and barter treaties. Pakistan conceded its northern claim line in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir to China in favour of a more southerly boundary along the Karakoram Range. The border treaty largely set the border along the MacCartney-Macdonald Line. India’s military failure against China would embolden Pakistan to initiate the Second Kashmir War with India in 1965.

  183. @antibeast

    Yours is a great comment – and indeed is much more detailed than mine. But you laid out much of the detail in the explanation that I didn’t – LOL (including a couple of things I didn’t think of).

    Indeed and Putin knows (and over a decade ago Medvedev gave a speech regarding it..) – which is why I said he was using psychology on his European counterparts. In fact – they knew it as well which is why they made the point about the Urals in the first place. Sure there are ethnic Russians past the Urals – but there is nothing natural about it. I’m not even sure what the people on here were debating – for centuries it has been known as European and Asian Russia… Like you said – it’s not a natural environment for them – but the natives populations are very sparse… A lot of that has to do with the harsh conditions.

    If I may digress for a moment – that is also why the rumor whisperers claiming China wants to take back Outer Manchuria are ridiculous. The young people in North East China keep moving south into the major cities. Population is beginning to decrease of humans and increase in large animals like tigers and leopards and lynx and bears and wolves and large ungulates. Logging and trapping has been banned in many areas.

    But yes — Putin is a highly intelligent man and knows psychology very well. His Eurasian economic union is focused on Central Asia. He knows it is a different culture and like you said even with all that Russia influence during the USSR – those people are still Central Asian and not European. He helped facilitate the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – which is 100% Asian. Putin knows how to talk to his audiences – even if Unz commenters don’t get it..

    • Replies: @antibeast
  184. Jiminy says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    I heard the weger woman’s interview on the ABC radio a couple of days ago, and the truth is that the national broadcaster has become such a propaganda arm of the liberal government, that I would not believe any thing said on it anymore. Another one that pops up now and then is felongong. You have to be suspicious when the yanks are calling for more freedoms for the wegers. This comes from the ones who have been at war with muslims since at least Carters failed attempt at extraction over forty years ago. In fact the US should gladly lend China their services with the drones in bombing muslims, especially at weger weddings. The wedding gift that just keeps giving.

  185. @Malla

    So if it’s not true then what is? You are a supposed Indian and you don’t know how much wealth the Brits extracted from India???? next door – do you not know why the Opium Wars started (hint – Europe was spending all it’s silver in China). Do you not know how many castles and estates were built in England off of the backs of slaves in the sugar trade of the Caribbean (which was like oil wealth today)??? Do you not know why Africa and South America were carved up??? Do you not know the resource extraction????

    People need to stop pretending Europe was a utopia.. Millions and millions of poor Europeans were willing to leave because they were miserable. The way some Unz commenters tell history – there were no plagues – no wars – no poverty – no hunger – no discrimination – no religious quarrels. Europe was always utopia.
    I was just studying something on the Boer Wars in South Africa. Please explain if Europe was so wealthy why you had poor Boers (many of Dutch descent) willing to sail all the way down to the so called “dark continent” and then later walk into the interior of Africa to make a life for themselves (I won’t even touch on what they did to black Africans themselves) and then fight the British. Of course many say “oh the war was only fought because gold was found”… I say “well what else?” – that’s what colonialism and imperialism was always about. To find and exploit new wealth.

    • Replies: @Malla
  186. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    A large chunk of the Russian Far East can be a difficult place to stay. The natives Siberians are more adapted to live there in the countryside.

    Despite the harsh climate, Stalin was able to develop Siberia under extremely brutal conditions by forcing the population transfers of massive numbers of Russians, Tatars, Ukrainians, Chechens, Germans, etc. to Siberia, either as ‘prisoners’ to do forced labor in the Gulag or as a means of uprooting populations hostile to his rule during the Soviet Era. Stalin also recognized the strategic importance of relocating defense industries eastward especially after Operation Barbarossa saw the German Army nearly decimating European Russia. After WWII, Soviet planners later promoted the concentration of defense, mining, heavy and energy industries in Siberia as a means of keeping them safe from potential NATO attacks on European Russia during the Cold War.

    Of course. Russia should play the part as bridge in between the European World and the East Asian World. All would benefit by this. As well as Central Asia and Iran down south. It is just the Western elites Vs Russia which spoils all these possibilities.

    That’s exactly what I meant:

    Russia’s unique geography — not its cultural identity — defines its geopolitical destiny. Russia’s land area is 25% European and 75% Asian while its land border is also 25% European and 75% Asian. Russia needs to contend with the geopolitics of West, Central, North and East Asia which affects its national security, especially in the restive Muslim Caucasus regions of the Russian Federation as well as in the politically unstable regions of West Asia. To this end, Putin’s Eurasian Economic Union is an attempt to promote Russian economic integration with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. In East Asia, Russia needs to counterbalance the US military presence in Japan and South Korea by securing, developing and promoting the Russian Far East as the destination for East Asian trade/investment using Vladivostok as the gateway to the Russian market. The Power of Siberia pipeline is an example of a joint China-Russian project which aims to secure energy supplies as well as promote economic ties between Russia and East Asia.

    The article below is a good summary written by an Indian on the prospects for attracting Asian investors to the Russian Far East:

    https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-long-road-ahead-russia-and-its-ambitions-in-the-far-east-55378/

    • Agree: Malla
  187. @Sparkon

    Not at all… As another noted – European Russians had to be forced to move east of the Urals.. It wasn’t “home” for them.
    If someone is dropped off in the wild – and travels days – are they more likely to see indigenous people’s or find one of those cities where the ethnic Russians live?
    I will use neighboring China as an example. Tibet in way or another first became linked directly with China over 1000 years ago in the Tang Dynasty (though it didn’t become fully part of china until the QIng).. Likewise western Xinjiang first became part of China over 2000 years ago in the Han dynasty. But would anyone call Xinjiang and Tibet – as part of Han culture? Not at all (even though millions of Han people live in those regions.
    It’s not a perfect analogy since western China is still Asia and Han people let the ethnic minorities keep their majority (except in Inner Mongolia) – but it’s not a new concept. The whole point of what Putin was responding to was because the comment made was always how EUROPE looked at it… Europe ends at the Urals. Russia continues – but not Europe. It’s always been accepted there is a European and an Asian Russia.

    Support of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are examples that Putin knows fully well Russia straddles both continents and their varied cultures.
    Australia might want to be a part of Europe – but it’s too far away – so most of it’s trade is with Asia. Putin is smart enough to understand that about eastern Siberia and especially the Far East. He knows how to sweet talk Europeans though..

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @antibeast
  188. Jiminy says:
    @Sean

    In either January or February last year, there was an interview with an Australian scientist who had worked for the CSIRO, concerning the new flu taking hold in China. She laughed when asked about the virus jumping across three different hosts. Basically her reply was that it doesn’t happen like that, not possible.
    All animal trade is sad to see. That’s why a lot of people buy their meats neatly cut up in plastic containers. It’s almost as if there is no connection between what you are buying, and what it once was. I don’t like to see the massive cattle lots that have no shaded areas for the creatures to find relief from the sun. I also don’t like to see those live sheep trade ships in action. But that’s life, and people have to eat.
    But if you’re really worried about where the new flu came from, look into the e-vaping deaths in the US starting from about January 2019. And then the closure of the Maryland bio-lab from about August to April 2020. It just to coincidental to be dismissed.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  189. antibeast says:
    @showmethereal

    The Trans-Siberian Railway was completed in 1904 but large-scale population transfers of Soviet citizens started only under Stalin who banished either ‘prisoners’ or ‘undesirables’ to the Gulags in Siberia, which is historically the ‘Asian’ part of Russia. While Stalin undertook the development of Siberia under extremely brutal conditions, Operation Barbarossa saw the German invasion of ‘European’ Russia which forced Stalin to relocate defense, heavy, energy and mining industries to Siberia during WWII.

    Here’s a research report on the wartime relocation of defense industries to the ‘Asian’ part of Russia east of the Urals during WWII:

    https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/dfc1994postprint.pdf

    The war was also held to have illustrated the virtues of vertically integrated, large scale production for the supply of a mass army with low-cost munitions. Before World War II, defense plants were heavily concentrated in the western and southern regions of the USSR’s European part, often relying on far flung sources of materials and components. In 1941-2, in the war’s chaotic evacuation and conversion phase, a new war economy was laid down around the country’s protected coal, metallurgical resources of the Urals and western Siberia; huge evacuated factories and new workplace communities were grafted onto localities which now experienced their second industrial revolution in ten years. As a result, the centre of gravity of the whole Soviet defense industry was shifted eastward by hundreds of kilometres; its concentration on the territory of the Russian Federation was also strengthened. After the war, despite a westward evacuation in reverse, the new war economy of the Urals and Siberia was kept in existence. The weapons factories of the remote interior were developed into closed “company towns” forming giant, vertically integrated production subsystems of the defense complex; they were literally taken off the map, and their very existence became a closely guarded secret.

    Between 1940 and 1942 the share of the territory east of the Urals in Soviet aircraft factories changed from 7% to 77%, a bigger shift than for any other branch of the defense complex.

    Putin, presumably, knows this historical fact that at the moment the USSR faced its existential threat of being annihilated by the invading armies of Nazi Germany, the ‘Asian’ part of Russia east of the Urals kept the Soviet defense factories out of harm’s way. Why shouldn’t Putin do the same thing that Stalin did and order a ‘Pivot to the East’ in order to escape from NATO forces which are now at the doorstep of Russia? Should Putin trust the ‘White Christian Europeans’ running NATO and just give up on Russia’s nuclear weapons and stop selling high-tech weapons to Asian countries such as India, China, Iran, Syria, etc.? Didn’t Putin know that Russians are the long-lost ‘White Christian European’ brothers of NATO?

    All this talk about US-style ‘identity politics’ is about as relevant as gay porn is to Russia’s national security and strategic interests.

  190. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    You are a supposed Indian and you don’t know how much wealth the Brits extracted from India?

    India was a loss making colony for many decades. France spent a lot more money on its colonies than it got. Iran under Nadir Shah looted more money out of India then any other country in the last 3 centuries. Yet when the last Shah of Iran took over from his Dad Reza Shah,it was still a poor backward country.

    do you not know why the Opium Wars started (hint – Europe was spending all it’s silver in China).

    It was a very simplistic understanding of that trade which included powerful Sephardic jews from Baghdad, Indian merchants making fortunes as well as families from the the USA. It were actions by British Protestant missionaries which played a big part in stopping the trade.

    Do you not know how many castles and estates were built in England off of the backs of slaves in the sugar trade of the Caribbean

    Slavery of blacks still exists in Yemen today. Yemen is full of huge estates and billionaires. LOL

    Do you not know why Africa and South America were carved up??

    Though various European powers had their sway from time to time, South America was dominated by Spain and Portugal. As far as Africa, it was carved up for the primary reason driving colonial conquests – competition and fear among European powers. Fear that the other power one would get access to some strategic location at the expanse of one power.

    Millions and millions of poor Europeans were willing to leave because they were miserable.

    People were miserable throughout the World before the Industrial Revolution. But standard of living in England was higher than standard of living in India when the East India Company folks came there. Just that cost of living in India was cheaper as grain was much cheaper here.

    The way some Unz commenters tell history – there were no plagues – no wars – no poverty – no hunger – no discrimination – no religious quarrels. Europe was always utopia.

    What? No what some counter is the lies written about Europe and the West. no one ever claims Europe was perfect. If you want perfection talk to Indian Nationalists who believe India was perfect before the Muslims and Europeans came here. Or African nationalists who make similar ridiculous claims.

    Please explain if Europe was so wealthy why you had poor Boers (many of Dutch descent) willing to sail all the way down to the so called “dark continent

    Religious persecution. Or dissatisfaction with the dominant religious dogma in the Netherlands at that time.

    I won’t even touch on what they did to black Africans themselves

    Maybe you can touch on what the Zulus did to other blacks and that many black tribes made alliances with Boers and the British to save them from the Zulus.

    that’s what colonialism and imperialism was always about. To find and exploit new wealth.

    Not that simple.

  191. @Seraphim

    Verruckt. This Yahweh worship destroyed classical civilization and needs to be permanently parked. The bloodthirsty Hebrew WarGod is most absolutely NOT Creator. You wallow in sanctimonious bullshit.

    Wake up to the reality of the Book of Thomas to learn something of the real Jesus, rather than the interpolative one found in the Constantinian Roman Imperial bowdlerized and totally interpolated “Bible”.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  192. Prieborn says:
    @showmethereal

    @showmethereal

    “… what was going on throughout Asia during those (what means exactly those) times.”

    What has been invented in Asia: e.g in technology (the use of electricity for daily life, automobiles, power plants etc etc), in science (physics – classical mechanics and electrodynamics, quantum physics etc etc …., in chemistry, in medicine and so on and so forth). What were in those times the contributions from Asia – negligible. From Africa zero. Tell me please what were the original basic contributions from Asia to modern life (don’t forget the computer) as we know it actually.

    By the way, technological and scientific development began in Europe long before the so-called colonization, which was mainly due to the French and the British. Would you really mean, that without contact with the Europeans, Asia and Africa would have developed. And – there is really no evidence, that life goes in circles. What about e.g. the Mayas in that circular case?

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  193. JM says:
    @showmethereal

    “So many on here who are ignorant of world history. Where did the west get all that wealth??? Through colonizing other continents. Life and history go in circles…”

    Only one ignorant of economic history would say that. The wealth was generated almost entirely within the Western nations using raw materials either extracted and processed within or bought at market prices internationally and using domestic (European) labor. If inputs were bought from the colonies they were paid market prices commensurate with and incorporating the labor costs in them. These are today relatively cheaper after 70 years of decolonization than they were then! Time series economic studies done around the time of decolonization. A moment’s thought would indicate that this had to be so – aside from aberrant situations where resources were requisitioned or stolen. The only way that a buyer can attain constant supplies is by using market forces to elicit those supplies. And it’s the same today.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  194. Seraphim says:
    @showmethereal

    When the Chinese and then the whole of Asia adopted the European dress, business suit, necktie and all that, what would you call that?

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  195. anon[406] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Best servent ever, really good at find excuses for your beloved master. Aren’t you? Is this also the mindset of majority India elites?

    Yet maybe it’s not a servent thing ( with such sincere love!) if the high caste Indians believe they are the same people as the ‘master’, they actually are the same, given that they just come to India some hundrad years earlier from the west. It explains well why they feel so belonging when they went back to the west homeland.
    Good luck, homeland, your blood line returns.

    • Replies: @Malla
  196. antibeast says:
    @showmethereal

    I will use neighboring China as an example. Tibet in way or another first became linked directly with China over 1000 years ago in the Tang Dynasty (though it didn’t become fully part of china until the QIng).. Likewise western Xinjiang first became part of China over 2000 years ago in the Han dynasty. But would anyone call Xinjiang and Tibet – as part of Han culture? Not at all (even though millions of Han people live in those regions.

    Poor analogy. Tibet first became part of China after Tibetans invaded parts of the Chinese Empire in today’s Sichuan Province after the Fall of the Tang Dynasty which explains the large numbers of Tibetans living in Sichuan Province today. Xinjiang first became part of China after the Han Dynasty conquered and annexed that region in Central Asia while it was still inhabited by Indo-European Buddhists (Tocharians). Islam arrived after Turkic Muslims invaded the region 1,000 years later. The Uyghurs were originally a Turkic tribe who settled in Xinjiang and became Buddhists after being pushed out of the Eurasian Steppe. The Mongols then conquered the region and adopted the Uyghur script while recruiting the Tibetans as their allies. The Uyghurs didn’t convert to Islam until Turkic Muslims invaded the region after the disintegration of the Mongol Empire.

    Xinjiang is indeed part of Classical Chinese Culture because it is the birthplace of Buddhism in China as depicted in the Chinese epic ‘Journey to the West’ while Tibetan Buddhism became a part of Chinese Civilization as early as the Yuan Dynasty when the Mongols adopted and promoted Tibetan Buddhism as the official religion of the Imperial Court with the Dalai Lama serving the Chinese Emperor as his official tutor.

    The whole point of what Putin was responding to was because the comment made was always how EUROPE looked at it… Europe ends at the Urals. Russia continues – but not Europe. It’s always been accepted there is a European and an Asian Russia.

    My reading of Putin’s reply to Schwab’s question as to status of European-Russian relations is different from yours. Putin was lamenting the antagonistic state of European-Russian relations as ‘unnatural’ by saying that both belong to the same European Civilization which makes Europe and Russia ‘natural’ partners. By implication, Putin was referring to the Elephant in the room, the USA, which has tried ‘divide and rule’ tactics by pitting Europe against Russia.

    However, your interpretation argues against closer ties to Europe due to Russia’s Asian hinterland in Siberia which is responsible for Russia’s close ties to Asian countries like China, India, Iran, etc. Why should Russia’s ‘European’ cultural identity hinder closer ties to Europe at the same time that Russia’s Asian hinterland enables close ties to Asia? Russia can play both cards at the same time which would give it a lot more geopolitical weight in world affairs, something that Western European countries such as Germany, France or the UK can’t possibly offer. The USA is the lone superpower today precisely due to its ability to exert geopolitical influence worldwide, even in regions of the world where its allies have nothing in common culturally with the Anglo-Americans such as the case of Japan in East Asia or Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  197. Anonymous[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Even in China everyone has a VPN to let them access officially censored Western content.

    And yet, in spite of such VPNs’ ready availability, it seems the Chinese are as cohesive, nationalistic and patriotic as ever, with an ability to distinguish the subtle agendas of Western media, with its purely entertainment value.

    Western media has not made anyone in China, Russia, Iran and a host of other nations any more sympathetic to the concerns of Western elites – which is the chief reason for extreme frustration on the part of Western MSM and Hollywood.

    “We don’t get it, it boggles the mind, how can our values and culture find so little resonance in the East? After all, it can subvert most other places on earth. But anywhere East of the Urals and Suez, it simply fails. It has even failed to make inroads in democratic Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore, not to mention Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan – and even such “white” nations as Russia. Why?”

    Why? Simple. The Eastern peoples and their leaders are not desperate to be accepted into the Western Exclusive Club. Learn from the West everything they can, yes. Strive to please the West, an emphatic “LOL, Hell No!”

    But the East runs the gamut from tribes with eternal, immovable identities, such as the Han and the Persians, to such disillusioned applicants to the “exclusive club” as Japan (after World War 2) and Russia (after the Cold War).

    The spell once woven by Western Civilization is well and truly dead. It’s useful ideas have been implemented elsewhere, and it’s no longer unique. It’s best Western elites adjust accordingly.

  198. @Malla

    There’ll be ‘Mallas’ in 100 years rewriting history to let us know of the ‘benevolence’ of the Nazis in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

    • LOL: antibeast
    • Replies: @Malla
  199. @Sean

    You seem prone to believe racist Sinophobic lies sean. The White Man must rule, everywhere, forever, there’s the nub of it. When you get to the throwing Uighur babies in the air then skewering them on bayonets? Must be coming.

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Seraphim
  200. Anonymous[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mefobills

    Do, I need to say it again.. that the west is parasitized, the patient is sick, but it should not be written off as a blip of history.

    Western Primacy IS a blip in history. That is, global dominance by the descendants of those pioneering Europeans starting in 1500 A.D. – that part is, or is soon to be, over permanently.

    BUT:

    Western Civilization, on the other hand, a human civilization, as ONE way for human beings to exist in the boundless universe, THAT IS NOT A BLIP. The West is always and forever, The West.

    The Chinese, the Arabs, the Persians, the Russians – all know this to be true. Not a single other civilization thinks Western Civilization (as distinct from Western Primacy) is going away, nor SHOULD go away, in fact. They want us off their backs, not in the ground.

    Only hate-filled mobs, physical and intellectual, wish to kill Western Civilization – and those mobs are found exclusively in Western lands, never in the lands of other civilizations.

    Destruction comes from within, focus on the affairs of other cultures (e.g. China, Russia, Iran, India, Japan, the Middle East, South America, Africa) serves as distraction.

    To those in the West, in Europe and North America, who equate loss of Western primacy to loss of Western identity – THEY ARE SIMPLY FOOLS. (Have we fallen so far as to equate our very sense of being with our declining power as a race? Please, let it never be so!)

    They are existentially dangerous fools, who might yet start a suicidal World War in futile attempt to “remain on top”. Let us not be led astray by such undeserving “elites”.

    • Replies: @Malla
  201. Seraphim says:
    @Sean

    Accusations of rape are made to coax the #Me Too twats to join the bandwagon of anti-Chinese propaganda.

  202. Sean says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    China is just too bloody big and dangerous whatever its intentions. It is like sharing a bed with an elephant, which if it innocently rolls over in its sleep crushes you. Hardly the elephant’s fault; yours for thinking that there can be a win-win when dealing with something so large and robust.

  203. Malla says:
    @anon

    Instead of making idiotic statements like servants and slaves., debate on facts. Living in lies and propaganda is dangerous. If I were to defend some of the positive sides of Islamic rule in India or debunk some some lies about extreme brutality of the Islamic rulers, based on facts, Hindu nationalists would say the same thing about me. “Servant who loves his master” “shameless Slave”. 100% . Yet lies about the past may lead to Islamic genocide in India.
    If I were to defend China based on facts, in India, Indian Nationalists would say the same, “slave of the CCP”, “agent of foreign enemy China”. Yet basing our understanding of history based on lies may lead to a nuclear war in between India and China.
    You monkeys need to get your head out of your asses.

  204. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Not a single other civilization thinks Western Civilization (as distinct from Western Primacy) is going away, nor SHOULD go away, in fact.

    We all want the West destroyed because the West gives us an inferiority Complex feeling. We too have superiority complex feelings, Hindu Indians, Muslims, Chinese, Arabs, Arab Persians, Wakanda Blacks, Jews etc… we all think we are the most superior civilization, culture and people compared to the other. West gives and gave all of us a collective inferiority complex feeling. Inferiority complex feelings, not to people who in their hearts believe in equality but deep in their hearts believe in their own superiority.

    • Disagree: antibeast
  205. @Prieborn

    The original comment related to the times of the Greek and Roman empires… Like I said – you don’t really know history. Europe’s technological advancement was only in the lead in the last few centuries. The Industrial Revolution is certainly western – but human history is much longer than that. And had there not been colonialism and imperialism there likely would not have been an Industrial Revolution in Europe.

    • Replies: @Prieborn
  206. @antibeast

    “However, your interpretation argues against closer ties to Europe due to Russia’s Asian hinterland in Siberia which is responsible for Russia’s close ties to Asian countries like China, India, Iran, etc. Why should Russia’s ‘European’ cultural identity hinder closer ties to Europe at the same time that Russia’s Asian hinterland enables close ties to Asia?”

    No – that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying Putin was simply playing to the European audience… He knows full well Western Europe looks down on Eastern Europe – let alone going further.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  207. Seraphim says:
    @Majority of One

    Your street hooligan’s language reveals the sewer profundity of your ‘knowledge’ in serious matters wallows.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  208. Anonymous[250] • Disclaimer says:
    @emersonreturn

    More and more, China and Russia are coordinating grand strategy. They do work in tandem.

  209. @JM

    The hilarious thing is that you actually believe what you wrote. But in any event – neither you nor Malla could explain why there was colonization and imperialism and why so many Europeans were willing to risk life and limb if Europe was so independently wealthy. I’m still waiting…

  210. Seraphim says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    It is likely that you’d get at some point in time and the ‘babies in incubators’ meme revived. Two constant themes of war propaganda are: violence against women/rape and child abuse. Propaganda appeals to people’s emotions.

    • Replies: @Sean
  211. Seraphim says:
    @Jiminy

    Is that a coincidence too that almost the entire Canadian team at Wuhan fell sick, that the American cyclist Maatje Benassi (who had contacts with the Maryland bio-lab) fell sick? That the rate of infection in the American Army is very high even today? Not all people have short memory.

  212. Sean says:
    @Seraphim

    We are in the win-win Biden era. This is the Biden who for decades represented Delaware, where laws say you can perfectly legally set up a company without revealing who owns it, so you can cheat the government out of tax. No, I don’t think the US will now be trying to fight China. Fighting to invest in China more like.

    Meanwhile, subtle mercantilism rules China, which is controlling its currency’s exchange rate. American corporations investing in China find they cannot repatriate the profits from their Chinese investments. The productive capacity of China is grown with US capital, which is taken hostage by Xi. The pandemic stimulus money is all going to be invested in China. No one cares about the hundreds of thousands of Muslim women being systematically raped or forced to marry Han men under threat of being had by several at a time in a detention centre, with an audience. There are real conflicts of interest between America and an unscrupulous giant that misled the West over the Covid-19 pandemic heading its way. And that is no lie.

  213. antibeast says:
    @showmethereal

    No – that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying Putin was simply playing to the European audience… He knows full well Western Europe looks down on Eastern Europe – let alone going further.

    Disagree. Putin knows fully well that it is the USA that is trying to ‘divide and rule’ Europe by pitting Russia against Eastern Europe. Ukraine’s so-called ‘Maidan Revolution’ is a good example of this phenomenon as is Trump’s opposition to the NordStream II pipeline project which connects Germany to Russia. These ‘conflicts’ were engineered and orchestrated by the USA for geopolitical reasons which has nothing to do with the cultural identity of Russia.

    The USA did the same thing to the Middle East by pitting Sunnis vs Shiites which exploited the ideological conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians that has nothing to do with their religious doctrines at all. By promoting Wahhabism, the Saudis served as useful idiots to the Anglo-Saxons who supported and armed the so-called ‘Islamic’ terrorists — Al-Qaeda and ISIS — both of which were creations of the CIA/MI6.

    And the CIA/MI6 has been trying to do the same thing to Xinjiang by using the Uyghurs as their useful idiots. China recognizes that ‘Islamic’ terrorism has nothing to do with the religious doctrine of Islam which has had a peaceful co-existence in China for 1,500 years. That whole Wahhabist-inspired, Saudi-financed, CIA/MI6-supported ‘Islamic’ terrorism serves the USA as a geopolitical instrument to destabilize the whole world.

    By the way, the Uyghurs are not indigenous to Xinjiang at all which didn’t become Islamic until Turkic Muslims invaded the region around 1,000AD, long after China had become Buddhist centuries earlier. In that sense, Xinjiang can’t be compared to Siberia which is still home to various indigenous Asian tribes. Siberia is definitely ‘alien’ to Christian Slavs in European Russia while Xinjiang is not ‘alien’ but is renowned for its contribution to Chinese Classical Culture as the birthplace of Buddhism in the same way that Tibet is renowned for its contribution to Chinese Civilization as the birthplace of Tibetan Buddhism which also had ties to the indigenous Tocharian Buddhism in Xinjiang. It is Turkic Islam that is alien to Xinjiang not Classical Chinese Culture.

    • Replies: @Malla
  214. Seraphim says:
    @Sean

    Another efficient technique of propaganda is to instill a sense of victimhood in the target audience. Everyone wants to harm you, to steal from you, hard working, decent, God fearing ‘native’ Americans, innocent victims of sinister conspiracies (Jews, Reds, Chinks, Globalists, Bilderberg gangsters, ‘Deep state’, etc) who hate your ‘way of life’, dead set to take away your ‘freedoms’ and guns.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  215. Anonymous[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sean

    The same media outlets that bleat daily about how evil white men are, about how much systemic racism there is, about how cops are murdering blacks, about how men can be women, etc. apparently can only tell the unvarnished truth when it comes to China.

    I think for most people there’s a default psychological tendency to be suspicious of alien out-groups, which is natural and normal. This means that the media, despite lying about everything else and abusing the majority population domestically, can get away saying almost anything about China.

  216. JM says:
    @showmethereal

    “I’m still waiting…”

    Your ilk are always “waiting”…often begging which you’ve turned into global pest-industry.

    The reason was to widen the market, in the same way that the owners of your Third World sweated labor factories bend over backwards to sell commodities into Western markets.

    By the way, how’s your caste system working out?

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  217. @Sean

    No one cares about the hundreds of thousands of Muslim women being systematically raped or forced to marry Han men under threat of being had by several at a time in a detention centre, with an audience.

    Even if this is true I will disbelieve it because of “Cry Wolf!”. Western propagandists have lied so many times in the past along the same lines. They had no problem finding some Kuwaiti woman to lie about incubator babies so I don’t think it would be a problem for them to find some Uighur women to lie. And considering that these lies often lead to wars that end up killing and raping many more than whatever the lies may have claimed I would rather not give them credence. And anyway the lies are manufactured by those responsible for far worse. After all it is an internal Chinese affair and if they want to solve the problem of their men finding wives in this way at the expense of Muslim men who would prefer to hog four wives each why should I complain.

    • Replies: @Sean
  218. Smith says:
    @showmethereal

    The same reason why there was colonization and imperialism by Asian countries such as China and Japan despite the wealth of these countries.

    Greed, it spares no one, wealthy or poor. It always demands more.

    I shall await the response that China has never done any imperialism and will retort upon that.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  219. Sean says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Neville Chamberlain did not declare war on Nazi Germany because of false atrocity stories or true ones; it simply had nothing to do with it, never does. Reasons of state are decisive in whether a government concludes war is necessary to preserve a balance of power. Once the war is on, there is propaganda, but the rationale for war is always factually based on a clear understanding of the situation. The Covid-19 pandemic, the second novel coronavirus out of China in 18 years, is an affront far greater than many wars have been been declared over. If any casus belli were required the current pandemic would be more than sufficient.

    In Xinjiang if you offend the government, they don’t just imprison you, they have a Han man replace you in the bedroom of your wife and if he thinks she is unfriendly she gets sent to a reeducation facility and your children to orphanages. This is the hostage punishing totalitarian mindset; already coming to know its implications are apparent in the international arena. If the Chinese treatment of animals being inhumane caused Covid-19, and them caging Muslims might cause a disease even worse according to Professor Paul Ewald, then one ought to care about it. I don’t see how China doing deals with a country like Russia that is economically comparable to Australia (in size and resource extraction) is about as win–win as getting in bed with an elephant.

    The Chinese are putting massive pressure on all Australian exports to China at the moment because some Australian companies have put up the price of iron ores that China has to go to Australia for. Australia today Russia tomorrow.

  220. Jiminy says:
    @Sean

    I think a lot of the pressure from China over Australian imports came about due to Trump telling Morrison to put the blame on China – to demand an inquiry over the origin of the Maryland flu. China understandably took this badly, and now billions of dollars worth of imports lie languishing in Chinese ports. Bad news for our economy.
    With something like one and a half million prisoners locked up in the states, you would expect to see rampant, out of control disease coursing through the country’s jails. Is it? And don’t forget that as the new flu was taking hold in China, they were also suffering from swine flu and bird flu as well, if I remember rightly. It was as if they were under attack from several fronts all at once.
    What’s hard to process though, is a country like India, basically a putrid open sewer, with borders to China, never suffers from any of the calamities that always seem to beset China. That’s beyond my pay grade to answer.

    • Replies: @Sean
  221. @Seraphim

    My language employment has full capacity for erudition and masterly proficiency.

    However, when I encounter a BELIEVER of any one size fits all philosophy; there is a felt need to address such an individual in a manner which is capable of cutting through the mumbo-jumbo imposed from a closed-minded systematic paradigm of encapsulated and adumbrated lowered-consciousness.

    One factor which totally disgusts me about ideologically-imposed belief systems is that they are totally closed off to any perspective deviating from their pea-brained determinism. Revealed religions, particularly of the Akhnatonist monotheistic assault on our innate connexion with the entirety of creation; is the most common and advanced form of mind-control ever imposed on a gullible and innocent population.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  222. @Sean

    Whether through ignorance due to failure to access “off message” sources and a consequent reliance on Main$cream Media under the total control of no more than $IX very well connected to the ruling Sanhedrin Zioni$ts; your point of view that the virus originated in China and possibly constituting bioweaponry employed against the rest of mankind, strikes me as short-sighted and lacking vital off-setting information.

    Much like the Sars virus and AIDS; it is more than slightly possible that Covid-19, which was actually patented in 2015; was developed by the U$ Army’s biological-warfare entity. One possibility of which I have read is that the lab in question was a branch of the Fort Detrick, Maryland headquarters of that military entity—the lab being located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina at that state university’s main campus.

    Doctor Alan Cantwell has published material which heavily indicates that the 3 primary forms of the AIDS virus was developed at Fort Detrick in the late 70’s and that the first use of the one variant was included in Hepatitis-B vaccines distributed among gay men in New York City during the onset of the 80’s.

    Please do some research in depth before segueing in with the Deep $tate’s anti-China memes currently saturating the Ma$$ Media of me$merization, misinformation and Ma$$ mindfuckery.

  223. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    It is Turkic Islam that is alien to Xinjiang not Classical Chinese Culture.

    That is why Hinduvadis think Islam is a foreign to the Indian subcontinent and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) is a weird alien creation on historical Hindu-Jain-Buddhist Indian Subcontinent. That is also the point Indian Nationalist make about Kashmir as well. Kashmir was a Hindu Buddhist center of learning (many great Hindu sages came from Kashmir like Rishi Bhagwat) before Prophet Mohamed was even born. Kashmir and the region of Pakistan was a major contributor to Indian native Hindu and Buddhist culture and thus many Hindu nationalists consider Pakistan illegitimate fake construct and whose ultimate fate is one day to reunite with Mother India.
    According to the firebrand Indian nationalist Leader and freedom fighter from the British Empire, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar also known as Veer Savarker in India (Veer Savarkar=Brave Savarkar)Vinayak Damodar Savarkar firebrand Indian nationalist leader, Hindutva leader who fought against British Empire and the idea of Pakistan.
    According to him, all religions whose holy-lands are outside the Indian Subcontinent (Islam and Christianity) belong to an alien heritage and have no place in bahrat-varsha or the Indian Subcontinent. Savarkar wrote “Their [Muslims’ and Christians’] holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and Godmen, ideas and heroes are not the children of this soil. Consequently, their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin. Their love is divided”. Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar: Hindutva, Bharati Sahitya Sadan. If Muslims in India want their own country it would have to be somewhere in Arabia.
    While two or two hundred nations that consider themselves separate from the Hindus have presently entered Hindusthan by force and are demanding Partition of Hindusthan, it is not by a woolly-headed and cowardly denial of this fact but rather by understanding, facing and changing it shall an independent, undivided and indivisible Hindu nation alone shall without doubt, remain in Hindusthan (Hindustan=All of British India/ Indian Subcontinent). But as in our history when the Hindu Nation successfully rallied under the Hindu Flag, the Hindus should come forward and rise unitedly…..We should not confuse between nation and state. Even if the state goes, the nation remains. When the Mussulmans were ruling over us, the government (state) was theirs. But the existence of the Hindus was most certainly intact. In the past, we had nations (Rashtra) such as Maharashtra, Saurashtra, Devrashtra (near Berar). Where are these nations? They mingled with each other. The Shakas (blond Scythians from Central Asia) and Huns came to Hindusthan as nations. But what is the evidence of their existence today? We digested them.”

    Further according to Savarker
    A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharatvarsha, from the Indus to the seas, as his Fatherland as well as his Holy Land, that is, the cradle of his religion.”
    In order to possess Hindutva, a man must regard India (Entire Indian subcontinent) as his “fatherland” (the land of his ancestors, pitr-bhumi) and his “holy land” (the land where he accumulates the fruits of good karma, punya-bhumi); he must be attached to this land, this territorial expanse called “Bharat” through the fact of his birth there, through ties of blood to his family, his forefathers, his race of fellow-Hindus, and moreover through a love for Hindu “civilization” (sanskriti) “as represented in a common history, common heroes, a common literature, a common art, a common law and a common jurisprudence, common fairs and festivals, rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments.”

    The Partition of India outraged many majority Hindu nationalist politicians and social groups. Savarkar and members of the Hindu Mahasabha were extremely critical of Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership. They accused him of appeasing the Muslims. Some Hindu nationalists also blamed Gandhi for conceding Pakistan to the Muslim League via appeasement. Also, they were further inflamed when Gandhi conducted a fast-unto-death for the Indian government to give Rs. 550 million (a portion of the money Great Britain paid to British India during Independence ) which were due to the Pakistan government, but were being held back due to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. This led to Savarkar’s disciple Nathuram Godse to assassinate Gandhi. Godse surrendered himself to the police immediately and remained unapologetic till the end in court for this actions. Indian nationalists consider Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse a martyr and hero for the nation.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @antibeast
  224. @Sean

    Chinese are far from angels and I’m not fond of them in general, but it is the Muslims who have been planting bombs, killing and raping all over the West and not the Chinese, and now you want me to side with Muslims against the Chinks. So now you’ve got this Covid-19 that you claim China released on the world but the origin is far from certain and yours is a minority view on UR. Lots of Chinese customs are unpleasant, at least unpleasant to us, but as long as they practice them in their own country I don’t care, even if they were to eat the panda bear! It is the Muslims who spread their own vile practices everywhere and you should be more concerned about what they do to your own people in your country than what the Chinks do to them over there.

  225. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    But in any event – neither you nor Malla could explain

    Simple history lesson.
    Colonialism started when Europeans wanted to break the monopoly of the Middle Easterners in the spice trade in between the Indies and Europe, after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. If the Turks would have not conquered Constantinople, there is a possibility colonialism might have never taken place.
    In the earliest days of Colonialism, the MAIN MARKET WAS EUROPE. Europe’s wealth had increased creating a wealthy class who consumed global goods. To break the monopoly of trade in these goods of the Muslims + Venetians, the Portuguese and Spanish first went forth. Their primary aim were the Indies (Indian Subcontinent + South East Asia) and that is why these Companies were called the East Indian Companies. French East India Company, British East Indian Company. In trying to reach East Indies, they discovered West Africans and on the other side, the Americas. That is why the Caribbean are called the WEST INDIES (as against the East Indies) and they mistook native Americans as Indians and hence they were called INDIANS.

    What these European companies wanted was not conquests but MONOPOLY OF TRADE in the trade in between the Indies and Europe in these Luxury goods Versus other European Companies.
    After that the main driving force of more conquests and colonialism was to deny the other European power monopoly in such trades. It was this rivalry which led to early colonial conquests.

    The rivalry in between the Britsh EIC and Dutch VOC led to the Dutch conquest of Java out of Dutch fears about the English. The British came to India to trade. But rivalry with other European powers especially the French led to the conquest of India. The earliest conquest of Indian regions of India by the English was primarily because of rivalry with France. It was originally France which started interfering in Indian affairs forcing the British to do the same in response out of fear of losing trade rights in India. Before that the English policy was to not interfere in local affairs much but just concentrate on trade. India for a while (especially) South India was going more French than British. However French ambitions depended on one person Joseph François Dupleix, a Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of. However the French East India Company Directors lambasted Dupleix to not waste energy and money on conquests and empire buildings but concentrate on trade. The French themselves were only interested in trade in India, that was their policy, it was Dupleix who started interfering which the South Indian powers also supported for their own interests.
    Must add that many Indian powers like Hyder Ali of Mysore and Bahadur Jung were friends of Dupleix and unlike the French East India Company directors, the local powers were not complaining about his actions. The Indians wanted French artillery and to use French troops to defeat their enemies.
    Unfortunately the brilliant Dupleix met his match with the equally brilliant Englishman Robert Clive (who founded the bedrock of British Conquest of India), another Napoleonic type figure of whom Empire builders are made of too.

    Also European Wars spilled over in to far sides of the World. British was fighting France while at the same time British troops + their Native American allies were fighting French troops + their Native American allies in North America while at the same time British troops + their Asian Indian allies were fighting French troops + their Asian Indian allies in the Indian subcontinent.

    To give you an idea, 30% of India was princely states. Until 1947, the British Govt policy was that no Princely Sate could hire a non British European without British approval. Why this fear? Because many Indian powers who fought the British had links with either the French or the Dutch and hired these Europeans in their armies. That fear of the other European still remaine din law till 1947!!! Once India was conquered, the French and Dutch were no longer threats for the British but another European Power, Czarist Russia. This led to the great game in between Russian and British Empire in Afghanistan and Tibet. Russian expansion in the far East scared Japan who too was pushed into conquering territories to protect its security and interests.
    In Gold Coast/Ghana West Africa, the Ashanti had good relationship and were allies the Dutch while the Fante were similarly allied with the English. The Ashanti hated the English but loved the Dutch and the Fante enemies of Ashanti hated the Dutch but loved the English. The Europeans used their African allies against the other European enemies but the Africans too used their European allies against their other African enemies.
    Many a times some native power voluntarily became part of an Empire by signing treaties to protect them from a powerful belligerent local power. Example, the African Swana made an alliance with the British (earlier they had such an alliance with the Afrikaners) to protect them from the Zulus. The fierce warlike Rajputs made a similar deals with the English East India Company to protect them from the high taxes and constant raids of the Maratha Confederacy. Hindu Travancore State in South India voluntarily became an English protected state to protect them from the invasion of Tipoo Sultan, during whose invasion Moplah Muslims massacred thousands of innocent Hindus. A combined Travancore + British force defeated Tipoo Sultan when the Hindus started massacring Muslims as revenge. it was only the timely intervention of the British East India Company Officers which stopped the revenge massacre of Muslims by Hindus. The Travancore Kings considered the English as a great people even if they never got along with the Dutch.

    Inter European (including) Russia competition and fears drove colonial conquests. That was followed by the entry of the USA and Japan. It were fears and insecurities in between these powers which drove colonial conquests even if the Colonial Empires over all were expensive.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  226. Malla says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    100 years? We have scholarly discussions about this right now on Unz. You must be a certified nutcace to believe that the same USA which lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the same USA and their allies (Commies and all) did not lie and make propaganda against the Axis powers. History is written by the winners and sometimes by the whiners.

  227. Malla says:
    @Malla

    Here we see PM Modi giving his respects to Indian Nationalist Leader as well as anti-Pakistan Hindutva Leader Veer Savarker.

  228. Malla says:
    @JM

    Very true, Colonialism in most cases was a loss making enterprise. That is why after decolonization, Europe boomed and the Great divergence in between Europe and the Third World increased for decades after decolonization, not decrease.
    Lets take the French Empire for example, French colonization cost more than it yielded 2 years out of 3. 2.1 % of French GDP was spent on an average in French colonies each year during about a century…
    That is 3 times more than the OECD recommendation established in 1969 for ODA (0,7% of GDP).
    That is overall the equivalent of 7 European Recovery Program (“Marshall Plan” as they say in France) that was GIVEN, not lent, to the colonies by France.
    This is a proven fact by French historians(cf Jacques Marseille and Daniel Lefeuvre works).
    And what about soldiers of French colonies during WW1 and WW2 ? Historian Marc Michel showed that soldiers of French colonies during WW1 and WW2 didn’t suffer more % losses than French soldiers. They rather suffered a little less losses.

    This Europe looted third world is all part of crackpot Marxist theories. See crackpot Marx believed that Communism will come after Capitalist Industrialization and after it inevitably fails. In Marx’s dream it was not Russia who would become Communist. Tzarist Russia was industrializing very fast but by the time of the October revolution , it was still quite agrarian. Same with China at that time. Sure parts of China were Industrializing, especially Manchuria was part of the Japanese Empire or some parts of European enclaves, even KMT ruled areas were seeing industrialization, but China was not an industrialized country then when it went Communist. Same with Vietnam. These were not the nations who were supposed to go Communist when they went Communist but highly industrialized countries like Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, Japan etc… And these countries had Communist parties who tried to push Communism. After all the Indian Communist Party, like so many Communist parties in the Empire, came from the British Communist party. But after all that trying they failed, the labour unions of these Western European (or Japanese) did not trust them enough. Thus crackpot marx’s crackpot theory came out wrong. Capitalist Industrialized countries did not collpase and go Communist. To explain this anomaly, the commie monkies came up with theories like the Capitalist countries export their excess production on their colonies. Voila. But any look at trade figures would show that only a small part of their trade were with their colonies. But this crackpot theory stuck. India is considered a famous example of this. Later a guy named Dadabhoy Norowji, a rich Parsi Indian highly involved in socialist circles in Britain wrote some paper in early 1900s about how Britain was “looting” India by importing raw material like Cotton and exporting finished goods like garments. This guy is considered the “Grandfather of India” today like how Gandhi is officially “father of the nation”. But any look at trade figures would show that British mills hardly used Indian cotton as Indian cotton was of low quality (it still is now a days as told to me by a textile Engineer from Bangladesh). British mills were using primarily American cotton followed by Egyptian cotton. Indian cotton was rarely used. It was only during the US Civil war did Indian cotton get used significantly in British mills as American cotton was hard to acquire. Indeed it was Japan in the early 1900 who imported the most Indian cotton not Britain. Thus actually Britain was actually “exploiting” America by this idiotic crackpot theory!!!! LOL. Yet this theory is touted everywhere. And this modern bullshit theory that Europe became rich on the back of their colonies. Which is bullshit.
    If this would be true, there was no way that Germany with its tiny Empire would become an economic challenge to the Anglo-French with their huge combined Empires. Portugal which was a colonial power for longer and had a larger Empire would have been a better contender than Germany. But that was not the case. The truth is the economic force driving the prosperity of these countries was not colonies but the massive Industrialization and the high IQ, highly productive workforce (Working class and middle class) of these metro-pole nations like Britain, Japan, Germany, France, Netherlands etc…

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  229. Malla says:
    @JM

    Anyways Check this out

    The case for colonialism, with Dr Bruce Gilley
    Dr Bruce Gilley is professor of political science at Portland State University.
    Bruce Gilley faced the cancel-culture mob back in 2017, when a piece he wrote, for the journal Third World Quarterly, on the benefits of colonialism was met with death threats and calls for his firing!!!

    Also
    The Great American economist Milton Friedman on Colonialism

    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. Specifically he asks Friedman to account for the effect that having free labor derived from slavery allowed them to enrich themselves, and how the possession of colonies allowed rich countries to bleed wealth out of their colonial domains. Friedman responds by claiming it’s simply untrue that the wealth that arose in Western countries was due to slavery. Slavery was a disgrace and a blot on the United States’ record, but many rich Western nations did not have slavery. Britain and Japan did not have slaves when they developed and Hong Kong does not have slaves today. He goes onto claim that the facts are against the notion that the wealth was created due to the West exploiting its colonies. 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. (5:44 minutes in the above video) 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.

    One must remember that Finland has a higher standard of living than Portugal, Finland which had no colonies and Portugal who was the European power with colonies for the longest period of time. not only Finland had no colonies, but it was once part of the Swedish Empire and later of the Russian Empire. The Finns later faced a devastating invasion from the Soviet union where the brave heroic Finns fought like lions and made the Soviet Communist aggressors bleed. Impressed even Stalin.
    European nations as well as the USA and Japan became prosperous by the same technique mainland China has become financially powerful today, by large scale industrial manufacturing coupled with rise in education and healthcare and using its high IQ disciplined workforce. Not colonies. Hell even the USSR became powerful using the same technique of large scale industrialization.
    Indeed Ethiopia, a nation known from biblical times was not really colonized except for a very short period by the Italians (when the “evul” Fascists banned slavery and set slaves free! Oy vey). Ethiopia later went Communist under the Derg and was far more Communist than under Italian rule. In 1991, after Communism collapsed, Ethiopia was a shithole. According to Marxist and anti-colonial theory, Ethiopia should have been rich and Finland poor. Did not happen, their theories are crackpot and rubbish. Yet millions of unthinking brainwashed clowns parrot this bullshit.

    • Troll: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  230. Smith says:

    I also disagree with Malla and the others here. Europe did loot the 3rd world, not only in resources but manpower also, but Europe was not the only continent guilty of that.

    The only way forward is through industrial development that serves the people, and not relying on aany big countries.

  231. Seraphim says:
    @Majority of One

    You are confusing your orbicularis oris muscle with your anal sphincter.

    • Replies: @Majority of One
  232. @Malla

    So they colonised all those countries just so they could stick some flags on some maps and show off how much of the world they controlled and fought wars so as to see who would dominate in this board game of maps and flags? Or the Brits invaded India just out of the goodness of their hearts to civilise the primitives and build them sewers and toilets so they wouldn’t have to defecate in the streets? I don’t think so.

    “How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
    And lied about it”

    https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india

    But anyway, if colonialism was an expense to the colonising powers, as you claim, that surely makes no “case for colonialism”. The only “case” for it must have been that it was profitable.

    • Thanks: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Malla
  233. @Bardon Kaldian

    “Democracy”

    Or

    How to spot an ineffective glownigger shill.

    Nobody, nobody with two brain cells cares about your Vagino-Anal ideology. I am glad muttmerica and the post Axis (((West))) will be exterminated.

  234. @JM

    Imperialism was to “widen the market”??? LOLOLOL. So extracting resources from other lands is going to open their market up as new customers??? Where did you get your education?

    Caste system? I’m not an Indian. What are you talking about???

    • Agree: d dan
  235. @Seraphim

    I’m not sure of the relevance of your question… But I think it is silly… Though not all of Asia has converted. Actually that is one thing I respect about Indian leaders… They wear their traditional clothing even when hosting western leaders.
    In any event – Japan was the first to do so – and they did it in order to be accepted by the west. China followed later for the same reason. But all of Asia does NOT dress like Europeans.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @antibeast
  236. Sean says:
    @Jiminy

    Quite possibly playing America’s sidekick was part of it, but diplomatic face and commercial logic are not separable. Politically and economically, China is now a behemoth that it is perilous to affront in any way, even inadvertently. Australia mining companies long had a relationship to supply its high quality iron ore to Japan at a predictable price; China negotiated a looser arrangement. What the Australian government never envisioned was that if Rio Tinto ECT put the prices up on Chinese buyers then all Australia would be punished.

    Australian government has been taught they must be involved in the business decisions of mining companies to avoid across the board punitive measures against all Australian exports to the world’s largest and fastest growing market. Rio is finding that China is now exploring suppliers of iron ore all over the world as potential rivals and maybe the iron ore business with China will even be ended. No such thing as an indispensable country to China; all trade between them and Australia is now in doubt. The mistake is opening up opportunities for other counties even supposed allies in Five Eyes. A China trade deal has just been concluded with New Zealand; they were in there like a rat up a drainpipe.

    Western prisons are spacious en suite accommodation extended vacation for arrogant young men when compared to Chinese detention camps . In Xinjiang Harmless civic minded folk are sent without limit of time to be totally broken by filthy degradation and maltreatment without ever having done anything that would be a crime in the West. Crucially, they know their whole community is being crushed culturally and even genetically with forced marriage to Han men and rape of wives whose husbands are confined. They are hopeless, but have to look happy about it. Ewald’s concern is quite legitimate, and we don’t know what goes on in those camps; I would not put it past the Chinese to control a potential virulence problem by paroling all detainees at an infected facility up the chimney. Along with the guards too. Ewald’s example of a disease evolving greater virulence is the second wave of the 1918 influenza burgeoning forth out of WW1 trenches. There is a rapidly spreading Californian variant of Covid-19, not an Alaskan one.

    As for India: poor urban Indians are born and bred and live in a sea of infection that others would not last a week in. Yet, wealthy Indians have a much higher rate of Covid-19 than those on the bottom of society. From that I take it there is a lot of generalized innate immunity to infection by pathogens of the coronaviruses family (includes common cold) in Indian slumdogs.

    • Replies: @Jiminy
  237. @Malla

    You have an incredible knack for writing a lot – but saying little. You really could reduce your comments by 75% to get your point across.

    “What these European companies wanted was not conquests but MONOPOLY OF TRADE in the trade in between the Indies and Europe in these Luxury goods Versus other European Companies.”

    There – you proved my point… It was all about GAINING WEALTH. And Europeans were willing to risk life and limb because they were not as wealthy as they became by the time of the Industrial Revolution. Millions of Europeans were willing to migrate in hope of exploiting the new resources to gain wealthy they couldn’t attain in Europe. Once Europe became industrialized and got wealthy (I’m skipping the impact of the 2 world wars) – the migration slowed. That’s why Canada and and Australia and the US started opening up migration to non whites…

    Colonizers gave up their empires when the cost of maintaining them became too much… NOT BEFORE they looted them of natural and human resources.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  238. Seraphim says:
    @showmethereal

    You mean to say that ‘not all of Asia’ dress like Europeans. But all want to drive cars.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @antibeast
  239. @Smith

    When did China’s borders expand??? By sea – it was to expand fishing… On land – most often it was because a neighboring tribe attacked and after defeating them they took their land. China was most expansionist under Mongol and Jurchen rule. When under Han rule it was expansion for security purposes of subduing an attacking foe. For instance – Korea became a tributary of China for almost 1000 years… In China’s tributary system – China didn’t control the resources of that state… And part of the system was that in the exchange of tribute – China lavished on it’s vassal. In the long run that wasn’t good for business.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @Smith
  240. antibeast says:
    @showmethereal

    I’m not sure of the relevance of your question… But I think it is silly… Though not all of Asia has converted. Actually that is one thing I respect about Indian leaders… They wear their traditional clothing even when hosting western leaders. In any event – Japan was the first to do so – and they did it in order to be accepted by the west. China followed later for the same reason. But all of Asia does NOT dress like Europeans.

    Sun Yat-sen adopted the ‘Zhong-San’ suit which is a ‘Chinese-style’ dress later popularized by Mao to become the standard dress for Chinese men in the PRC. Chiang Kai-shek, on the other hand, always appeared in public wearing his military uniform, even after WWII, when he retreated to Taiwan where he ruled as a military dictator until his death. Japan was the first East Asian country to have adopted the ‘Western’ style suit-and-tie dress, followed by South Korea and Taiwan. In China, ‘Overseas Chinese’ investors popularized the ‘Western’ style suit-and-tie dress which was quickly adopted by Chinese businessmen. Chinese officials started wearing the ‘Western’ style suit-and-tie dress, after East Asians had done the same, in order to appear ‘businesslike’ to East Asian investors who were the first to move their factories to China after Deng’s market reforms.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  241. antibeast says:
    @Seraphim

    You mean to say that ‘not all of Asia’ dress like Europeans. But all want to drive cars.

    Not all of Asia want to drive cars. East Asia is big on public transportation such as high-speed rail while China and Japan are investing heavily in and building up the high-speed rail infrastructure of Southeast Asian countries.

  242. Jiminy says:
    @Sean

    I’d have to agree with you concerning the lost imports. That’s why China’s future lies with the BRI leading all the way to Africa. Eventually, in theory China should really have no need for any of its old legacy markets, when you consider what it can gain from its westward march. Of course Australia’s loss is someone else’s gain. We may be seeing the beginning of a boom and bust cycle.
    I have never had the pleasure of spending time in an American prison, so I can only go by what I have read and seen of course. And from what I’ve seen, they are not the Hilton hotel. Bodies are packed in. Instead of single cells, some have the appearance of a vast open hall with many bunks lined up. Now if this new flu is as contagious as we’re led to believe, then those prisoners need to be double masked, living at least six feet apart, have separate partitions, clean outside air flow. Even the guards should keep to one wing. You get the idea. The list changes every week. In fact I would accept that the jailed wegers are all contagious, if the same is occurring in prisons all over the western world. But it’s not.
    Nobody seems to lose sleep over India’s wetmarket, live animal trade though. And combine that with cows, dogs, elephants and people taking a dump in the streets, on the beaches, in the drains. What you have is a veritable stewing pot of possible life-threatening vectors.
    But really, nobody should fear India because India is a ally of the USA. It’s no threat.

    • Replies: @Sean
  243. Malla says:
    @Commentator Mike

    How Britain stole $45 trillion from India

    There was no 45 trillion dollars in India to steal from. It is like saying I stole 1 million dollars from a person whose net worth was 100000 dollars. This 45 trillion nonsense was first postulated by a Professor of Marxist theory not even a professor of economics. this theory was never put in a peer reviewed journal but she came out in front of the pres and said it. The leftist press as usual lapped it up.

    So they colonised all those countries just so they could stick some flags on some maps and show off how much of the world they controlled and fought wars so as to see who would dominate in this board game of maps and flags?

    Again misunderstanding, they stuck those flags our of fear that some other power would take that piece of territory and have control over the strategic location, resources and markets which could be denied to them at times of war. If Europe would have been one country (incl Russia), there would most likely had not been European colonization. That would leave out USA and Japan though.

  244. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    You have an incredible knack for writing a lot-but saying little.

    You have an incredible knack of reading a lot and understanding little.

    There – you proved my point

    No you assumed I proved some of your idiotic point.

    It was all about GAINING WEALTH

    The Muslims before that who monopolised the trade in between the Indies and Europe did it out of charity. not for gaining wealth? Ya sure. Also as Europeans started trading with the Indies directly, the Islamic Middle Eastern world slowly started becoming poorer with time.
    Also you ignore the fact that the Turkish conquest of Constantinople, an important city situated on the borders of Europe and Asia triggered this desire for seeking a new route. Also that the Spanish and Portuguese had just emerged from centuries of foreign Islamic domination.
    And the market was Europe, rich Europeans. To sell exotic Asian goods to rich Europeans. They used their superior naval technology and naval skills (something the Europeans always had an edge over Middle Easterners) to find a way across Africa and then out compete the Muslims. They later started selling goods to each other (Asian goods to Africans, Native American goods to Europeans in return of native Americans goods to Europeans etc…) via their naval routes.
    You think when Baghdad was the richest place on Earth with highest per capita income, Arabs were not involved in trade to make more money? What concoction do you smoke sir?
    Also you forget that the early English traders who made money in Bengal dreamt of going to England and joining the rich aristocracy. That means there were already rich aristocrats back home making their wealth out of England itself.

    Millions of Europeans were willing to migrate in hope of exploiting the new resources to gain wealthy they couldn’t attain in Europe.

    So were Chinese and Indians if given the chance.

    NOT BEFORE they looted them of natural and human resources.

    There was no looting of natural and human resources. It is a myth. I have explained this pretty well.

  245. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    Once Europe became industrialized and got wealthy (I’m skipping the impact of the 2 world wars) – the migration slowed.

    Rhodesia was settled by Anglos when Britian was highly industrialized and had a high per capita income. Also Europe for a long time was also a very densely populated part of the World. There are always going to be people in relatively well off places who want to make more money,to get cheap vast tracts of land, who wants to trade etc… There were times when the per capita income of Australia and New Zealand within the British Empire overtook that of Britain.

    That’s why Canada and and Australia and the US started opening up migration to non whites…

    That is for race replacement as many articles here on Unz have revealed. Besides in those days the difference in standard of living even during the early period of the Great Divergence was small. In 1600, when the English East India Company was formed, Britain had a per capita income twice that of India. Now it is multiple times that, not due to “colonial looting” but due to higher productivity of British labour and high industrialization.

    Anyways on my earlier point
    Also you forget that the Great Divergence in between Western Europe and the rest of the World predates colonialism and continued after decolonization. In the earliest period of East India Company trade in India, Indian labour wage was only 17% of British labour wage on a silver wage but 70% of British labour wage on Wheat wage. Which in other words means wheat was cheaper in a large food producing bread basket like India compared to Britain. Indians on nominal terms earned far less than Britishers but because cost of food was less,in PPP terms the difference was lessor. Well, that is still the case today!!! The average Indian earns far less than the average Britisher on absolute terms but the cost of living in India is still cheaper than that in Britain today. Nothing much has changed.

    You also cannot explain why Ethiopia which was more or less never colonized, remained a shithole by Industrial society standards but quite well off by pre-Industrial Agricultural age standards in 1970s.

  246. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    That is why Hinduvadis think Islam is a foreign to the Indian subcontinent and Pakistan (and Bangladesh) is a weird alien creation on historical Hindu-Jain-Buddhist Indian Subcontinent. That is also the point Indian Nationalist make about Kashmir as well. Kashmir was a Hindu Buddhist center of learning (many great Hindu sages came from Kashmir like Rishi Bhagwat) before Prophet Mohamed was even born. Kashmir and the region of Pakistan was a major contributor to Indian native Hindu and Buddhist culture and thus many Hindu nationalists consider Pakistan illegitimate fake construct and whose ultimate fate is one day to reunite with Mother India.

    Islam was indeed foreign to South Asia but so were the Indo-Aryans who either invaded or migrated to the Harappan civilization located in the Indus River valley. Its two large cities, Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, were located in present-day Punjab and Sindh provinces of Pakistan, respectively. Its extent reached as far south as the Gulf of Khambhat located in the present-day Gujarat province of India and as far east as the Yamuna River in Northern India today. And remember too that the Harappan civilization was the creation of Iranian settlers who had intermixed with native South Asians. The same thing probably happened to the Indo-Aryan settlers who intermixed with the natives of the Harappan civilization in the Indus River valley to create the Vedic civilization of Aryan India.

    The Indo-Aryans had nothing to do with Buddhism which was created by the East Asian tribes living in today’s Nepal, as an alternative to the Brahminical caste-system of the Vedic religion created by the Indo-Aryans. That’s why the Brahmins became hostile to Buddhism which they succeeded in destroying after the end of the Maurya Empire which saw Ashoka the Great promote Buddhism to become the world religion it is today.

    So, yes, Muslim India is definitely the historical legacy of the Muslim conquests of South Asia which is also true in Muslim Iran and much of Muslim Central and West Asia today. But Indian Hindutvas suffer from collective amnesia when it comes to the crimes their Brahmin ancestors committed against Indian Buddhists while claiming victimhood under Muslim conquerors and British colonialists. In Buddhism, that’s called ‘karma’.

  247. Smith says:
    @showmethereal

    This map shows the expansion of China since the Warring state era (pre-Qin era):
    Please tell me when did China borders expand, you massive liar and hypocrite. The actual China is small.

    China was most expansionist under Mongol and Jurchen rule.

    So it doesn’t count now? Does China under Han rule relinquish areas conquered by Mongol and Manchuria?

    When under Han rule it was expansion for security purposes of subduing an attacking foe.

    USA attacked Iraq and Afghanistan under the same logic, for security purpose.

    In China’s tributary system – China didn’t control the resources of that state…

    Why does Korea have to give China’s tribute in the first place? This is the same tribute system that westerners use in Asia, protection money, if you don’t pay, we invade you.

    These are chinese who make excuse for imperialism and colonialism and proud of it. The exact sycophants as the USAians, except under chinese skins. Don’t defend them, point them out.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  248. Sean says:
    @Jiminy

    The Indians are not so batty about soup, nor do they consume scaly anteaters as an aphrodisiacal. Well there was a novel coronavirus from a camel that caused a high mortality epidemic in Saudi Arabia during 2012 (MERS), so yes it can come from anywhere and India is not an unlikely place. But the thing about China is Western experts were warning the Chinese about the wildlife wet markets since SARS in 2002 came out of one.

    Covid-19 could have killed a third of the people infected with it, some estimated SARS as having been of that lethality. There is no trade-off whereby the more transmissible the less lethal. So if something like the Outbreak movie pandemic comes out of China in a few years and kills 33% of the Western population, will we be justified in blaming China then? If they would just stop being cruel to animals and people like the advanced Westerns democracies are asking them, then none of this would be a worry. Xi lied to Boris and Trump about what was heading their way. Getting rid of Trump by tricking the West over Covid-19 turned out to be a zero sum, whereby China benefited from disaster befalling America.

    • Replies: @Jiminy
  249. Jiminy says:
    @Sean

    Depending on what figures you read, do people die from or with the new flu? Opinions vary, even amongst professionals.
    So far I have not seen reports of the virus spreading through eating cooked food.
    Also, why aren’t western governments telling India to cease and desist all live animal wet market trade? (Ally of US).
    Surely we don’t want to see a deadly virus spontaneously erupt from that country as well.
    Some might ask was SARS a training run?
    And that earlier camel virus was a strange event. Australia has the largest population of camels on the planet, and yet we didn’t suffer from the virus. (Ally of Us).
    Why would another more lethal pandemic come out of China in a few years? I think whoever planned this won’t get another chance to release a virus on Chinese soil.
    And of course how can we forget Event201. Talk about a coincidence.
    Maybe the US has a minority report style precognition program run by advanced AI telling them what to expect next.

    • Replies: @Sean
  250. @showmethereal

    The lot of you attack the pester, er, poster “Malla” but none of you understand what the heck he is jiving about. He is Indian (at least that’s what he says) but he doesn’t hate it because he’s a self righteous man who is out there correcting bullshit about European nations stealing from the shitholes like his own native Hindostan.

    England walked into India and started spreading it’s own wealth among the half naked fakirs (just like the French did to the naked fakirs of Africa) because the British monarch was a trillionaire (just look at that shiny diamond in the royal crown) and the aristocracy was a billionaire class and the average Brit was a millionaire, who was only going for vacation to India, China, Africa. And in the end, those adventures to the exotic lands cost them all their wealth and that’s why Elizabeth II and the average Limey is so hard up!

    • LOL: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Showmethereal
  251. @Seraphim

    You are conflating Arlen Sphector. with your sphincter splintered.

  252. Smith says:
    @Temporary Insanity

    Malla is just defending the european imperalists too much. Like it or not, colonialism just benefits the fat cat, not the average people.

    All the territory and ethnic conflict nowadays can be found on the hands of the anglos and french.

  253. Prieborn says:
    @showmethereal

    @showmethereal

    Industrial Revolution is completely independent of colonialism and imperialism!!! Tell me, how colonialism and imperialism contributed to the industrial revolution. Did the Asians and Africans contribute to physics, chemistry etc,which are the basics of any industrial development. The Africans did not even have a script. Independent of Asia and Africa we had steam engines, electricity, automobiles, modern medicine etc etc in Europe and in North America. You should accept the facts. You really think that the contributions e.g. of Newton, Ampere, Maxwell, Helmholtz, Planck, Pasteur etc. depend on colonialism and imperialism. Ridiculous.

    And – what was the technological advancement in Asia etc before our advancements in Europe? Engines, aircrafts, power plants, space rockets … ??? Really laughable.

  254. anon[279] • Disclaimer says:
    @Prieborn

    To understand the connection between sea faring, war in faraway land,colonization,financialization and industrialization one has to connect A to N or Q going through myriad complexities . It is nota s simple as A to B . Sometimes there are like establishment of fingerprinting to identification of the daily wage laborer or extracting tax from the farmer and then buying the produces with the tax using different people and location or learning how to preserve the catches from the high seas or putting the calculus to the uses of building ships or using trigonometry for calculating the velocity and distance of cannon. It boils down to the needs -necessity is the mother of invention. When you have money to spare and throw around , it is lot easier also to spend on research . The brilliant mind of the industrial era spent money on scholars and scientists . Money came from foreign land .Also the existing forms of optical science mathematics or medical science in Asian countries were meticulously observed and improved by the Europeans.
    Once you get leg up, you can grow exponentially . Look at Japan or S Korea or now China . They have improved and accelerated further the internet era as well as the old industrial products .

    • Agree: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Malla
  255. @brabantian

    Iran with its judicial floggings, limb amputations, stonings, slow-torture-strangulation mass hangings

    Got evidence for this or just regurgitating what someone, some Israeli, or some riled-up ex-pat said somewhere?

    Show your cards or fold.

  256. @antibeast

    Yeah what westerners deride as the “Mao suit” is indeed better called the “Sun” suit. Lol

  257. antibeast says:
    @Prieborn

    Industrial Revolution is completely independent of colonialism and imperialism!!! Tell me, how colonialism and imperialism contributed to the industrial revolution.

    The First Industrial Revolution that started in England at around the mid-18th century was based on industrial technology for the production of cotton textiles powered by steam engines. England got its cotton grown and picked by African slaves in the cotton plantations of the American South while the cotton textiles manufactured in England were exported to their colonies in Africa and India. Before the Industrial Revolution, English merchants made their fortunes trading in African slaves, Indian spices, Mexican silver, Cuban sugar, etc. obtained through their colonial territories.

    Unlike Britain’s First Industrial Revolution, the Second Industrial Revolution that started in Germany after its unification in 1871 did not have any connection to Western colonialism because Germany didn’t derive much wealth from its overseas colonies in Africa and the Pacific. Instead, Germany invented many of the industrial technologies underpinning the Second Industrial Revolution such as the internal combustion engine, automobile, electric train, etc. Germany also led the Third Industrial Revolution by inventing jet engines, rocket engines, jet aircraft, submarines, ballistic missiles, etc.

    Despite being stripped of its overseas colonies by the Treaty of Versailles, Germany has remained Europe’s industrial powerhouse, with the world’s leading chemical, electrical, automotive and machinery industries.

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Malla
  258. Smith says:
    @antibeast

    Is this a self-own with the admission where industrial revolution does not rely on imperialism and colonialization?

    Roman Empire? Lot of land, lot of slaves, never bother to industrialize and invent the windmills.

    Qing Empire? Lot of land, lot of subjects, low literacy rate, lot of famine, low production level (all hands made), actually tries to hamper industrialization.

    If anything, imperialism and colonialization hamper industrialization and technological advance, since it only benefits a small group of cliche instead of the average people, and thus lowers efficiency.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  259. Smith says:
    @anon

    If this mythical “money” exists in foreign land, why didn’t the foreign land develop industrial revolution in the first place instead of waiting for the western imperialists to come?

    Take it from an asian, don’t defend the western imperialists, but don’t overvalue the eastern empires either, “mighty” China was a land that depend on the good weather and rain to feed their people, so a lot of famines happened, meanwhile militarily they were humbled by smaller countries such as Vietnam, Mongolia, Manchuria, Japan. There are a lot of chink sycophants and nationalists who pushed for this romanticzed Han China superpower that did not exist.

    Reject the East vs West culture war bullshit, both Christianity and Confucianism held back development and the people. The only way forward is science and technology for the people, not traditionalism mystical hocus-pocus.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  260. antibeast says:
    @Smith

    Is this a self-own with the admission where industrial revolution does not rely on imperialism and colonialization?

    In depends on what type of industrial revolution, whether of the 1st kind which was based on reason (’empiricism’) or the 2nd kind which was based on science (‘engineering’).

    The 1st Industrial Revolution in England was not unique to the English as a similar type of Industrial Revolution took place in Song China. The original engines powering the textile mills of England were powered by water which was the same as in China. Windmills had also existed in various forms in both China and Europe before then. Steelmaking, shipbuilding, canal projects, etc. had expanded rapidly during the Song Dynasty. The Indian cotton textiles imported to England is what spurred the English to develop their own textile manufacturing industries which drove the 1st Industrial Revolution while the Chinese invented the silk textile technology which the Japanese adopted as the basis of their Industrial Revolution after the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Likewise, the political unification of Germany in 1871 drove the Germans to adopt the industrial technology of the English based on the steam engine of the 1st Industrial Revolution while inventing their own industrial technologies such as the internal combustion engine (gasoline, diesel), automobile (BMW, Daimler-Benz), electric products (Siemens), chemical products (Hoechst, Bayer, BASF), etc. which became the basis of the 2nd Industrial Revolution in Germany. While the English invented the steam locomotive for railroads, the Germans invented the electric trains for railroads.

    In other words, Western colonialism did contribute to the 1st Industrial Revolution in England but not to the 2nd or 3rd Industrial Revolutions in Germany. Here’s a map of the triangular transatlantic trade between England, America and Africa where the most lucrative commodities were African slaves, American cotton and English cotton textiles:

    Roman Empire? Lot of land, lot of slaves, never bother to industrialize and invent the windmills.

    Qing Empire? Lot of land, lot of subjects, low literacy rate, lot of famine, low production level (all hands made), actually tries to hamper industrialization.

    The Romans did invent their own industrial technology such as the aqueducts, catapults, wheeled chariots, etc. while the Manchus were obscurantists who opposed commerce and industry which hobbled the development of science and technology during the Qing Dynasty. Instead, the Manchus were obsessed with military conquests and acquiring more land territory for the Chinese Empire even as they squandered the national wealth on lavish lifestyles for themselves. If the Manchus had continued the Ming Dynasty’s maritime tradition in the form of Zheng He’s voyages, the Chinese Empire would have expanded all the way to the Americas as the maritime technology that allowed the Spanish and Portuguese to explore and colonize the Americas originated in China.

    If anything, imperialism and colonialization hamper industrialization and technological advance, since it only benefits a small group of cliche instead of the average people, and thus lowers efficiency.

    If Western colonialism/imperialism caused the 1st Industrial Revolution in England, then why didn’t the Spanish and Portuguese industrialize first? The answer is that England had adopted Financial Capitalism at the very start of its colonial expansion as seen in the formation of joint-stock companies such as the English East India Company for the purpose of international trade with colonial territories. By contrast, the Spanish and Portuguese Empires were ruled by feudalist autocrats steeped in medieval Catholicism which the Iberians exported to the Americas. Financial Capitalism financed the expansion of the British Empire which then spurred the 1st Industrial Revolution in England due to the need to replace the cotton textiles imported from India. While the English didn’t invent cotton textiles, they did invent the industrial technology used in the mass production of cotton textiles which started the 1st Industrial Revolution in England by the mid-18th century. Those English cotton textiles were then exported to English colonies in Africa and India.

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Showmethereal
  261. Smith says:
    @antibeast

    The Han, Tang, Song, Ming did not have industrial revolution, they failed to even mass produce their own antique printing press to enforce mass literacy and instead rely on agriculture and peasants to feed themselves. And they still depend on weather and seasonal farming.

    And no, the Mongols and Manchurian did not hamper the growth of the Han, there is no visible political difference between the two dynasties Ming-Qing, except the Ming was even weaker and less united and less lands.

    Zheng He fleet is a typical chinese tall tale, big but slow cumbersome fleet that takes years to travel by the coast to reach Africa. Meanwhile, Vietnam push out the Ming out of SEA, preventing any kind of naval base, while Japan constantly harasses Ming ships in the Pacific.

    The Zheng He voyage and the dream of America colonization is just another sad dream of chink sycophants and nationalists. In reality, chinese failed to even reach and colonize Australia, their eternal shame.

    You failed to prove that there is a link between trade and indusrry either, Roman empire, China and the arab states have trade, slave trade going on for hundreds of year, yet you could not see any industry revolution taking place.

    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @Showmethereal
  262. Seraphim says:
    @Smith

    This is the classic argument of the superiority of Western inventiveness: China invented the gun powder but because of its ‘traditionalist mystical hocus-pocus’ it used it as hocus-pocus for amusing people at their ‘mystical festivals’, instead of using it for killing more people, thus becoming a superpower. The West put it to its proper use, killing millions and helping them to wake up the Chinese (and others) from their mystical reveries and put them to work. The West invented all these work saving devices, alienating the worker from the means of production, creating mass unemployment and slave armies for the production of more and more ‘technologically advanced’ means of killing people, to show the world who’s calling the shots (‘By Jingo, We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the money too..’, you know), in the mean time poisoning the earth, air and waters with the fumes and effluents of the ‘applied science’ to industry. Was the price payed for technological development overriding its usefulness?

    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @Malla
  263. antibeast says:
    @Seraphim

    This is the classic argument of the superiority of Western inventiveness: China invented the gun powder but because of its ‘traditionalist mystical hocus-pocus’ it used it as hocus-pocus for amusing people at their ‘mystical festivals’, instead of using it for killing more people, thus becoming a superpower.

    That’s a myth invented by the West: that China used gunpowder only for peaceful purposes such as fireworks rather than for weapons. The Mongols had to hire Chinese engineers to make their catapults used to hurl gunpowder bombs. They also relied on ‘hou jian‘ or rocket-fired missiles and ‘huo che‘ or rocket artillery in their campaigns against fortified cities in Europe and Asia. The Mongols also used ‘hand cannons’ which spread the use of gunpowder weapons to Europe and Asia. Here’s a ‘hand cannon’ dating to the Mongol Yuan Dynasty:

    • Agree: Commentator Mike
    • Thanks: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  264. antibeast says:
    @Smith

    You failed to prove that there is a link between trade and industry either, Roman empire, China and the Arab states have trade, slave trade going on for hundreds of year, yet you could not see any industry revolution taking place.

    Trade does stimulate industry as nations get to buy/sell commodities in exchange for manufactured goods. The Spanish Galleon Trade, for example, stimulated China’s export industries in silk, porcelain, tea, etc. in exchange for Mexican silver. Same case with the English cotton textile trade with American cotton being turned into textiles in England and then sold to Africa and India. Before the Industrial Revolution in England, Bengal was the world’s largest producer of Indian cotton textiles which competed against English cotton textiles produced in Manchester. That’s why the British had to protect its own textile industry while suppressing the Bengali textile industry to the point that Bengali cotton textiles declined while English cotton textiles dominated world markets.

    The biggest factor in the Industrial Revolution was the introduction of Financial Capitalism in England. Arabs, Chinese, Persians, Byzantines, Romans, Indians, etc. all had trade and industry but they didn’t have Financial Capitalism which took root in the City of London by way of Amsterdam. That in turn created Industrial Capitalism which spread to America and Germany by way of England.

    • Replies: @Malla
  265. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    Before the Industrial Revolution, English merchants made their fortunes trading in African slaves, Indian spices, Mexican silver, Cuban sugar, etc. obtained through their colonial territories.

    Not completely true. For a long time when they traded these goods, they did not have colonies. For example, West Africa (main source of transatlantic slaves) was colonized in the 1880s during the scramble for Africa. Indeed Colonization of West Africa happened after slavery was abolished and one of the justifications of conquest was banning and rooting out slavery, which they European Empires did. Before that they bought slaves from African kings and chiefs via European forts with explicit permission to build those forts. They even paid token tribute to the African chiefs. The sovereignty of the large territory where these, European forts which took the slaves, were built, were native African at the time of the transatlantic slavery. And many African chiefdoms had their own favourite European ally and the alliances were deep. Some allied with the Portuguese, some with t he Dutch, some with the French, some with the British. The warlike Ashanti were allied to the Dutch while their Fante enemies were allied to the British. This Fante-Ashanti rivalry as well as Ashanti Dutch alliance played a part in the Anglo Ashanti wars.

    Even in India, for a long time the British traded in spices before conquering lands via their outpost forts. The British East India Company started trading in the 1600s (they went to Indonesia before coming to India where they rivaled with the Dutch). It was only in 1757 that they conquered substantial Indian territory, the most richest and agriculturally productive land in the subcontinent Bengal (where the Ganges and Brahmaputra river systems have their delta and thus rich soil).
    the Anglo-Bengal wars had a lot to do with Anglo-French rivalry. Also mercantile Marwaris are from North Western India from Rajasthan desert but dominated the economy of Bengal in Eastern India from pre-British times, like the Cantonese Chinese in South East Asia today. The rump of the Mughal Empire including the Muslim rulers of Bengal were so corrupt and incompetent, the rich mercantile populations actually supported the British. The same thing happened in Gujarat in Western India as well. The Muslim Mughal governors there were corrupt, taxed heavily but went peeing and hiding in their forts when fierce Maratha Empire forces would come and raid the local merchants. Gujratis (Gujrat State) are excellent in business but pathetic & cowardly in war while the Marathas (Maharashtra State, bordering Gujrat) were fiercely warlike. Only the British and the Dutch (factories) fought back the Marathas due to which the mercantile communities actually financed the European takeover of many regions of India. Later the same mercantile communities funded the Independence “struggles” (marwari Birla magnate family links with Gandhi as well as burning of British goods). Basically the mercantile Marwaris & Gujrathis helped get the British established to bring law and order and modernisation and get rid of the corrupt Mughals and then later when the work was done, helped get rid of them. LOL. Simple as that.
    But anyhow for a long period of nearly a century in India, the English were trading in spices and cloth before colonial conquests even began in 1757 AD.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  266. Malla says:
    @anon

    Money came from foreign land

    Not true. England was already a reasonable prosperous society as written by the writings of the great Arab scholar, Ibn Khaldun in the 12th century. The tallest building in the World, the first building built by man taller than the Pyramids of Egypt was the Lincoln Cathedral in England already built in the 10th to 12th century. To build something like that required wealth.

    When you have money to spare and throw around , it is lot easier also to spend on research .

    Iran under Emperor Nadir Shah looted the most out of India in the last three centuries when Mohammed Shah our Mughal Emperor had to beg to him to show mercy on Indians. Well in the earlier night, Indians had mercilessly killed Iranians over a rumour that Nadir Shah had died.
    Iranian emperor nadir Shah also took the Kohinoor diamond and the Peacock Throne, never returned to India and was with the last Shah of Iran. After the Carter funded Islamic “Revolution”, the beautiful peacock throne disappeared from history, maybe some Ayatollahs got it.
    Why no Industrial Revolution in Iran?
    After him came the Afghan King Ahmed Shah Abdali’s invasion who went on a killing and looting spree in India. People do not know the fear Indians had of Afghan raids in those days. Yet no money to spare on an Afghan Boyle or an Afghan Stevenson after all that looting of India?

    If looting money was the key, Iran and Afghanistan would have been some of the the richest countries in the world in the 1800s after all that looting of Indian wealth. Yet by the time the last Shah of Iran took over from Reza Shah, his father, Iran was a backward country with only 5% literacy. It was during the last Shah’s White revolution in the last half of the 1900s that Iran really started to develop (Shah’s Iranian economy was growing at a whooping 40% higher than even Japanese Machukuo). Afghanistan was not colonised much (but lived under the shadows of the British Empire from British India and Czarist Russian Empire from Russian Central Asia), yet it remained a poor backward country in 1945 , one of the largest country in the world with no railways.

    • Replies: @Anon
  267. Malla says:
    @Seraphim

    Was the price payed for technological development overriding its usefulness?

    Very good point. Even in England where the Industrial Revolution started, we had many English writers complain about the Satanic mills of Lancashire and the loosing of Merry England of farms and greens. Many Western right winged intellectuals complained how machines who were meant to serve man have become the masters of man. Gandhi wrote about the dangers of modern technology like Railways (spreads criminals), Modern medicine (we make some mistake and take medicine to cure us, thus we keep indulging in our vices and thus loose self-control and become effeminate.) Hitler on the other hand while friendly to modern technology opposed modern culture. The Third Reich was in one way trying to mesh modern technology with traditional Germanic/European culture.
    I guess Japanese thinker Fukuzawa Yukichi said it best.
    “Recent movement of westerner’s global rapid action is remarkable. However, this is only a result of the Industrial Revolution and subsequent steam engines and does not mean there was some kind of progress in terms of human spirits (or humanity). Therefore, in order to stand up against and to prevent the invasions to the orient by western great powers, first of all, we only need to get ready in our mind(meaning “to keep open mind and learn, not to have physical strength”). Westerners are the same human being. But, that does not mean we can disregard the reality of Industrial Revolution. In order to keep an independence of a country, it is necessary to just jump into the wave of the Industrial Revolution and accept not only it’s benefits but also it’s disadvantages as well. This is now required to survive in this modern civilized society. Modern civilization is like influenza. Can we prevent infection of influenza on the sea front? No, I strongly believe we can’t. Influenza has no benefit, and we can’t avoid infections once it spreads. But, modern civilization bares both benefits and disadvantages, and how can we protect ourselves from modern civilization which has more benefits than disadvantages. It is, in a way, a duty for intellectuals to push the infections while providing antidotes.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  268. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    while suppressing the Bengali textile industry to the point that Bengali cotton textiles declined

    There was no British suppression of Bengali Cotton textiles, hand-loom Bengal cloth just could not compete in price with power-loom British cloth.
    The issue with Bengal cloth was more of Man Vs Machine than Bengal Vs British. European hand-loom workers suffered too due to cheap machine cloth (Luddite movement anyone), Bengal hand looms would have suffered too anyways British rule or not. What happened is that exports of cloth stopped (till the 1880s when British India too had her modern textile mills with British Capital and technology) which would have happened anyways as cheaper British cloth would have flooded World market. Also the handloom sector production actually grew under British rule (3 folds till 1947) and many British Colonial officials took personal interest in protecting them under their local domain. And when British cloth flooded the Indian market, the price of cloth in Indian markets collapsed allowed Indians especially poor Indians to buy more cloth for personal use. Later as India too had her Industrial Revolution as part of the British Empire (before even Japan), India after 1880 onwards, thanks to British technology brought to India, exported more cloth in its entire history. Many of those modern Cloth mills were owned by Indian magnates with British management and Indian labour. The Birlas were big cloth manufacturing magnates of British India who actually funded Gandhi and the Indian Independence Struggle.
    The famous “Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Limited” owned by Indian Gujarati Parsi Wadia family and today one of India’s India’s largest producers of textiles was started in 1879 in British India.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_Dyeing
    From
    https://openthemagazine.com/cover-stories/freedom-issue-2018/essay-freedom-issue-2018/economic-lessons-from-the-raj/
    Economic Lessons From the Raj The myth of colonial plunder by Zareer Masani.
    Mr Masani’s father, Minoo Masani was ironically a firebrand Independence leader but always respected the British for their justice and fairplay till the very end.
    He writes in his long article
    “Even so, recent research has demonstrated that European industrial competition, though far from being a zero-sum game, created winners as well as losers. Cheaper factory-made British yarn may have hit Indian spinners but was a boon for weavers, who could now source cheaper supplies and produce a more competitive end-product. Although textile exports declined, domestic demand grew, with per capita cloth consumption increasing from 5.8 sq yards per year in 1750 to 7.4 sq yards in 1850. Handlooms held their own in the production of saris, but lost out to machine-made men’s clothing.
    …snip….
    Far from being wiped out by colonial competition, actual numbers in the handloom sector remained stable throughout most of the colonial period, ending with the same number in 1947 as in 1750. Cheap yarn imports also freed weavers from being tied to regional spinning centres and enabled them to move closer to the ports, where they forged new links with mercantile houses, sowing the seeds of India’s own infant textile factories.

    However I must add that many of our top Indian industrial families who got involved into textiles, earlier made money from the Opium Trade with China. The TATAs, Birlas etc… all of them. Even the Baghdadi Jewish Sassoon family who made their money on the Opium trade later got into the textile industry in India. They were responsible in building a lot of infrastructure in India like the Sassoon Docks of Bombay.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  269. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    Let me paraphrase my original post as follows:

    Before the Industrial Revolution, English merchants made their fortunes buying African slaves obtained from their trading posts in Africa, putting them on slave ships and then selling them to their colonial territories in the Americas.

    How nice of the English merchants who didn’t really want to colonize Africa because all they did was to make fortunes trading African slaves. Someone ought to nominate them for the Nobel Peace Prize for their service to humanity.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  270. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    http://indiafacts.org/british-destroyed-indian-textile-industry/

    The British generally wore clothes made up of either wool or leather even in summer. When Indian cotton clothes were introduced to them, they found it to be comfortable to wear in summer, it gained popularity among common people. Demand for Indian fabrics increased and this posed a threat to the traditional woolen industry. Due to this, an Act was passed in 1700 against the import of any of such fabric from India, Persia and China. All the goods seized in the process were to be confiscated, sold by auction or re-exported. But the consumers were not ready to give up use of imported cotton materials. Many pamphlets were published by representative of woolen industry to prevent consumers from buying those cotton goods. People wearing cotton clothes were attacked and even the houses with any of such cotton materials found were damaged. However this violence could not hold back the need of people to be clothed in something other than wool or leather. This tremendous violence and protest had to be addressed with new Act of prohibition. However this Act did not impose any ban on trading of cotton fabrics but they had to be kept in the warehouses and re-exported to other parts of the Europe. When the imports from India were restricted, imitators found a golden opportunity to make profit out of depressed demand of consumers. They started making low quality cloths in Britain itself and started selling these cloths in Britain.

    Even then the British business houses were not satisfied. Therefore in 1721, British parliament passed much more comprehensive Act than the older one, according to which anybody found in possession of these fabrics had to bear penalty. After this British business houses had started thinking about making machines for this industry. The innovation of spinning mill took more than three decades i.e. In between 1733 to 1765 they actually created first weaving machine to use steel comb replacing the early wooden combs. Then eventually they created a lot of these machines with some or the other means of improvisation, and at the same time they imposed several taxes on Indian weavers to destroy indigenous textile businesses of India. Not only this, they restricted Indian textiles to enter into the European markets. This effectively destroyed the Indian textile industries and increased the revenue of British industries.

    The British shielded English cotton textiles from Indian imports while imposing taxes on and restricting the exports of Indian cotton textiles in order to promote the development of the English cotton textile industry. This allowed English merchants to invest in industrial technology to mass produce English cotton textiles which later flooded world markets thereby driving Indian textile makers out of business. Unlike the USA which protected its own cotton textile industry with high tariffs, India could not protect its own cotton textile industry because it was under the colonial rule of England whose mass produced cotton textiles conquered world markets thereby stimulating the demand for railroads, steam engines, coal, steel and industrial machinery.

    Bengal had been the world’s center of cotton textile production and trade, with fine ‘muslins’ having earned its reputation worldwide. That Bengal’s cotton textile industry and foreign trade disappeared within decades of English rule after existing for millennia proves that these two events are not orthogonal to each other but rather interlinked phenomena. Had India been a Sovereign State at the time of the Industrial Revolution in England, India would have taken steps to protect its own cotton textile industry by imposing tariffs as well as promoting the adoption of industrial technology to mechanize the production of cotton textiles which is exactly what the Americans did in the USA. The American Civil War was fought over the semi-colonial nature of the cotton plantation economy in the South which exported African slave-picked cotton to the textile mills in England. The fact that India went through its own phase of Industrial Revolution in the mid-19th century, earlier than either Japan or China, does not negate the causal relationship between the rise of the English cotton textile industry and the decline of the Indian cotton textile industry in the 18th century. That was the origins of the Industrial Revolution in England.

    • Replies: @HeebHunter
    , @Malla
  271. @antibeast

    The anglos are truly the lowest subhuman scum. Their impending extermination is well deserved. They need to join the yids in hell.

  272. @Smith

    Wow so you are officially a troll… I already explained “neighbors” attacking. If the US was attacked by Canada that would make sense. Iraq and Afghanistan are on other parts of the globe.
    As to Mongol vs Jurchen vs Han rule… Ummm… China is MUCH smaller than under the Yuan Dynasty and is indeed smaller than unxer the Qing. It is so voluntarily. China will not give up Taiwan and Tibet for security from westerners. And Tibet the main reason is no longer fearing Tibetan army attacks – but in reality because of the headwaters for so many rivers. But the Han didnt enslave the Tibetans either. So no – not the same. Do you even know how Han people formed?? It would be more like if all EU citizens just said “ok we are just Europe and are one country”. They could have kept fighting and China would have just remained fragmented.

    I wonder how you explain Vietnamese expansion… ?? You do know people know it involved one group taking over from another. But i wouldnt call it imperialism. Your comments really make me laugh.
    Since you like movies I recall watching the first “Once Upon a Time in China”. I recall when Jet Li character was talking to the Manchu general who was being sent bythe emperor to go help Vietnam against the French – he lamented the foreigners in China and he looked at the banner which said “Our Land” (i believe thats what was – its been so long). He said he wonxered how the Vietnamese would feel seeing that banner. Of course the film is a drama – but based on the real history – though you deny China tried to help against France. As you know the gov censors in China – just like it does in Vietnam. They let that part be in the film for a reason… To show the past was the past and there was no ill intent toward Vietnam – in contrast to the western invaders. The same gov shortened the US backed 11 dash line of the ROC down to 9 in solidarity with Vietnam. But you of course skip over that too.
    But I would really love to hear how Vietnam came to be in your version of history.

    • Replies: @Smith
    , @Malla
  273. @antibeast

    Not just that… The British sugar plantations in the Caribbean made HUGE returns for them. The Haitians one did the same for the French too. Thats why when they lost Haiti they sold the Louisiana Purchase. Slavery and sugar indeed were that profitable. Until they werent.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  274. @Temporary Insanity

    Yours is the best comment on the thread – LOL.

    • Thanks: Temporary Insanity
    • Replies: @Malla
  275. Anon[102] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    1 – less than 10% kids were enrolled into school in UK in 1800
    and majority in Church run saunday school
    2- from 1820 to 1913 , all wars fought by UK was financed by drug money
    3- Indian money ( wealth ) looted systemic ally by Europe and particularly by UK is different from what Nadir Shah or some other Shah who carried money away took in one or 10 raids .
    4 Today Indian money is being stolen by Facebook , Amazon, Walmart , Cargill , AMD are stealing money from India . That’s one way to describe the looting . Indian seems to enjoy it . Look the way Ambani’s friends are describing the protests of farmers in the media to make the looting smother better and permanent.

    That’s the way the Indian elite view the stealing by British – by displacing the anger on Nador Shah . Because lot of Indian ( Birlas, Kasturbhai, Lalbhai, Walchands , Tata , Tagore family
    later Dalmia ) made lot of money by letting British siphon off .

    • Replies: @Malla
  276. antibeast says:
    @Showmethereal

    Yes, I know. But tell that to Malla.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  277. Seraphim says:
    @antibeast

    We know that. I did write about it some time ago on this site, in a similar discussion and there is wealth of literature about it, that obviously few people bother to address, let alone to read (e.g. Joseph Needham’s ‘Science and Civilisation in China’). Those ‘myths’ reflect the mental attitude of the West: the Chinks might have invented useful devices, but they are organically incapable to make a profit out of them, so they need the innate superior management skills of the ‘West’ for that, who would naturally compensate for the effort by pocketing the profit. So, they are frustrated when they see that the Chinks are perfectly capable to manage themselves their economy.

    • Agree: showmethereal
  278. Seraphim says:
    @Malla

    You make very good points, too. Things are not black and white, but there are more than fifty shades of gray. One beneficial contribution of the British Raj, with enormous consequences, was acquainting the West with the ‘Indian philosophy’.

    • Thanks: Malla
  279. Smith says:
    @Showmethereal

    Since you can’t read and fail at basic history, lemme tell you, Yuan and Qing were both bigger than Ming, you massive liar and hypocrite.

    Yuan dynasty:

    [MORE]

    Ming dynasty:

    Qing dynasty map:

    Again, to this day, the Han chinese still claim territories based upon the Qing dynasty’s claim while Ming did not hold Xinjiang nor Tibet! This is the “Confucian values” of Han Chinese.

    If the US was attacked by Canada that would make sense. Iraq and Afghanistan are on other parts of the globe.

    So imperialism and colonization only counts if it’s other parts of the globe? China lacked even the means to conquer other parts of the globe! That’s why it sticks to bullying its smaller neighbor.

    It is so voluntarily.

    LOL so explain all the military conquest and protection money scheme?

    But the Han didnt enslave the Tibetans either. So no – not the same.

    It’s the same fucking shit, just like westerners who said they didn’t enslave the native americans or the indios in South America. You are the boss, you can say whatever you want.

    I wonder how you explain Vietnamese expansion… ?? You do know people know it involved one group taking over from another. But i wouldnt call it imperialism. Your comments really make me laugh.

    Nice whataboutism, but it IS imperialism and colonization, and no, I don’t defend it. Vietnam too was an empire and we don’t go into denial mode whenever that is mentioned, unlike chinks.

    Since you like movies I recall watching the first “Once Upon a Time in China”. I recall when Jet Li character was talking to the Manchu general who was being sent bythe emperor to go help Vietnam against the French – he lamented the foreigners in China and he looked at the banner which said “Our Land” (i believe thats what was – its been so long).

    Once Upon A Time in China is a freaking 90s Hong Kong movie, you dumbass boomer. Even mainland govt can’t censor it.
    That “manchu general” (was not a manchu at all) ran against his own government to go fight in Vietnam:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Flag_Army

    It acted independently of the chink government as well as the viet government, it’s a nationalist movement, which is commonly found in Vietnam and China at the times and both the corrupt Qing and Nguyen were against them.

    It always amazes at the level of historical knowledge of the “China team” people, most of them whine about the japs lack of historical education, but they themselves aren’t much better.

    The same gov shortened the US backed 11 dash line of the ROC down to 9 in solidarity with Vietnam. But you of course skip over that too.

    Yeah, nothing says solidarity more than a sea claim not supported by any of the neighboring countries, that’s a top brainwashed mind there, but hey, at least they didn’t claim all of SEA like the westerners, just the sea! Eastern imperialists, the chinese versions of western imperialists.
    @Seraphim
    Technology is good as long as it serves the people’s needs. That would be my motto, the primitivism vs techno-fetishism is another false dichotomy.

    @antibeast

    The biggest factor in the Industrial Revolution was the introduction of Financial Capitalism in England.

    So it was a societal and government change that brought forth the industrial revolution, not trade.
    You could have said this and end the discussion because it was my point.

    • Replies: @Showmethereal
  280. Malla says:
    @Anon

    less than 10% kids were enrolled into school in UK in 1800 and majority in Church run saunday school

    What does this even have to do with anything?

    from 1820 to 1913 , all wars fought by UK was financed by drug money

    What rubbish? Anyways Indian merchants were more involved in the Opium trade than even Britain was. It was more an Indian enterprise than anything. So did American families.

    Indian money ( wealth ) looted systemic ally by Europe and particularly by UK

    UK did not loot any wealth you nutcase, they lost money in India. Europe would have become rich irrespective of India and without the British Raj we would have been even more poor and backward.

    Today Indian money is being stolen by Facebook , Amazon, Walmart , Cargill , AMD are stealing money from India

    You are a certified low IQ moron. Nutcases like you were crying about Chinese companies “looting India”. Companies invest in other countries and they have the right to take returns. But their investment brings much needed capital (& technology). If any company does not get any returns, why will they invest? You want foreign aid that Africa got all these decades (and remains a shithole) or you want foreign investment which East Asia got. You have Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique on one side and South Korea, China + Taiwan+Hongkong+Macau, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia etc… on the other. With people like you at the helm, we are going Mozambique. Good.
    And do not worry my indian brother, GOOD NEWS!! No foreign company wants to come to India (to loot). All of them are going to Vietnam. They find better, more industrious, disciplined and capable workforce in Vietnam just like they did in China. In India, we spit and shit and masturbate to wakanda past when the whole world looted us or we would be roaming around in vimanas aeroplanes. That Marxist fake looting theory has destroyed minds.
    After the abrupt banning of many Chinese companies, tax terrorism on British Company Vodafone, Japanese Company Docomo as well as now targeting of Amazon (to help Reliance JioMart), foreign companies and investors have lost confidence in India. Enjoy it. Even Bangladesh (which we Indians joke about as a beggar basketcase shithole country) is racing past us.

    That’s the way the Indian elite view the stealing by British – by displacing the anger on Nador Shah

    What? Are you smoking ganja? Who talks about Nadir Shah in India now a days? Most Indians have forgotten about this and hardly know about Nadir Shah’s raid on India. Most of our textbooks are full of anti-British lies and propaganda teaching us genocidal hatred for the Brits. Now the Chinese are replacing the Brits recently tho. Get your head checked.

  281. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    How nice of the English merchants who didn’t really want to colonize Africa because all they did was to make fortunes trading African slaves. Someone ought to nominate them for the Nobel Peace Prize for their service to humanity.

    Idiotic low IQ comment. All I did was correct you on your mistake that the British took slaves from their colonies. They did not. The Portuguese did up to some extent as they had already conquered some territory in West Africa.

  282. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    http://indiafacts.org/british-destroyed-indian-textile-industry/

    LOL a third rate website indiafacts, you searched up in google.

    Even then the British business houses were not satisfied. Therefore in 1721, British parliament passed much more comprehensive Act than the older one,
    In between 1733 to 1765 they actually created first weaving machine to use steel comb replacing the early wooden combs

    India could not protect its own cotton textile industry because it was under the colonial rule of England whose mass produced cotton textiles conquered world markets thereby stimulating the demand for railroads, steam engines, coal, steel and industrial machinery.

    How is this even possible? While it is true that restrictions were put on Bengal cloth because of local complains. But Bengal was conquered in 1757 and even then the English EIC had only limited powers in Bengal for many decades where they shared power with the local ruler like Mir Jaffer or Mir Quassim. And it took nearly a whole century to conquer the rest of India till they defeated the Sikhs by 1850s. And Bengal cloth industry already survived till the 1860s because even if British labour was always more productive than Indian labour even before mechanization, British population standard of living and British labour wages was high even back in 1600 AD. Also Indian producers could procure cotton nearby from the subcontinent but Britain had to source it from the United States or later Egypt. This added more costs. That is why till the 1860s, Bengal cloth was still going good. It declined after that partly also because many Indian aristocrats like the Mughals who bought their wares were gone. And just after 1880s, British India started having its own powerlooms. So the lull was only for 20 years!!!!
    And by 1880s, India was already on the way of exporting machine made cloth again.

    And you forget one thing. The low Iq monkeys at Indiafact website forget a crucial thing, India and Bengal was ruled by a company, the East India Company till 1857 not the British Government. The East India Company opposed the restrictions on Bengal cloth imports to Great Britain. Why? Simple is it not. The EAST INDIA COMPANY MADE MONEY BY SELLING BENGAL CLOTH IN BRITAIN. Why would they oppose a trade which they make money from. The monkeys at indiafact website like many Indians look at the “British” as some monolithic whole.
    https://openthemagazine.com/cover-stories/freedom-issue-2018/essay-freedom-issue-2018/economic-lessons-from-the-raj/
    Economic Lessons From the Raj: The myth of colonial plunder by Zareer Masani
    “Myth number three is that our colonial rulers deliberately de-industrialised India by flooding it with machine-made British goods at the expense of Indian manufacturing. The Company certainly had no links with the satanic mills of Lancashire, nor any interest in selling their products. Its own trading interests lay in selling Indian goods to Europe, so it lobbied hard to lower British tariffs on them and also to raise protective Indian tariffs. That it failed to do so was a measure of the extent to which Europe’s Industrial Revolution was inevitably turning the economic tide against traditional cottage industries worldwide.”
    From
    Stephen Broadberry and Bishnupriya Gupta: The Rise, Organization, and Institutional Framework of Factor Markets, 23-25 June 2005, pages 6 and 7
    http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/intro.php
    “Worries about competition from India in the British market led to pressures for protection. But it should be noted that the pressure for such measures came more from producers of woollens and linens than from the small community of British cotton textile producers, since fine woollens and linens were the closest substitutes for printed cottons from India (Baines, 1835: 106).
    O’Brien et al. (1991: 413-418) see these protectionist measures, which remained in force with various amendments until 1774, as giving an important boost to the British cotton industry. However, Wadsworth and Mann [1931: 118, 128] play down their significance for cotton, since linen could also be used for printing, and import barriers could anyway do nothing to offset India’s competitive advantage in export markets. Furthermore, as Chaudhuri (1978: 278) notes, a consideration of Indian exports to Britain suggests that the measures must have been circumvented even in the British market. Part A of Table 3 certainly shows continued growth of the volume of imports from India during the eighteenth century, although the broad equality of re-exports and imports until the repeal of the protective legislation in 1774 suggests that the East India Company at least paid lip-service to the principle that this cloth should not reach the British consumer. Thomas [1926: 135-137] cites legal documents from prosecutions as well as allegations by contemporaries to implicate the East India Company in smuggling, but the scale of such operations remains difficult to ascertain.”

    That Bengal’s cotton textile industry and foreign trade disappeared within decades of English rule

    Bengals’ cotton textile industry did not dissapear for another century. Yes foreign trade dissapeared for few decades but when it came back INDIA EXPORTED MORE CLOTH AFTER 1880 PER YEAR DURING BRITISH EMPIRE DAYS THAN IT HAD DONE IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY.
    Stephen Broadberry and Bishnupriya Gupta: The Rise, Organization, and Institutional Framework of Factor Markets, 23-25 June 2005
    http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/intro.php
    “However, high silver wages in Britain as a result of high productivity in other tradable goods and services, meant that British manufacturers could not use labour-intensive Indian production methods. Broadberry and Gupta (2005) show that an unskilled labourer in India earned little more than 20 per cent of the English unskilled wage as early as 1600, when Indian wages are converted to pounds sterling at the prevailing exchange rate. Low Indian wages acted as a spur to labour-saving technical progress in the British cotton textile industry. As British productivity increased, a point was reached where Britain’s higher wages were more than offset so that unit labour costs were lower in Britain and the reversal of competitive advantage occurred. However, the shift was delayed in international markets during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries by rising wage and raw cotton prices in Britain as the increase in production put pressure on labour and material input markets. The shift in competitiveness in the Indian market was delayed further by transport costs, which continued to give Indian producers an advantage in their home market until the 1860s (Ellison, 1886: 63; Twomey, 1983).”

    • Replies: @antibeast
  283. @Prieborn

    All innovation requires time and resources. If you dont get that basic principal you can never understand history. Everything comes from what was built before. People like yourselves dont realize that. You think Europeans were always the most advanced and that is false. Europes takeoff was in direct correlation to its contact with the Islamic Golden Age (who in turn got things like guns and paper from China). And on and on and on going back.
    Colonialism and imperialism absolutely gave Europeans resources to innovate – which eventuallyled to things like the industrial revolution. You really think Europe was always more advanced? Look at things like tunneling to get salt. You might know how important salt usage has been to human development but there are literally books about it. Europeans were centuries behind only catching up after colonialism started.

  284. @antibeast

    Many westerners and even some supposed Asians like Smith refuse to believe that Chinese ship technology was far more advanced than the west in Ming Dynasty times. And actually some of the best navigators in the world were the supposed “primitive” Polynesians. I see in another comment you pointed out about guns. Yeah they refuse to acknowledge China ABSOLUTELY had the tools for global imperialism but didnt di it by choice. China invented not just gunpowder and guns but mines (land and sea) – rockets and many other military inventions. But actually some westerners shoud know and maybe I should direct to Smith also – because years ago (before China was seen as a threat) the American History Channel did a 2 hour special on Chinese military innovations throughout history – even touching on certain metallurgy that China had that was far more advanced than the west. I seriously doubt they will play that program in the west now.

    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @d dan
    , @Smith
  285. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    Someone ought to nominate them for the Nobel Peace Prize for their service to humanity.

    You know who deserves a Nobel Prize (but the Noble prize for peace is a joke today)
    Pasha Gordon of Sudan. Well before Sudan he was in China too and even though he was a hothead, the Chinese officials had a high opinion of him, high option of him all the way to the top, the Emperor of China!

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

    Moreover, considerable progress was made in the suppression of the slave trade.[104] Gordon wrote in a letter to his sister about the Africans living a “life of fear and misery”, but in spite of the “utter misery” of Equatoria that “I like this work”.[105] Gordon often personally intercepted slave convoys to arrest the slavers and break the chains of the slaves, but he found that the corrupt Egyptian bureaucrats usually sold the freed Africans back into slavery, and the expense of caring for thousands of freed slaves who were a long away from home burdensome.[106]

    During this period Gordon grew close to the Anti-Slavery Society, an evangelical Christian group based in London dedicated to ending slavery all over the world, and who regularly celebrated Gordon’s efforts to end slavery in the Sudan.[84] Urban wrote that: “Newspaper readers in Bolton or Beaminister had become enraged by stories about chained black children, cruelly abducted, being sold into slave markets…”, and Gordon’s anti-slavery efforts contributed to his image as a saintly man.[84]

    Gordon had come into conflict with the Egyptian governor of Khartoum and Sudan over his efforts to ban slavery.

    …snip….

    Governor-General of the Sudan
    As governor, Gordon faced a variety of challenges. Besides working to end slavery, Gordon carried out a series of reforms such as abolishing torture and public floggings where those opposed to the Egyptian state were flogged with a whip known as the kourbash made of buffalo hide

    Slavery was the basis of the Sudanese economy, and Gordon’s attempts to end the slave trade meant taking on very powerful vested interests, most notably Rahama Zobeir, known as the “King of the Slavers” as he was the richest and most powerful of all the slave traders in the entire Sudan. An insurrection had broken out in Darfur province led by associates of Zobeir and Gordon went to deal with it.. The insurgents were numerous, and he saw that diplomacy had a better chance of success. On 2 September 1877, Gordon clad in the full gold-braided ceremonial blue uniform of the Governor-General of the Sudan and wearing the tarboush (the type of fez reserved for a pasha), accompanied by an interpreter and a few bashi-bazouks, rode unannounced into the enemy camp to discuss the situation.[115]

    • Replies: @antibeast
    , @Seraphim
  286. @Smith

    Are you seriously asking why the Romans didnt have the Industrial Revolution???? Next will you ask why the Babylonians didnt invent the internet! Its called humans learn from experience over time and what comes before.

    • Replies: @Smith
  287. @Malla

    “UK did not loot any wealth you nutcase, they lost money in India. Europe would have become rich irrespective of India and without the British Raj we would have been even more poor and backward.”

    Dumbasses don’t understand a brilliant guy like you… but I understand you, my little dothead friend… the British monarch was a trillionaire, while the aristocracy was made up of super billionaires and the average Brit had at least a million quid in the Bank of England thus they only went to shitholes like India to show their generosity… only the love of Bible sent them all over the world… a truly altruistic people.

    Now you just keep up the good work of spreading your own gospel!

    • LOL: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Malla
  288. Malla says:

    The anglos are truly the lowest subhuman scum.

    Ridiculous. Do not put the Anglo down to the level of Jews. Sure some of them did some bad things and some Anglo elites got too close to Jews to do nefarious deeds. Like Boer genocide (Jew Oppenheimer), Finance Capitalism and destruction of NS Germany.
    But Anglos are in some way opposite of Jews.

    Meredith Townsend wrote in 1904
    “That the English in India are regarded by large sections of the people as ” unaccountable, uncomfortable works of God ” may be true enough, but they are not despised, are not held to be bad, and do not, in the majority of cases, in any way disgrace their creed. To the bulk of the native population they are little known, because they are not visible, their numbers, except in the seaports and a few garrison towns, being inappreciable, but those (Indians) who know them know and admit them to be a competent people, brave in war and capable in peace, always just, usually benevolent, though never agreeable, and living for the most part steadily up to such light as they have.”
    Brave in battle! Always Just! usually Benevolent!
    Does dat sound Jew or opposite of Jew? Opposite. 180 deg Opposite.

    General Hilton, in his Imperial Obituary: The Mysterious Death of the British Empire (Devon, Britons, 1968), remarks on the very significant fact that during the Pax Britannica an English gentleman, if he ran short of funds anywhere in the world, could borrow money from a native shopkeeper or man of means without difficulty, since there was never doubt about his absolute integrity and hence the certainty of repayment. When he was in Tibet, a region seldom visited by outsiders, the abbot of a Buddhist monastery unhesitatingly lent him 700 rupees–a large sum for the time and place–although his only security was trust in a British gentleman’s honour.
    Does dat sound Jew? No it does not.

    Finally we have Chinua Acebe, the famous Nigerian Igbo writer who had to admit later in his book ‘There was a Country’, p. 43.
    The British governed their colony of Nigeria with considerable care. There was a very highly competent cadre of government officials imbued with a high level of knowledge of how to run a country. This was not something that the British achieved only in Nigeria; they were able to manage this on a bigger scale in India and Australia. The British had the experience of governing and doing it competently. I am not justifying colonialism. But it is important to face the fact that British colonies were, more or less, expertly run.”

    Chinua Achebe also sez
    “Before (British Nigeria), justice may have been fierce but it could not be bought or sold . . . . There were titles and distinctions, but they were gained by hard work ….Now all that is changed.”
    Ohaeto Ezenwa, Chinua Achebe: A biography (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1997), p. 88

  289. Malla says:
    @Showmethereal

    Hear hear, this new found love affair in between this chap who calls himself (please) showmethereal (because everything I know is fake) and Temporary Insanity (going permanent). A toast to their Love.
    Hurrah
    And lets celebrate this joyful occasion with some fitting music.
    Enjoy yall.

    • Troll: Showmethereal
  290. Malla says:
    @Temporary Insanity

    a brilliant guy like you

    You want brilliant guy? Check out post 231 of this page with the video where the Great American economist Milton 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. (5:44 minutes in the above video) In the famous case of India, conclusive studies by economists like Jacob Weiner have shown that it cost Britain far more to maintain India then if it had never had it.
    That is why after 1947 by getting rid of the Indian Empire, the British economy boomed and British standard of living grew. Also in 1947 Socialist Labour Party British PM Clement Atlee had many socialist plans for Britain (like the NHS) and did not have money to spare for India. Hence speed up Independence.
    Also post 230 of this page, where economist Jacques Marseille and Daniel Lefeuvre’ work which proved without doubt that France lost money on its Empire too.

    the British monarch was a trillionaire, while the aristocracy was made up of super billionaires and the average Brit had at least a million quid in the Bank of England thus they only went to shitholes like India to show their generosity…

    Post 227 of this page for you to answer the question why those pale limeys went to land of fakeers, snake charmers and dotheads.

  291. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    India and Bengal was ruled by a company, the East India Company till 1857 not the British Government. The East India Company opposed the restrictions on Bengal cloth imports to Great Britain. Why? Simple is it not. The EAST INDIA COMPANY MADE MONEY BY SELLING BENGAL CLOTH IN BRITAIN. Why would they oppose a trade which they make money from?

    What you’re omitting is the fact that the East India Company fought Nawab at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Here’s a quote from an article from this website:

    https://www.history.com/news/east-india-company-england-trade

    A major turning point in the East India Company’s transformation from a profitable trading company into a full-fledged empire came after the Battle of Plassey in 1757. The battle pitted 50,000 Indian soldiers under the Nawab of Bengal against just 3,000 Company men. The Nawab was angry with the Company for skirting taxes. But what the Nawab didn’t know was that the East India Company’s military leader in Bengal, Robert Clive, had struck a backroom deal with Indian bankers so that most of the Indian army refused to fight at Plassey.

    Clive’s victory gave the East India Company broad taxation powers in Bengal, then one of the richest provinces in India. Clive plundered the Nawab’s treasure and shipped it back to London (keeping plenty for himself, of course).

    In 1784, the British Parliament passed Prime Minister William Pitt’s “India Act,” which formally included the British government in ruling over the East India Company’s land holdings in India.

    According to the same article, the EIC changed its business model from being a trading company into becoming a tax collector because Clive had negotiated with and received from the Mughal Emperor of India, Shah Alam, a degree authorizing the EIC to administer the tax revenues of Bengal, Behar and Orissa after the Battle of Plassey in 1757.

    In other words, the EIC became a tax collector in Bengal after 1757, thus offsetting its lost revenues from declining Indian cotton textile export trade with England which had imposed tariffs on imports from Bengal.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  292. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    Agree. That there were outstanding Anglos who were righteous and courageous in opposing African slavery does not absolve the culpable role played by the British in the transatlantic African slave trade. Neither does the fact that African tribal chieftains themselves sold those African slaves captured from other African tribes.

    Remember that the British slave traders sold those African slaves to their fellow British colonists in the Americas. So who enslaved those Africans? The African chieftains who captured and sold them to the British? Or the British who bought them from the African chieftains?

  293. antibeast says:
    @Showmethereal

    Most Westerners don’t know that the ‘expansionist’ Qing Dynasty which was ruled by the Manchus doubled China’s territory by military conquest during the same period that Europeans expanded their colonies worldwide. For this and other reasons, European Powers such as Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands did not want to wage wars against the Chinese Empire, preferring to lease port cities like Macao or trade via intermediary colonies like Malacca or Manila. The Spanish Galleon Trade saw the Chinese trading with the Spanish via Manila which would then travel to Acapulco and thence to Spain. So lucrative was this trade that half of the silver mined in Mexico flowed to China during the Spanish Galleon Trade which lasted from 1565 to 1815.

  294. anon[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    1,let me tell you -it has same thing to do with you as the literacy rate of 5 % in Iran has to do with the issue at hand .

    2. “1990s when the IMF and World Bank advised India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture in return for up to more than $120 billion in loans at the time.” Starting stealing by systematic manner .

    3 “Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations have wanted all along. It will also serve the retail/agribusiness/logistics interests of India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, and its sixth richest, Gautam Adani.

    During their ongoing protests, farmers have been teargassed, smeared and beaten. Journalist Satya Sagar notes that government advisors fear that seeming to appear weak with the agitating farmers would not sit well with foreign agrifood investors and could stop the flow of big money into the sector – and the economy as a whole.” https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/09/farmers-protest-in-india-price-of-failure-will-be-immense/

    4 Opium trade not only paid for wars from 1828 to 1912 but it continued to pay for other wars against China until 1960 from northern birder of Burma . It also paid for wars in Nicaragua . A large part of money laundered through drugs funded wars in Latin America in 80s and now funding wars in Afghanistan . Money laundered from drugs made HSBC ( name was different ) a major bank by 50s .The bank started with pure aim of laundering drug money .

    (a) https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/the-us-opium-wars-china-burma-and-the-cia/

    (b) https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/17/drug-war-capitalism-an-interview-with-dawn-paley/
    Now drug trade is both a source of money ,money laundering and for excuses to wage wars .

    (c) https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/22/drugs-war-and-occupation/

    Now once I get the reference of British financing the war form drug, I will post it . That was form a book written by an Australian author.

    Learn and stay away from using polemics.

    • Replies: @Malla
  295. Malla says:
    @Showmethereal

    I already explained “neighbors” attacking.

    China has invaded Vietnam in the past. When did Vietnam attack China? Ancient Nanyou Vietnamese kingdom was invaded by Han Dynasty China, after earlier forcing Nanyou kingdom to pay tribute to the Han Empire. Also remember the famous Vietnamese Trung sister rebellion against the Chinese rulers (reminds me of Britonnic Queen Boadicea’s rebellion against the Roman Empire ). Later the Sui dynasty re-invasion of North Vietnam. That was followed by 8 major rebellions by the Northern Vietnamese against Chinese rule till the Tang Dynasty who kindly let them free. In all of these above cases never did the Vietnamese invade Chinese territory. I am not even talking about the Yuan Mongol Chinese Empire invading Vietnam or the later Manchu Qing dynasty invasions in 1788. What is not known is that after the failed second Mongol Yuan dynasty Chinese invasion of Japan (where the Japanese massacred all Mongols, Koreans and Northern Chinese who got beached in Japan after destruction of their navy but were kind to the Southern Chinese who they considered innocent of the invasion and fellow victims of Mongol invasion -recently conquered Southern Song), a third fleet was built to reinvade Japan, but the fleet was sent to Vietnam instead where they were defeated by the Vietnamese.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  296. Anon[102] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    https://www.whitman.edu/economics/Workingpapers/content/WP_25.pdf

    British empire was funded to a large extent by drugs .

    • Replies: @Malla
  297. d dan says:
    @Showmethereal

    “Many westerners and even some supposed….”

    Notice the greatest defender of Western colonialism and imperialism is a supposedly “Indian”, and the greatest critique of Chinese “colonialism” and “imperialism” is a supposedly “Vietnamese” – one is an “expert” in Western history, the other an “expert” in Chinese history. Most REAL Westerners have mostly lost interests in this thread.

    It is always sad to read trashes from house niggers / bananas. Meanwhile, you have to admire the power of brainwashing by their old colonial masters. (No wonder Pompeo is so proud about the classes he attended about lying, stealing and cheating. They must be really first rated skills taught there.) Like the effects of orange agent, it may take one or two more generations to cleanse those poisons from the traditional Asian cultures and thinking.

    Just remain hopeful, and happy Chinese New Year for the year of ox to you, antibeast and all.

    • Agree: Jazman
    • Thanks: Showmethereal
    • Replies: @Malla
  298. @antibeast

    That takes too much energy. He will probably say Napoleon was so hurt that the Africans wanted to rob France of keeping Haiti that he got depressed and as a final gesture sold Louisiana to the US in hopes that they would use it to provide a better opportunity for their slaves that he cared so much about. Because he would believe France was doing community service in its colonies

    Not sure what he would come up with to “prove” salt and sugar were not immensely important and profitable industries – but im sure he’d come up with something…

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  299. @Smith

    Nah I think you have comprehension issues since I started by noting China was most expansionist under Mongol and Jurchen rule…. Since even the 1940’s China has voluntarily given up millions of square kilometers of land to a variety of countries. Han care about security from “barbarians” not taking others lands for their material wealth. Fact of history. Becoming unhinged and cursing doesnt help comprehension at all… Carry on.

    All i can do is shale my head that you calll China imperialist in the South China Sea and yet Vietnam claims all the Spratly islands actually has SEIZED the most since the 1970’s. It is hard to take you seriously. But maybe you honestly have no clue… But educate yourself then

    • Replies: @Smith
  300. @Malla

    Wow – just wow!! The British economy and standard of living went up after 1947 because of the post WW2 boom. It had nothing to do with giving India independence. By that point India was already gutted anyway. European colonies were like Italian American mafiosi. Go watch Goodfellas and learn. After you milk a fraudelent business dry – and wrung every piece of profit out of it – you torch the place and let it go…

    The best and brightest were then allowed to migrate from the colonies to “the mother cou try” leaving behind the tattered ruins… The exceptions being the other 5 Eyes. Other than Singapore and Hong Kong none of them are developed. India is making strides though. If she stopped her brain drain to the US and UK she could do even better.

    If the mother country cares – why not tell all skiled migrants to stay home and build their own countries? Or to go back after receiving an education?

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  301. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    What you’re omitting is the fact that the East India Company fought

    Yes that is correct. Thanks.

    The Nawab was angry with the Company for skirting taxes.

    This was a minor reason and this did not lead to the battle of Plassey. This led to the Black Hole Incident of Calcutta for which the British forgave him. Siraj Ud Daulah was a very cruel man who in his youth enjoyed torturing animals. He is been made a hero only because he fought the British.
    Muslim historian Ghulam Husain Salim wrote about him
    “Owing to Siraj ud Dowla’s harshness of temper and indulgence, fear and terror had settled on the hearts of everyone to such an extent that no one among his generals of the army or the noblemen of the city was free from anxiety. Among his officers, whoever went to wait on Siraj ud Dowla despaired of life and honour, and whoever returned without being disgraced and ill-treated offered thanks to God. Siraj ud Dowla treated all the noblemen and capable generals of Alivardi Khan (Siraj ud Daulah’s Uncle and earlier ruler) with ridicule and drollery, and bestowed on each some contemptuous nickname that ill-suited any of them. And whatever harsh expressions and abusive epithet came to his lips, Siraj ud Dowla uttered them unhesitatingly in the face of everyone, and no one had the boldness to breathe freely in his presence.”

    Another Historian Ghulam Husain Tabatabai wrote of Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah:
    “Making no distinction between vice and virtue, he carried defilement wherever he went, and, like a man alienated in his mind, he made the house of men and women of distinction the scenes of his depravity, without minding either rank or station. In a little time he became detested as Pharaoh, and people on meeting him by chance used to say, ‘God save us from him!’”

    However one good thing Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah did was give some resistance to the devastating Maratha borgee raids on Bengal. The warlike Maratha Empire had been raiding, looting and raping rich Bengal for a long time and their campaigns have said to have led to the death of about 400000 Bengali. Earlier Bengal even lost Orissa region to the Marathas. But eventually even Siraj Ud Daulah decided to pay the annual chowth or 1/4th taxation of Bengal as tribute to the Maratha Empire.
    It was because of these Maratha Empire raids that the British started building fortifications around their factory in Calcutta but without the permission of Nawab Siraj. This along with accusations of misusing the privileges given to the English by the Mughal Emperors led to his attack on English Calcutta which led to the infamous Black Hole incident of Calcutta where large number of British and Indian men were forced into a small room and locked in the heat leading to the death of many.
    But even this did not cause the Battle of Plassey.
    The Battle of Plassey was caused because of Anglo-French rivalry. Clive had just come from South India where he had defeated the French. In Bengal, Clive attacked the French Bengal city of Chandanagore which led to Nawab Siraj ud Daulah’s anger. Siraj started secret negotiations with Jean Law, chief of the French factory at Cossimbazar, and de Bussy to get rid of the English.
    On the other hand the enemies of Siraj ended up in an alliance with the English . The Hindu Marwari mercantile Jagat Seth (chief bankers of Bengal Jagat Seth translates to World Merchant) were pissed with the young Siraj Ud Daulah’s mismanagement (unlike his Uncle Alivardi Khan) as well as the fact that hot headed Siraj had struck him in the head and threatened the Hindu with circumcision and forced conversion to Islam. Besides, Siraj ud-Daulah had earlier made certain key changes in high government positions and a Hindu Kayastha named Mohanlal was elevated to the position of the Nawab’s supreme Diwan. Siraj ud-Daulah’s decision to promote a lowly Hindu to such a high-ranked position irked the head of the armed forces and his uncle, Mir Jafar, who took the Hindu Mohanlal’s promotion over him (a Muslim lord) as a personal insult, which he would never forget.
    Soon Mir Jafar, the dominant Marwari merchant community and Robert Clive and English EIC came into a secret alliance against Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah. This led to the battle of Plassey, defeat of Nawab Siraj Ud Daulah and the victory of Robert Clive and the English.

  302. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    Clive’s victory gave the East India Company broad taxation powers in Bengal, then one of the richest provinces in India.

    Actually the EIC got taxation or diwani rights over Bengal after the Battle of Buxar in 1764 AD, not Plassey of 1757 AD. The Battle of Buxar was a decisive victory for the army of British East India Company led by Hector Munro, over the combined armies of Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, Mir Qasim, the new Nawab of Bengal, the Nawab (Lord) of Awadh Shuja-ud-Daula and Raja (King) Balwant Singh of Kashi.
    The Treaty of Allahabad was signed on 12 August 1765, between the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, son of the late Emperor Alamgir II, and Robert Clive, of the East India Company, in the aftermath of the Battle of Buxar of 22 October 1764.
    Based on the terms of the agreement, Emperor Alam granted the East India Company Diwani rights, or the right to collect taxes on behalf of the Mughal Emperor from the eastern province of Bengal-Bihar-Orissa. These rights allowed the Company to collect revenue directly from the people of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. In return, the Company paid an annual tribute of twenty-six lakhs of rupees (equal to 260,000 pounds sterling) to the Mughal Emperor for the maintenance of the Emperor’s court in Allahabad.

    Clive plundered the Nawab’s treasure and shipped it back to London (keeping plenty for himself, of course).

    Very true, but Bengal had already been plundered by the Marathas. Much before the East India Company took over Bengal, the Marathas had ravaged the province with six plundering raids in the course of a decade, killing off hundreds of thousands and exacting huge sums in chauth (1/4th of revenue) from its Mughal Nawab, estimated at Rs 2.5 crore per annum in today’s money. It was these attacks and the inability of the feeble Bengal administration to resist them that partly led the Hindu business community, led by the powerful Jagat Seth banking house, to plot the British takeover of 1756-64.

    Also unlike the Maratha Empire who plundered, looted and raped with glee in Bengal (or the Afghan who did the same in North India), Clive faced a lengthy parliamentary inquiry in London on charges of corruption. Clive was a ruthless person no doubt and back in England, Clive was in fact heavily criticised by his contemporaries for his tendencies of self-aggrandisement and corrupt practices. In 1772, he was put on trial in Parliament for the practices of the Company in India. The havoc caused by the Bengal famine once again turned criticism towards Clive in the Parliament that blamed him and the Company’s abuse of monopoly rights for the sake of personal gains at the expense of the people of Bengal.
    “He was a widely reviled man in England. After his death, a satire published in London called him the Lord vulture, picking the bones of the Indian dead”.
    Robert Clive, the victor of Plassey, and MP for Shrewsbury from 1761, had to defend himself vigorously for three successive days in the Commons in May 1773 against the attacks leveled against him by General John Burgoyne, MP for Preston, who was the chairman of a committee examining his administration in India.
    “Consider the situation in which victory at Plassey had placed me. A great prince was dependent on my pleasure; an opulent city lay at my mercy… I walked through vaults… piled…with gold and jewels!” exclaimed Clive. “Mr Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation!”
    Both the Clive inquiry and the Hastings (Warren Hastings) impeachment stirred up widespread popular interest and excitement in England and showed that under the influence of the Evangelical movement there was a growing public feeling in England that there should be a moral foundation to British rule in the growing Indian empire.
    Nothing of this sort happened to any Maratha, Mughal or Afghan looter and plunderer.

    thus offsetting its lost revenues from declining Indian cotton textile export trade with England

    Correct. But the EIC still opposed those tariffs and even smuggled Bengal cloth into Britain. The EIC had no relation to the parties who wanted tariffs against Bengal cloth.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  303. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    In 1784, the British Parliament passed Prime Minister William Pitt’s “India Act,” which formally included the British government in ruling over the East India Company’s land holdings in India.

    The East India Company Act (EIC Act 1784), also known as Pitt’s India Act, was an improvement over an earlier act called the Regulating Act of 1773. This earlier act played a big part in stamping out corruption in the East India Company and exploitation of Bengali farmers by the East India Company folk. There was despair at the bad administration of the Company’s affairs, both in Britain and in India – especially in 1772 when the Company’s finances collapsed. Lord North’s (Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford) Regulating Act of 1773 was a response to this concern. Though it gave some powers to the Government of Great Britain with a kind of duopoly, the Government of Bengal still more or less remained answerable primarily to the directors of the EIC. It was only after 1857 that the British EIC was removed from power and the Indian Government became answerable completely to the British Parliament with the British Monarchs becoming King/Queen-Emperors/Empresses of India as the Mughal Empire officially ended.The Mughal Empire was a foreign dynasty too, earlier formed by wresting power from the earlier Turkish/Cuman Delhi Sultanate by the Uzbek-Uyghur-Mongol prince Babur from Central Asia anyways.
    The earlier Regulating Act of 1773 (formally, the East India Company Act 1772) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain intended to overhaul the management of the East India Company’s rule in India. The Act did not prove to be a long-term solution to concerns over the company’s affairs; Pitt’s India Act was therefore subsequently enacted in 1784 as a more radical reform. It marked the first step towards parliamentary control over the company and centralised administration in India.

    By 1773, the East India Company was in dire financial straits. The Company had been unable to meet its commitments to its lenders since 1768 because of the loss of tea sales to America. About 85% of all the tea in America was smuggled Dutch tea. The East India Company owed money to both the Bank of England and the government: it had 15 million lbs (6.8 million kg) of tea rotting in British warehouses and more en route from India. The Regulating Act 1773, was complemented by the Tea Act 1773, which had a principal objective that was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the financially struggling company survive.
    The Act set up a system whereby it supervised (regulated) the work of the East India Company.

    The English East India Company had taken over large areas of India for trading purposes and like most European companies in India (French and Dutch) had an army to protect its interests especially since the collapse of the old Central Mughal power, constant raids throughout India of the new rising Maratha Empire as well as devastating raids into India of Afghan powers. Company men (who were merchants) were not trained to govern so North’s government began moves towards government control. Shareholders in the English East India Company opposed the Act but as the East India Company had gone bankrupt it was powerless to stop this Government Control. However the East India Company was still a powerful lobbying group in Parliament in spite of its financial problems.
    The Regulating Act of 1773 limited Company dividends to 6% until it repaid a £1.5m loan and restricted the Court of Directors to four-year terms.
    It prohibited the servants of company from engaging in any private trade or accepting presents or bribes from the “natives”. Though corruption was common throughout the World including Europe it was more endemic in Asia (and thus India) an observation made by the French physician traveller François Bernier in the 1600s that passing Turkey into Middle East and into Asia, corruption and “bakseesh” (gifting for favours) culture increased enormously. BTW François Bernier was briefly personal physician to Mughal prince Dara Shikoh), the eldest son of the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, and after Dara Shikoh’s execution, was attached to the court of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. The Early British East India Company folk were very corrupt but that will be explained in my next post. With these changes more British aristocrats entered the workings of the EIC and thus earlier corruption and exploitation of Bengali farmers was stamped out.
    The Regulating Act of 1773 elevated Governor of Bengal, Warren Hastings to Governor-General of Bengal and subsumed the presidencies of Madras and Bombay under Bengal’s control. It laid the foundations for a centralized administration in India which would go forward to become the Government of India of the British Raj later on and through devolution of power at Independence in 1947 would eventually become the present Republic of India as the main successor State to British India. Governor of Bengal became the Governor General of Bengal with an executive council of four to assist him. Decisions would be taken by majority and Governor General could only vote in case of tie.
    The Act named four additional men to serve with the Governor-General on the Supreme Council of Bengal: Lt-Gen John Clavering, George Monson, Richard Barwell, and Philip Francis. A supreme court was established at Fort William at Calcutta. British judges were to be sent to India to administer the British legal system that was used there.

    The East India Company Act (EIC Act 1784), also known as Pitt’s India Act, also explicitly stated that “to pursue schemes of conquest and extension of dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish, the honour and the policy of this nation (Great Britain).”
    However this policy would have be changed later with the rise of Napoleon and renewed French interest in India as well as many powerful Indian powers like Tipoo Sultan of Mysore and the mighty Maratha Confederacy building alliances with France with massive recruitment of Frenchmen in their forces putting the British Bengal holding at risk. Thus the British EIC was now forced to again interfere in Indian affairs due the threat from France which led to the eventual conquest of most of India by the British.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Commentator Mike
  304. Malla says:
    @Malla

    The British EIC succeeded over the French EIC earlier in India primarily because it was much more free from Government control. The Company was run by traders who wanted to making quick profits and not that interested in conquests and ruling. The French EIC was comparatively under more French Monarchist Government control and thus aristocrats had a bigger say from the get go in its affairs and aristocrats do not make good traders, French aristocrats already had money from their lands , the French EIC was into trade but the tendency for conquest and ruling always existed. It is this French tendency and the growing of French power in India forced the English EIC to interfere too out of fear of losing trading rights among Indian powers. And in this ad hoc struggle the English came out victorious and ended up conquering the richest part of India, Bengal!!!! Had India gone French as was it was strongly going then, been a part of the French Empire instead of the British, then French Pondichery would have been a huge bustling city and English Madras a small town, French Chandannagore in Bengal today would have been a huge bustling city and British Calcutta a small town but the the opposite happened. Thanks to Robert Clive, a historical figure of whom Empire builders are made off. But the Company after a few decades of rule in Bengal became bankrupt and needed British Government bailout but in return the Government did step in a bit (Regulating Act of 1773 followed by PM Pitt’s India Act), with a bit of control. And now British aristocrats (Lord this and Lord that) began appearing. Before that the trader types would just loot Bengal to make fast money to return to Britain to join the aristocracy. But they were rejected on arrival in Britain as greedy Nabobs (a variation of Indian term ‘Nawab’ or Muslim ruler/aristocrat) who made their wealth on looting poor Bengali peasants. But after the bankruptcy and coming of aristocrats, everything changed. This new lot were not that hungry for personal wealth as they already had wealth from taxes/rents from estates back home in Britain. They wanted to rule. And by God rule they did. And thus corruption common among the earlier trader types in the British EIC was stamped out. So what is surprising is that, it were the fact that their enemy, the French had more aristocrats meddling in their EIC from the get go, helped the British being more and flexible to play the corrupt Mughal Indian ways games better which led to their conquering a part of India, to get a large beachhead so to speak, only to now have British aristocrats (lots of “Lords” start appearing now) arriving on the scene. And yes, these new British Aristocrats were overall better rulers than the Indian kings they replaced, probably some of the best rulers in
    Indian history for a long time. India basically allowed British aristocrats to play the game of ‘Roman Roman”, they could walk in the footsteps of the ancient Roman patricians they admired so much and build an Empire on an ancient land. Basically the large land of the Indian subcontinent allowed the British aristocrats to LARP Roman Patrician. And by God, they outdid the Romans. Like the Roman Empire built Aqueducts and Roads throughout their Empire, the British Empire built Railways, bridges as well as postal and telegraph networks. This single handed British Empire building up of India is very well explained in this huge tome of a book, Making of India: The Untold Story of British Enterprise by Kartar Lalwani

  305. Malla says:
    @anon

    less than 10% kids were enrolled into school in UK in 1800 and majority in Church run saunday school

    it has same thing to do with you as the literacy rate of 5 % in Iran has to do with the issue at hand .

    Except that your figures are wrong
    In 1800 around 60 percent of males and 40 percent of females in England and Wales were literate. By 1840 this had increased to 67 percent of men and 50 percent of women, and, by 1870, these rates had further still to 80 percent of men and 75 percent of women.
    The Reformation stressed the importance of literacy and being able to read the Bible. The Protestant countries were the first to attain full literacy; Scandinavian countries were fully literate in the early 17th century. The Church demanded literacy as the pre-requisite for marriage in Sweden, further propagating full literacy.

    “1990s when the IMF and World Bank advised India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture in return for up to more than $120 billion in loans at the time.” Starting stealing by systematic manner .
    “Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations have wanted all along.

    This has nothing to do with the British Empire and these vampire organizations target nearly all countries including first world countries. Nothing unique to India.

    Opium trade not only paid for wars from 1828 to 1912 but it continued to pay for other wars against China

    The Opium trade benefited a lot more of powerful Indian and American families as well, it was more of an Indian operation than a British operation. Most of Bombay’s infrastructure was funded by this trade. The biggest kingpins of this trade were the Baghdadi Sephardic Jewish Sasson family. Also Yale University with their Skull and Bones made a lot of money from this trade and interestingly Yale were related to Mao Zedung. During the Vietnam war, American CIA were involved in operations where Vietnamese people were drugged. And soon afterwards, the elites pushed LSD on the populations of the West. Today they are involved in sourcing cocaine from Columbia to North America as well to Europe via Marseilles.
    The Opium trade came to an end due to the efforts of Protestant missionaries. British PM Gladstone totally opposed the Opium War and Opium trade. Besides, in India taxation was very low and Opium sales were used to balance the books.

    The opium trade incurred intense enmity from the later British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone. As a member of Parliament, Gladstone called it “most infamous and atrocious” referring to the opium trade between China and British India in particular. Gladstone was fiercely against both of the Opium Wars Britain waged in China in the First Opium War initiated in 1840 and the Second Opium War initiated in 1857, denounced British violence against Chinese, and was ardently opposed to the British trade in opium to China.Gladstone lambasted it as “Palmerston’s Opium War” and said that he felt “in dread of the judgments of God upon England for our national iniquity towards China” in May 1840. A famous speech was made by Gladstone in Parliament against the First Opium War. Gladstone criticized it as “a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace”.

    Scientific evidence of the pernicious nature of opium use was largely undocumented in the 1890s, when Protestant missionaries in China decided to strengthen their opposition to the trade by compiling data which would demonstrate the harm the drug did. Faced with the problem that many Chinese associated Christianity with opium, partly due to the arrival of early Protestant missionaries on opium clippers, at the 1890 Shanghai Missionary Conference, they agreed to establish the Permanent Committee for the Promotion of Anti-Opium Societies in an attempt to overcome this problem and to arouse public opinion against the opium trade. The members of the committee were John Glasgow Kerr, MD, American Presbyterian Mission in Canton; B.C. Atterbury, MD, American Presbyterian Mission in Peking; Archdeacon Arthur E. Moule, Church Missionary Society in Shanghai; Henry Whitney, MD, American Board of Commissioners for foreign Missions in Foochow; the Rev. Samuel Clarke, China Inland Mission in Kweiyang; the Rev. Arthur Gostick Shorrock, English Baptist Mission in Taiyuan; and the Rev. Griffith John, London Mission Society in Hankow.These missionaries were generally outraged over the British government’s Royal Commission on Opium visiting India but not China. Accordingly, the missionaries first organized the Anti-Opium League in China among their colleagues in every mission station in China. American missionary Hampden Coit DuBose acted as first president. This organization, which had elected national officers and held an annual national meeting, was instrumental in gathering data from every Western-trained medical doctor in China, which was then published as William Hector Park compiled Opinions of Over 100 Physicians on the Use of Opium in China (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1899). The vast majority of these medical doctors were missionaries; the survey also included doctors who were in private practices, particularly in Shanghai and Hong Kong, as well as Chinese who had been trained in medical schools in Western countries. In England, the home director of the China Inland Mission, Benjamin Broomhall, was an active opponent of the opium trade, writing two books to promote the banning of opium smoking: The Truth about Opium Smoking and The Chinese Opium Smoker. In 1888, Broomhall formed and became secretary of the Christian Union for the Severance of the British Empire with the Opium Traffic and editor of its periodical, National Righteousness. He lobbied the British Parliament to stop the opium trade. He and James Laidlaw Maxwell appealed to the London Missionary Conference of 1888 and the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 to condemn the continuation of the trade. When Broomhall was dying, his son Marshall read to him from The Times the welcome news that an agreement had been signed ensuring the end of the opium trade within two years.

    • Replies: @anon
  306. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Even Gandhi wrote about it.
    http://www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/key-to-health/chapter-08-opium.php

    “Several years ago, what is known as Opium War took place between China and Great Britain. China did not wish to buy opium from India. But the English wanted to impose it on China. India was also to blame in that several Indians had taken opium contacts in India. The trade paid well and the treasury received crore of rupees as opium revenue. This was obviously an immoral trade and yet it went on flourishing. Finally, as a result of a mighty agitation in England, it was stopped. A thing of this type, which simply ruin people, should not be tolerated for a single minute.”

    And check out how Indian Parsis made a lot of money in the Opium trade
    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/corporate-dossier/how-bombays-parsis-cracked-the-opium-trade/articleshow/28892310.cms

    Also check this
    China’s Opium War Was ‘Completely Indian Enterprise’, not British: Indian Author Amitav Ghosh

    The putting together of the expeditionary force took place in India. The British naval ships for the expedition were accompanied by 50 supply ships, all provided for by Parsi merchants in Bombay (now Mumbai). From top to bottom, it was a completely Indian enterprise; all the wherewithal for it came from India,” he added.

    From
    http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=SPOILS-OF-WAR-History-of-capitalism-is-written-27112016018050

    What role did India Inc play in the opium trade war?
    They [Indian companies] played a pioneering part.In large parts, the opium war was financed by Indian money -by old Bombay money. Many of the big Indian families made their money in opium. This is equally true about America.
    Many American companies and families have made their money in opium -President Franklin Roosevelt‘s family, the Calvin Coolidge family, Forbes family from where you get the current secretary of state, John Kerry, even institutions like Yale and Brown. Singapore and Hong Kong wouldn’t exist today without opium. Essentially opium was the most important commodity of the 19th century.

    Are companies hesitant to acknowledge their past connections to opium?
    Very hesitant. Jardine Matheson was one of the most important opium trading companies in the 19th century. Thei r closest partner was Sir Jamsetji Jeejeebhoy, who built half of Bombay. To this day, Jardine Matheson does not like this connection mentioned. In fact, they’ve been known to threaten journalists. Similarly, people who’ve been trying to work with papers of various Indian companies find it very difficult to access documents. Let me just say it tactfully that several companies don’t like this to be spoken of in public.

    Would it have been difficult for companies to hide their past if there was social media at that time?
    The opium war was a very modern war. It was sold to the British government by merchants. They collected money and sent William Jardine to London to bribe politicians into starting this war. It’s a collusion between the State and the private sector, which benefited not only from the policies of the opium trade, but also from the whole war being sub-contracted to them, in terms of provisions, supply ships etc. It was the template of the Iraq war. First, you pick up something, drum it up by publishing some articles about it, the people will get worked up, then you start the war. You keep hidden what is actually happening.

  307. @Showmethereal

    Yes, pity so many Africans drowned and died in the crossing thus missing out on the benefits of the cushy life of slavery under the lash of the whip in the plantations of the New World. It’s a crying shame they missed out on civilisation.

    • Replies: @Malla
  308. anon[449] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    1 https://doi.org/10.2307/202599– Literacy in Seventeenth-Century England: More Evidence .
    Was it 80 % or was it 70 % who could write their names- measure of literacy / illiteracy ?

    2 “As late as 1750, one authority assigns critical reading ability in the German lands to just 10% of the population, while another reports that fewer than 5% of the men in part of northern France were reckoned “well educated” in surveys conducted in 1802 and 1804. ” https://brewminate.com/the-growth-of-literacy-in-western-europe-from-1500-to-1800/

    Education and literacy as you mentioned without citation and type of literacy whether restricted to signing or being able to do more than that is not made clear by you . But most important is the relevance of the literacy to the Brutish empire ’s cost including cost incurred in war being largely and solely managed by drug revenue is not clear. Once I gave you the idea of what Facebook or Agro business in cahoot with Indian business group has been doing ,you turn around and say it has nothing to do with British empire. Yes,it has nothing except the current trend has been usurped and improved by another set of companies . Local business houses are involved just it was or were in the Raj era at the cost of the local economy and prosperity .

    Britain made money with in China and India from opium .That money went to finance war and support development at home and running the administrative cost of maintaining colonization . Anything different than this fact is nothing but your ignorance .
    Some clergy and some philosophers did speak out against it . Today various voices do talk against US imeporiapsm . It doesn’t matter much in real life .

    So let me tell you again from 1828 around to 1912 all wars made by Britain was financed by drugs money .

    • Replies: @Malla
  309. Smith says:
    @Showmethereal

    If Han cares about history and security, it wouldn’t take or hold Xinjiang or Tibet, which is not traditional Han land but held by Qing China, nor force up the 9 nine dash claim which none of the claimant countries agree. All of these are due to MATERIAL WEALTH (land, oil, precious metals in Xinjiang, water in Tibet, fish and oil in the South East Asia sea).

    You are again justifying imperialism by talking up security, the exact American talk. Imperialists always say things like this instead of negotiation and diplomacy, sad!

    And yes, Vietnam built up bases in Spratly to counter chink expansionism since the 70s and proudly so, we are just using your reason against you. But officially, Vietnam has never claimed more than the 200 miles per UNCLOS – international laws.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  310. anon[449] • Disclaimer says:

    “Some historians have argued that the opium business bolstered India’s rural economy and kept the farmers happy. That was not the case, as new research by Rolf Bauer, a professor of economic and social history at the University of Vienna, has found.
    His conclusion: the opium business was hugely exploitative and ended up impoverishing Indian peasants. “Poppy was cultivated against a substantial loss. These peasants would have been much better without it,”

    Some 2,500 clerks working in 100 offices of a powerful colonial institution called the Opium Agency monitored poppy farmers, enforced contracts and quality with police-like authority.

    In other words, the price peasants received for their opium did not even cover the cost of growing it. And they were soon trapped in a “web of contractual obligations from which it was difficult to escape”.

    Local landowners forced their landless tenants to grow poppy; and peasants were also kidnapped, arrested and threatened with destruction of crops, criminal prosecution and jail if they refused to grow the crop. “It was a highly coercive system,” Dr Bauer says.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49404024

  311. Smith says:
    @Showmethereal

    Really now? You trust American History Channel coverage on China? Even when you refuse to look at a map and see the speed and efficiency of Zheng He’s travels? What’s next? Their coverage on the japanese samurai is truthful?

    Then again, it’s not me who “refuses to believe”, it’s recorded history, it’s you and chink nationalists who want to believe in the golden age Ming empire that could whoop ass but didn’t. The same Ming that got pushed out of Vietnam by coalition of tribesmen (Le Loi), the same Ming that lasted less than 50 years after the Imjin war (look it up), the same Ming that got conquered by those they called barbarians (Manchu). All just comeuppance.

    Asians such as vietnamese have always been at the forefront at stopping chink imperialism, not any real or fake westerners. No amount of guns, rocket or advanced technology can stop rebellion when you treat people like shit, which is why China has constant civil strife and has famines up to the Mao’s era.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  312. Seraphim says:
    @Malla

    Would have Indians fought in their millions (many volunteers) on British side in two world wars if they had not felt some affinity and commonality of interest with their colonial ‘masters’? And would have India remained in the Commonwealth? And I always ask, jocularly, would have cricket became the ‘national’ sport, almost a religion, of India?

    • Replies: @Malla
  313. @Malla

    Milton Friedman, Jacob Wiener… a couple of Jews with interest in the notion what is good for the Jews… Jews of England and France, more than anyone one else, have benefited from the brutality of colonial empire and like almost all Jews, telling truth is not in their best interest, lest the half naked fakirs see the face of their real oppressors. And promoting of Blacks, Indians and Chinese over the whites in America by the Jew is no accident and it’s certainly not to ease the conscious.

    I am not fond of recommending books but I suggest you read six volumes of Jewish history by Heinrich Graetz… no other people in the world have a minute recordings of their doings over three millennia (not even the Chinese have that kind of records let alone Indians or Europeans)… don’t leave this world without knowing who truly are the masters and beneficiaries of the empires, past, present and future and how it all works.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  314. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    Correct. But the EIC still opposed those tariffs and even smuggled Bengal cloth into Britain. The EIC had no relation to the parties who wanted tariffs against Bengal cloth.

    England did protect its infant English cotton textile industry with tariffs even as the EIC smuggled Indian cotton textiles into England. My point is that England did not have any cotton textile industry at all prior to the arrival of the EIC in Bengal. Indian cotton textile imports stimulated the creation of the English cotton textile industry after England imposed tariffs on them. Before then, English wore clothing made of wool from sheep spun from household-based cottage industries. The need to make cotton textiles in England rather than importing them from India spurred English merchants to invest in machines as labor wages in England were much higher than in Bengal. Almost all the English inventions during this time relate to the mechanization of the cotton textile industry which gave rise to factory-based manufacturing industries as the economic foundations for the Industrial Revolution in England during the 18th-19th century.

    The English cotton textile industry was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution in England which stimulated the growth of the mining (coal and iron), steel, shipbuilding, railroad and textile machinery industries. The Newcomen and Watt steam engines were originally invented to pump water from mines after which they found widespread use in textile mills which had relied on water-engines near rivers to drive the textile spindles. From that point onwards, textile mills could now locate inland near coal mines while rivers were then used to transport cotton textiles to the whole of England and the rest of the world. That required building steamboats powered by steam engines followed by steam-powered locomotives to power trains over railroad tracks.

    In other words, Indian cotton textile imports from Bengal drove the mechanization of the English cotton textile industry which did not exist prior to the English colonization of India. One invention led to another which drove the Industrial Revolution in England from the mid-18th to mid-19th century.

    • Replies: @Malla
  315. antibeast says:
    @Temporary Insanity

    And promoting of Blacks, Indians and Chinese over the whites in America by the Jew is no accident and it’s certainly not to ease the conscious.

    Please keep the Chinese out of your ‘Identity Politics’ as they are not interested in your Banana Republic.

    • Replies: @Temporary Insanity
  316. Malla says:
    @anon

    Education and literacy as you mentioned without citation

    https://www.gale.com/binaries/content/assets/gale-us-en/primary-sources/intl-gps/intl-gps-essays/full-ghn-contextual-essays/ghn_essay_bln_lloyd3_website.pdf
    I got my figures from here, check out page 5.

    Once I gave you the idea of what Facebook or Agro business in cahoot with Indian business group has been doing ,you turn around and say it has nothing to do with British empire.

    The British empire did a lot for Indian farmers . Their taxation was far lower than all earlier powers including Mughals, Marathas and Sikhs. The only problem was Bengal where the Zamindari system would cause a problem later, but the British Raj only got a small percentage of the tax anyways, most were kept by landlord zamindars. If you want I can write about it, about the the British Raj later used techniques to help farmers from landlord zamindars. The Empire increased irrigation enormously in India, indeed the largest irrigation project in the World was in British India which helped Punjabi farmers enormously. The Empire opened agricultural cooperative banks to recuse Indian farmers from local predatory baniya moneylenders.
    Most farmers in India rarely rebelled against the British Empire, most of the rebellions (“independence struggle”) were led by educated upper caste Hindus. it was gandhi who turned it into a mass movement of sorts.
    Contrary to what you think, I have written for the farmers against the big corporations here
    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/buzzed-cairo-wrecked-alexandria-and-a-third-class-train-ride/#comment-4435123
    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/buzzed-cairo-wrecked-alexandria-and-a-third-class-train-ride/#comment-4435179

    The British Raj was the OPPOSITE of these Corporations who are out to loot Indian farmers today. The British Empire did a lot of good for Indian farmer.

    Britain made money with in China and India from opium

    No dummy, British India made most of that money from Opium. What you do not know is that taxation in India was extremely low but at the same time they had to provide modern services and infrastructure no earlier powers had to provide. Under the Mughals, Marathas, Sikhs etc… the taxation was as high as 25% to 50%. British Raj taxation was a low as 7 to 15 %. Yet the population was increasing and they had to be provided modern services like never before. That is why India was mostly a loss making colony. Opium was one way to balance the books as best as possible. One of the many reasons why India was developed as an export economy after 1880 as well as to industrialise India was to balance the books of a loss making colony.
    As far as opium funding wars, that the British Indian Empire was a mini empire in its own right in the wider British Empire. British India had huge territory, central strategic locations, good access to the sea and enormous manpower. Indeed it was British INDIA which ran the Empire at times in all of Asia from Aden in the West to Singapore in the East. British Indian currency, the rupee was legal tender in many Gulf Arab states for a long time. And most of those economic decisions were made in Calcutta/New Delhi, not in London.

    • Replies: @anon
  317. Ron Unz says:
    @Malla

    Very true, Colonialism in most cases was a loss making enterprise. That is why after decolonization, Europe boomed and the Great divergence in between Europe and the Third World increased for decades after decolonization, not decrease.

    I happened to notice this very long and interesting discussion on the economics of the British Empire and colonialism in general. I’m absolutely no expert on the topic, but I think there’s an important point that should be made…

    It’s perfectly possible for colonialism to have been a loss-making enterprise for the colonial power as a whole, but also very beneficial for certain particular elements of the colonial power, perhaps including many members of its ruling elites. So if they were selfish or could somehow persuade themselves that the policy was nationally important, they would maintain it, even if it had a negative impact upon their overall country.

    This old story of “privatizing the benefits but socializing the costs” has been very typical in many countries, on a whole range of different matters, and it wouldn’t surprise me if colonialism often fell into this category.

    • Agree: Not Only Wrathful, Malla
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    , @Smith
    , @Malla
  318. @Ron Unz

    America’s overseas wars definitely fall into this category too.

    On net, most Americans are worse off. We’ve spent $3-5 trillion in Iraq and trillions more on the broader “War on Terror.” However, defense contractors (along with the various lobbyists, politicians, financiers, military/intel officers, and other elites who are connected to them) have been immeasurably enriched. The parasite tricks the host into thinking it’s beneficial.

    The above could probably be applied to much of the FIRE sector too.

  319. Smith says:
    @Ron Unz

    I have made the case that imperialism ACTUALLY hampered industrial revolution and technological advance because of the surplus slave labor got from the conquered provinces/colonies.

    This explains why the Roman empire, the Muslim empire, and various Chinese dynasties in the world refuse to industrialize, and even attempts to industrialize were stopped internally by the government.

    Sadly, you will still have nationalists on all sides defending their empires even when they got famine up the ass. You have wonderful case of self-own like chinese nationalists who believe Ming empire got all they wanted for, that’s why they closed up, when a quick look at history shows the amount of famines going inside the Ming era.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China

    In fact, one of the famines were a factor in ending the “mighty” Ming dynasty.

    @d dan

    Look at this chink who immediately defaults to East vs West culture war the moment chink imperialism is brought up. He loves to throw stones but cannot take the heat.

    Well, happy Lunar New Year/Tet to you too, hopefully a buffalo can carry you to China soon, heard the US niggers are hunting asians in the States.

  320. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    You are correct about everything. However Britain did have a small cotton textile industry too. In fact, the cotton industry was probably first introduced into Britain by Protestant immigrants from the European continent, fleeing religious persecution. Baines [1835:99] mentions Walloon and Dutch immigrants to East Anglia in the second half of the sixteenth century. However, the cotton industry did not take permanent root there (Wadsworth and Mann, 1931: 19-20). Rather, the industry took root in the already established textile producing region of Lancashire at the beginning of the seventeenth century, initially through the production of fustians, a combination of cotton weft and linen warp (Wadsworth and Mann, 1931: 15; 527).

  321. Malla says:
    @Ron Unz

    This old story of “privatizing the benefits but socializing the costs” has been very typical in many countries, on a whole range of different matters

    Yes, my thoughts exactly, Iwas going to bring that up here. Very likely the benefits of Empire reached a small minority at the top but the home country (highly productive Industrialised) populations had to at times pay the bills.

    For example:
    In their meticulous study of the economy of the global British Empire Davis and Huttenback arrived at some surprising figures for the British Empire. By their calculations between 1860-64 and 1910-12, the residents of British India were some of the lowest taxed people in the World who 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, were among the highest taxed people in the world, paid £4.76 per capita on average over the same period.

    It is very likely the average Briton (Middle Classes and maybe Working classes and maybe even aristocrats who were not “insiders in the game”) or the average Frenchman or the average Dutchman paid for the Empires while an elite at the top got the benefits. Much like the American “Empire” today, many of the USA’s misadventures and military spending do not bring much benefits to the average American (highly taxed for the military Industrial Complex and global outposts) but benefits some powerful people and interests at the top.

  322. Malla says:
    @Seraphim

    Would have Indians fought in their millions (many volunteers) on British side in two world wars

    Indians fought for their King Emperor, we provided the largest voluntary army for our King Emperor in human history, about 2.5 million men. What people do not realise that the British Monarchs were our King Emperors, King Emperors of INDIA and many Indians (especially the poor masses) genuinely considered them our own Imperial family. Indeed many of the complaints of the Indian revolutionaries were against the British Raj Government of India, never against our Imperial family who were popular in India. Many a times they genuinely behaved as Indian Emperors. Gave grants to Classical Indian artists like our own Kings would.

    For example The Imperial Durbar of 1911 marked the zenith of the British Raj. Famous Indian Hindustani Classical dancers, Gauhar Jan of Calcutta and Janki Bai of Allahabad performed a mujra for King George V, and for their song ‘Yeh Hai Tajposhi Ka Jalsa Mubarak Ho Mubarak Ho’ they were given a gift of 100 guineas. Classical mestro M Lakshmana Suri of Madras, father of Judge and musicologist T L Venkatarama Iyer and uncle to Harikesanallur L Muthaiah Bhagavatar, composed a set of 100 verses in Sanskrit on the King. It was titled ‘George Deva Shatakam’. He was awarded the title of Mahamahopadhyaya for the effort.
    The Muthialpet Sabha of George Town, Madras, announced a competition among Classical Indian composers for coming up with a song on King George. The eminent Carnatic Classical vocalist and composer Ramanathapuram ‘Poochi’ Srinivasa Iyengar was awarded the gold medal for his kriti ‘Satatamu Brovumayya Chakravartini’ in Raga Todi. A mangalam (benediction) too was composed. It goes ‘Jayatu Jayatu Sarvabhauma George Nama, Sundari Mary Ragni Sahita Vijayi Bhava’. It must have been very pleasant for Queen Mary to be called a beauty. Sadly the composer is not known.

    The Mughals before them and the Delhi Sultante before them too were of foreign origins. Sure they married with Indians and stayed in India, so what? For Indians, the kings of some other part of India were foreigners.

    • Replies: @Malla
  323. Malla says:
    @Malla

    From the book Mother India
    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300811h.html
    “When the Prince of Wales sailed to India from London, late in 1921, Mr. Gandhi, then at the height of his popularity, proclaimed to the Hindu world that the coming visit was “an insult added to injury,” and called for a general boycott.[13] [13. Gandhi’s Letters on Indian Affairs, pp. 96-7.]
    Political workers obediently snatched up the torch, rushing it through their organizations, and the Prince’s landing in Bombay became thereby the signal for murderous riot and destruction. No outbreak occurred among the responsible part of the population, nor along the line of progress, which was, of course, well guarded. But in the remoter areas of the city, hooliganism ran on for several days, with some fifty killings and four hundred woundings, Indian attacking Indian, while arson and loot played their ruinous part.

    Meanwhile the Prince, seemingly unmoved by the first unfriendly reception of all his life, proceeded to carry out his officially arranged programme in and about the city. On the evening of November 22 it was scheduled that he should depart for the North.
    As he left Government House on the three- or four-mile drive to the Bombay railway station, his automobile ran unguarded save for the pilot police car that went before. Where it entered the city, however, a cordon of police lined the streets on both sides. And behind that cordon pressed the people–the common poor people of the countryside in their uncountable thousands; pressed and pushed until, with the railway station yet half a mile away, the police line bent and broke beneath the strain.

    Instantly the crowd surged in, closing around the car, shouting, fighting each other to work nearer–nearer still. What would they do? What was their temper? God knew! Gandhi’s hot words had spread among them, and God alone, now, could help. Some reached the running-boards and clung. Others shoved them off, for one instant to take their places, the next themselves to be dragged away. And what was this they shouted? At first nothing could be made of it, in the bedlam of voices, though those charged with the safety of the progress strained their ears to catch the cries.
    Then words stood out, continuously chanted, and the words were these:
    “Yuvaraj Maharaj ki jai!” “Hail to the Prince!” And: “Let me see my Prince! Let me see my Prince! Let me only see my Prince just once before I die!”
    The police tried vainly to form again around the car. Moving at a crawl, quite unprotected now, through an almost solid mass of shouting humanity, it won through to the railway station at last.

    There, within the barriers that shut off the platform of the royal train, gathered the dignitaries of the Province and the City, to make their formal farewells. To these His Royal Highness listened, returning due acknowledgments. Then, clipping short his own last word, he turned suddenly to the aide beside him.
    “How much time left?”
    “Three minutes, sir,” replied the aide.
    “Then drop those barriers and let the people in”–indicating the mobs outside.
    Like the sweep of a river in flood the interminable multitudes rolled in–and shouted and adored and laughed and wept, and, when the train started, ran alongside the royal carriage till they could run no more.

    And when he turned back from his transit of the Great North Gate–the Khyber Pass itself–a strange thing awaited him. A swarm of Untouchables, emboldened by news that had reached them, clustered at the roadside to do him reverence, “Government ki jai!” “Hail to the Government!” they shouted, with cheers that echoed from the barren hills.
    And when the Prince slowed down his car to return their greetings, they leapt and danced in their excitement.
    For nowhere in all their store of memory or of legend had they any history of an Indian magnate who had noticed an Untouchable except to scorn him. And here was a greater than all India contained–the son of the Supreme Power, to them almost divine, who deigned not only to receive but even to thank them for their homage! Small wonder that their spirits soared, that their eyes saw visions, that their tongues laid hold upon mystic words.
    “Look! Look!” they cried to one another. “Behold, the Light! the Light!”

    And such was their exaltation that many of them somehow worked through to Delhi to add themselves to the twenty-five thousand of their kind who there awaited the Prince’s coming. The village people from round about flocked in to join them–the simple people of the soil who know nothing of politics but much of friendship as shown in works. And all together haunted the roadside, waiting and hoping for a glimpse of his face.

    At last he came, down the Grand Trunk Road, toward the Delhi Gate. And in the center of the hosts of the Untouchables, one, standing higher than the rest, unfurled a flag.
    “Yuvaraj Maharaj ki jai! Raja ke Bete ki jai!
    “Hail to the Prince! Hail to the King’s Son!” they all shouted together, to burst their throats. And the Prince, while the high-caste Indian spectators wondered and revolted within themselves at his lack of princely pride, ordered his car stopped.

    Then a spokesman ventured forward, to offer in a humble little speech the love and fealty of the sixty millions of the Unclean and to beg the heir to the throne to intercede for them with his father the King Emperor, never to abandon them into the hands of those who despised them and would keep them slaves.

    The Prince heard him through. Then–whether he realized the magnitude of what he did, or whether he acted merely on the impulse of his natural friendly courtesy toward all the world–he did an unheard-of thing. He stood up–stood up, for them, the “worse than dogs,” spoke a few words of kindness, looked them all over, slowly, and so, with a radiant smile, gave them his salute.”

    To give you an idea, when Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip came on an official visit to India in 1961 when India was independent and A REPUBLIC i.e. She was not our Queen, we had a president as head of State. Yet huge crowds of simple people came to Delhi to see her. Royalty and pageantry always had a strong hold on Indian people.

    Queen Elizabeth II & Prince Philip: The Royal Tour of India Pt. 1 (1961)
    Check from 1:37 minutes to 2:35 minutes to see the huge excited crowds throng Delhi to see the Royal family which was no longer their own but once was theirs. Remember these were genuine crowds who came on their own accord and not the fake crowds of children waving flags as in common in many countries when foreign leaders visit.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  324. @Malla

    Indeed you are copying and pasting from other sources without giving the references. Here you’ve copied large tracts word for word from wikepedia without quoting their webpages. You could make use of the Blockquote and More tags and quote sources. Not saying you don’t at all, ever, but very often you don’t when you could.

    • Replies: @barr
  325. anon[239] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/heard/commodities-currencies.html— Britain’s trade deficit coulnd be repaired by exporting wooln,raw cotton,and sandalwoods any more . So it turned to opium . Cultivating it in India and exporting to China.

    “ost farmers in India rarely rebelled against the British Emp”- Another stupid lie. Rebellion broke out repteadly in Bengal, Bihar, Kerala, even in Burma. Dont bullshit here. Even in early 1900 unrest in labor and farm sectors continued to brew but Ghandhi ignored and demonized .

    “No dummy, British India made most of that money from …….
    As far as opium funding wars, that the British Indian Empire was a mini empire in its own right….And most of those economic decisions were made in Calcutta/New Delh”

    I thought you are a dumbass stupid ,but no,you are a shallow intellectual pervert . Mughal and Pathan did not take the money out . There was no flight of wealth . Money and metal stayed inside India.
    Raj enriched itself with revenue not India. Service it provided was kept to bare essential ,enough for econimc exploitation. Money from opium serviced its war .

    India became a center for economic activity,political planning,distribution center to serve not India but the far flung empire that coulnd be served from London because of distance . India ran empire like the ‘ negro’ ran the white household . Moron, you get the idea.
    ‘ Rupee was legal tender ‘ – not a rupee under Indian control but under occupied and colonized Indian control . Moron ,you see the fundamental issue with your fathoming of the problem?

    ‘is why India was mostly a loss making colony.’
    Your next bullshit is always worse than the preceding one.

    Just try to understnad the lament of Neil Ferguson and Peter Hitchens – Britain should have avoided WW1. Britan became debt ridden and weakened . It was solvent and it could have stayed that way and preserved its empire .
    Its an indirect admission that empire was good for Britain.
    It was so good that Australian would remind Britan that when Singapore fell to Japan, order came to save India not Australia from Japan.

    -Let me summmarize for you again :

    • Thanks: barr
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  326. anon[239] • Disclaimer says:

    For Malla-318

    India and China are poised again to reenact the history . The end and begining look differnt and located at differnt points.
    Today American companies – media and agro business in conjunction with family run Indian trade comanies are shafting the farmers ,laborers,and gutting local small scale economies . 80 % of Indian employed are not salaried ,neither by gov nor by private. They work outside the grid . They contribute large percentage of GDP and generate wealth. These people are target of the media like Facebook , by Bill Gate for e commerce ,and by agro business . Anerican government meanwhile is eyeing China – to destroy it militarily, make it safe for US products by introducing new clauses ,objections,and by imperial demand with arrigance. India is on board to undercut and harm China.
    India is not on the driver’s seat . India isnt even inside the vehicle . But it helps distract the native . Nationalism is the cry of the moment . India is under siege from within and without.

    200 yrs ago India played similar role. Its elite and businessmen cooperated with Britain, sabotaged the country,gutted the local economy,shifted agriculture to opium .Britain wanted more and wanted new market for its sandalwood,wool,cotton. It forced opium on China because Chinese didnt have any interest to buy British products .
    Back then ,France USA and Russia played similar part – demanding same access and privilges that would be accorded under duress to any of them . The difference–Russia today isn’t in the league .
    India is there to play its part . Let the farmers commit suiicide .

    Wrongly educated Indians blame muslim, Pakistan, Kashmir, Naxal, Sikh farmers, for Indias ills of 20 th and 21 st century . The blame lies in the behavior of the family run corporations, and of the politucians . Both paying homages to outside finacial and military forces .

    Intellectually -challenged illeducated blame maratha and mughal and pay homage to British Raj . Apple never falls far from the tree .

    The fag end of US imperialism contrasts with the promising begining of the Britsh empire. History doesnt repeat . At best it rhymes discordantly and painfully.

    • Thanks: barr
    • Replies: @Malla
  327. barr says:
    @Commentator Mike

    He is a piece of work . Thats why .

    This is or him also :

    “Without control over Indian territories the English East India Company would not have been able to survive for half a century after the loss of its Indian trading monopoly. It had access to India’s land revenue, a process that had begun with its acquisition of the diwani of Bengal in 1765. Control over the land revenue of Bengal had obviated the need to bring in silver to pay for Indian textiles. From the second decade of the nineteenth century Indian textiles lost out in world markets to the manufactures of England’s industrial revolution. The Company met its requirement of remittances to the metropolis through the forced cultivation of indigo and financed its China tea trade by establishing a government monopoly over opium cultivation in India. Massive illegal sales of Indian opium in China made it unnecessary for the company to bring in silver to finance their purchase of tea. The opium monopoly provided about fifteen per cent of the income of the company state, and accounted for nearly thirty per cent of the value of India’s foreign trade until the mid-1850s.

    [MORE]

    Between 1808 and 1856 as much as $ 384 million worth of silver flowed out of China as opium paid for Chinese tea that accounted for 85% of the world’s exports of the commodity until 1871. In the early nineteenth century Latin America, especially Mexico, served as the source of silver. The dislocations caused by the Latin American independence movements resulted in a drop in silver and also gold production after 1811. Taking account of this global context, Man Houng Lin has claimed that “the British could not find enough silver to pay for tea and silk and ended up using opium as the medium of exchange for them”. A close study of the deliberations in the British Parliament leading up to the revision of the Company’s charter in 1813 reveals, however, that the decision not to pay in silver for Asian commodities was very much part of “the calculations, strategies, forms and practices of imperial rule”. Lowe (2015) has brilliantly brought to light the intimacies of four continents—America, Europe, Asia and Africa—by showing the connections between African slave labor in the cotton fields of the US South, textile production and design in Asia, and the tea and opium trades of India and China in the making of British “free trade imperialism”. The great divergence cannot be explained merely by reference to proximity of fossil-fuel energy resources or the New World windfall for Europe. A connective history reveals themportance of the colonial conquest of India and the opium trail that led from India to China.”ihttps://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-2634-9_6 importance of the colonial conquest of India and the opium trail that led from India to China.”

    after 1830 indigo became a forced cultivation by an indebted peasantry. The early nineteenth century was a blue phase in dressing for European war and fashion. The dye drawn from the indigo plant grown in Bengal and Bihar, therefore, had a buoyant market in the West. There was an intra-Asian dimension to the indigo trade as well with significant markets in West Asia, especially Iran, and Central Asia. A mere 4% of the indigo production was locally consumed. The average annual value of indigo exports from Calcutta rose from Rs. 4 million in the decade 1796–1805 to Rs. 21 million during 1836–1845. The “blue mutiny” by peasants in 1859–60 brought the indigo system to an end in Bengal, but a different configuration of class forces ensured its continuation in Bihar until World War I (Bose 1993, pp. 45–51; Nadri 2016).
    Raw cotton, raw jute, tea, coffee, oil-seeds, wheat and hides and skins were the chief exports of colonial India in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

    • Agree: showmethereal
    • Replies: @Malla
  328. barr says:

    “At the end of colonial rule in 1947 a mere 13% of the Indian population had basic literacy—a smaller proportion than at the onset of colonial rule in the late eighteenth century.”

    labor-intensive industrialization took place in Japan. South Asia, by contrast, witnessed a process of labor-intensive commercialization of agriculture .Unlike Japan, cottage industries did not flourish in the rural sector and there was no effort to improve the quality of labor through formal schooling or otherwise.

    A series of terrible famines occurred in the late 1890s and the turn of the twentieth century, that devastated the peasantry in the cotton-growing regions of western India. A premier British medical journal, The Lancet, estimated famine mortality in India during the 1890s at 19 million which was about half the population of Britain. The death toll for the 1897 famine ranged from the official figure of 4.5 million to unofficial claims of up to 16 million. These were the severest of the many “late Victorian holocausts” (Davis 2000). In 1900 the Viceroy, George Nathaniel Curzon, tried to pass off a severe problem of political economy as a problem of nature” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-2634-9_6 and

    Romesh Chunder Dutt and Dadabhai Naoroji, who squarely blamed colonial fiscal and financial policies for these man-made disasters.”

    Author—

    Sugata Bose .Department of HistoryHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

    • Replies: @Malla
  329. @antibeast

    Is that why Andrew “let me have universal income” Yang interested in being the next mayor of the Big Apple? I agree with you in that we should keep Chinese out of America… Gung Ho Fat Chow!

    • Replies: @antibeast
  330. antibeast says:
    @Temporary Insanity

    Andrew Yang is AMERICAN.

    Not. Zhong. Guo. Ren.

  331. Smith says:
    @Showmethereal

    What’s wrong with that asking that, boomer? You do realize that the Roman empire and even your favored Chinese dynasties had enough materials and knowledge to kickstart mechanization instead of making stuff by hands, which is the first step of Industrial Revolution right?

    Can you explain why they didn’t? Can you explain why humanity started Industrial revolution in the Europe but not in Asia despite all the “experiences over time and what comes before”?

    • Troll: showmethereal
  332. Malla says:
    @barr

    1947 a mere 13% of the Indian population had basic literacy—a smaller proportion than at the onset of colonial rule in the late eighteenth century.”

    Ridiculous, It increased from a much lower number to 13%
    From
    https://openthemagazine.com/essay/did-britain-educate-india/
    Did Britain Educate India?

    There were many problems in India that the British had to grapple with such as the caste system (parents would not send their kids to school with members of other castes)as well as lack of female students due to the conservative nature of society. A large number of female teachers play a huge part in spreading primary education.

    A series of terrible famines occurred in the late 1890s and the turn of the twentieth century, that devastated the peasantry in the cotton-growing regions of western India.

    FAMINES IN THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT, 1500 to 1767 with historical references.
    http://www.vinlandmap.info/india-famine/

    Famines in India were a regular occurrence even before the British took control. It is only that it were Europeans who kept the record better.

    Famines were much more common before the British came.

    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.

    It were the British who took efforts to stop famines in India partly by building railways.

    • Replies: @Malla
  333. Seraphim says:
    @Malla

    You certainly know better and are certainly more qualified to inject some common sense into the black and white partisan ideological discourse that passes for ‘history’, emitted from the ‘left’ (anti-imperialism/anti-fascism/anti-‘Cecil Rhodes conspiracy’) as well as from the ‘right’ (nationalism/fascism/’defense of the ‘Occident’ aka ‘white-aryan civilization’ (read German), attacked by the Oriental ‘Tschandalas’).
    I was ‘meditating’ about the little immediate success that a Subhas Chandra Bose and his association with Germany had in India (as well as the ‘Hindu–German Conspiracy’ of WW1).

    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
  334. Malla says:
    @Malla

    There were several canal commissions and famine commissions to address this issue continuously facing India before the conquered any territory.
    Indeed the largest irrigation project in the World at that time was in British India which helped Punjabi farmers enormously
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-chinese-communist-party/?showcomments#comment-3423723
    Irrigation networks built by British Raj in India to fight famines. Loads of them.
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-chinese-communist-party/?showcomments#comment-3426928
    Speech by Lord Lytton, Governer of India at the Indian Legislative Council held on December 27, 1877,’about taking steps to rid India of this old problem of recurrent famines.
    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.
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-chinese-communist-party/?showcomments#comment-3425766

    These were the severest of the many “late Victorian holocausts” (Davis 2000). In 1900 the Viceroy, George Nathaniel Curzon, tried to pass off a severe problem of political economy as a problem of nature”

    Davis is a Marxist crackpot with an axe to grind. I have covered both Davis and debunked lies about
    Lord Lytton in this debate in the comment section of this page
    https://www.unz.com/article/the-chinese-communist-party/

    • Replies: @barr
  335. barr says:
    @Malla

    Lord Lytton ! Lord Lytton!
    I have heard better argument by Dick Cheney justifying Abu Ghraib . You should embrace the views .
    Do you need some more names like Joe Liberman praising those guards taking immense precaution so none gets abused ?.I guess you would support architects of Abu Ghraib ’s criminal behaviors by saying that Saddam had done worse. Any thing else? Look like you did not like the quote from a historian from Harvard ! You don’t have to, You could reach a similar probable conclusion yourself by deductive reasoning from the socio economic conditions of the large number of the Indian population under Raj.

    People don’t attend school when they die early when they can not feed or clothe themselves and when they are forced to serve as indentured laborer for generations .

    By the way before the arrival of Bristh, Indian from Bihar UP or Tamil Nadu did not face abduction ,large-scale forced recruitment for serfdom in Malay or Indonesia or Fiji Mauritus Trinidad or Canada to serve Britain . I guess they were highly educated like you .
    Even Curzon did not resort to false data of earlier famines..He simply said that the nature had inflicted famines but two leading non -muslim leaders blamed it on British fiscal polices back then .

    Now go and screw yourself. But before you do -check this out–

    How Britain stole $45 trillion from India
    And lied about it. By Dr Jason Hickel , an academic at the University of London and a Fellow of the

    Royal Society of Arts.–“New research by the renowned economist Utsa Patnaik – just published by Columbia University Press – deals a crushing blow to this narrative. Drawing on nearly two centuries of detailed data on tax and trade, Patnaik calculated that Britain drained a total of nearly $45 trillion from India during the period 1765 to 1938.”

    https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india

    https://medium.com/history-of-yesterday/great-britain-looted-45-trillion-from-india-3abd4ab2a10a

    Other than looting g, they killed also

    Over ten million Indians died during each of the famines listed here:
    Great Bengal famine (1769–70)
    Chalisa Famine (1783–84)
    Skull Famine (1791–92)
    Great Famine (1876–78)
    Indian Famine (1896–97)
    Indian Famine (1899–1900”

    • Replies: @Malla
  336. Malla says:
    @Showmethereal

    The British economy and standard of living went up after 1947 because of the post WW2 boom.

    That may be true but if colonies were so important for their economies, how the boom? how the boomwithout the revenue stream from their jweel in their crown?

    By that point India was already gutted anyway.

    What rubbish. India was far better off in 1947 than 1757 with a more humane rule of law, massive railway system, massively increased irrigation system, increase modern literacy from before the British came, improved healthcare, postal system etc… Also in 1947 India and Pakistan (Pakistani civil servant Orya maqbool Jan has spoken about this) were with zero debt, indeed we had a surplus of 1 billion pound sterling while Britain itself was bankrupt. India in 1950 was in a far better position than China was.

    European colonies were like Italian American mafiosi. Go watch Goodfellas and learn.

    Bullshit. Simplistic brainwashed drivel.

    After you milk a fraudelent business dry – and wrung every piece of profit out of it – you torch the place and let it go…

    What? Again you are totally brainwashed. European colonization improved the lives of millions of non whites. People voluntarily moved to areas of colonization.

    The best and brightest were then allowed to migrate from the colonies

    Best and brightest? The Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK are not the best and brightest.

    If the mother country cares – why not tell all skiled migrants to stay home and build their own countries?

    That is what White nationalists are saying. But the same Western leftists pushing for more immigration are the same guys writing anti-colonialism propaganda. What does that tell you?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @showmethereal
  337. Malla says:
    @Showmethereal

    Other than Singapore and Hong Kong none of them are developed

    British ruled Hongkong was developed but Ethiopea which hardly faced much Colonialism but faced decades of Communism was a disaster. Does that teach you something?
    Decolonisation is over for decades now, now the bullshit excuse that colonization caused their poverty is getting old. During the British Empire days, the average Zambian had an income 1/7th of the British income. Today the average income of the Zambian is 1/27th today. The problem is that these countries are poor inspite of colonialism. Colonialism had developed them in the past. Also many of these colonies took crackpot economic decisions many a times out of hatred for the West as well as Marxist brainwashing.

    From
    https://archive.org/download/Gilley/Gilley%20–%20Case%20for%20Colonialism.pdf

    “Few cases better illustrate this than Guinea-Bissau and its anti-colonial ‘hero’ Amilcar Cabral. In launching a guerrilla war against Portuguese rule in 1963 Cabral insisted that it was ‘necessary to totally destroy, to break, to reduce to ash all aspects of the colonial state in our country in order to make everything possible for our people’. 31 He took aim at a successful colonial state that had quadrupled rice production 32 and initiated sustained gains in life expectancy 33 since bringing the territory under control in 1 936. Cabral, in his own words, was ‘never able to mobilize the people on the basis of the struggle against colonialism’. 34
    Instead, he secured training and arms from Cuba, Russia and Czechoslovakia and economic assistance from Sweden. 35 The resulting war killed 1 5,000 combatants (out of a population of 600,000) and at least as many civilians, and displaced another 1 50,000 (a quarter of the population).

    Once’liberation’was achieved in 1 974, a second human tragedy unfolded, costing at least 1 0,000 further lives as a direct result of conflict. By 1 980, rice production had fallen by more than 50% to 80,000 tonnes (from a peak of 1 82,000 tonnes under the Portuguese). Politics became a ‘cantankerous din of former revolutionaries’ in the words of Forrest. 36 Cabral’s half- brother, who became president, unleashed the secret police on the tiny opposition – 500 bodies were found in three mass graves for dissidents in 1 981 , 37 A tenth of the remaining population upped stakes for Senegal. 38 The Cabralian one-party state expanded to 1 5,000 employees, 1 0 times as big as the Portuguese administration at its peak. 39 Confused Marxist scholars blamed the legacies of colonialism or the weather or Israel. 40

    Things have gotten worse. Guinea-Bissau has a more or less permanent United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force and continues to suck up millions in aid as the ‘continuadores de Cabral’ squabble under what the World Bank calls ‘continuing political disarray’. 41 Today, in per-capita terms, rice production is still only one-third of what it was under the Portuguese despite 40 years of international aid and technological advances.The health transition, meanwhile, slowed considerably after independence. By 2015, the average Guinea-Bissauan was living to just 55, meaning gains of just 0.3 years of extra life per year since independence, less than half ofthe 0.73 extra years of life per year being gained in the late colonial period. What might have become a prosperous and humane Macau or Goa of Africa is today a cesspool of human suffering. Western and African anti-colonial scholars continue to extol Cabral’s ‘national liberation’ ideas. 42 But actually existing Guineans may be asking: When are the Portuguese coming back?

    Guinea-Bissau seems like an extreme case. It is not. Of the 80 countries that threw off the colonial ‘yoke’ after World War II, at least half experienced similar trauma, while most of the rest limped on. For 60 years, Third World despots have raised the spectre of recolonisation to discredit democratic oppositions and ruin their economies. Yet there is virtually nothing written about most of these postcolonial traumas since, as Igreja notes, it still assumed that anti-colonial movements were victims rather than victimisers. 43 Scholars in full Eurocentric mode prefer to churn out books on colonial atrocities or to suggest that ‘colonial legacies’ have something to do with the follies and body blows inflicted on these countries by their anti-colonial leaders. 44

    To be sure, just as the colonial era was not an unalloyed good, the independence era has not been an unalloyed bad. A few postcolonial states are in reasonable health. Those whose moral imaginations were not shrouded by anti-colonial ideology had the most productive encounter with modernity, emerging as leaders of what W. Arthur Lewis called the ‘creative’ Third World. 45

    But most of the rest remained stuck in anti-colonial ‘protest’ identities with dire consequences for human welfare. A sobering World Bank report of 1996 noted: ‘Almost every African country has witnessed a systematic regression of capacity in the last 30 years; the majority had better capacity at independence than they now possess’. 46 This loss of state capacity was no trifle; it meant the loss of tens of millions of lives. And it is not getting better. For instance, only 13 of 102 historically developing countries are on track to have high state capacity by the year 21 00, according to Andrews and colleagues. The people of Bangladesh will have to wait another 244 years at their current rate to reach a high-capacity state. 47
    Would it have taken Britain, even in some adjusted role (as discussed below), until the middle of the twenty-third century to institute good government in this former province of Eastern Bengal?

    In international affairs, meanwhile, otherwise liberal and democratic states such as India, Brazil and South Africa continue to style themselves as enemies of Western colonialism. As Chatterjee Miller shows, the foreign policies of these former colonies continue to be driven by a sense ofvictimhood and entitlement rather than rational self-interest or global responsibility. 48 This means that every time the world is desperate for a coordinated response to a human, political or security catastrophe – in Sri Lanka, Venezuela or Zimbabwe, for instance – the voices of anti-colonialism intercede to prevent action. As it turned out, the most serious threat to human rights and world peace was not colonialism – as the United Nations declared in 1960 – but anti-colonialism. “

    I will let a fellow Chinese explain it to you

    You were colonized by Europeans (Belgians) but you learnt nothing from them – Chinese man to Congolese

  338. Seraphim says:
    @Malla

    It tells that they already live in the Orwellian society of Doublethink.

    • Agree: Malla
  339. Malla says:
    @anon

    India and China are poised again to reenact the history .
    Intellectually -challenged illeducated blame maratha and mughal and pay homage to British Raj . Apple never falls far from the tree .

    You are definitely not an Indian. You are a crackpot who does not understand India and have never lived in India for long. Nobody in India blames the Marathas and pays homage to the British. LOL
    Stop writing drivel t hat you do not understand. Any Indian who will read that statement will die laughing at the clown that you are. In India the brutality of the Marathas are unknown to most people, they are seen as heroes who fought against the Muslim Mughals. Get your robotic head out of your diseased ass.

    You surely are some Chinese crackpot who always purposefully misunderstands India.
    GET THIS IN YOUR THICK HEAD. ANTI-MUSLIM AND ANTI-CHINA ARE A CONTINUATION OF ANTI-BRITISH BRAINWASHING. ANTI-BRITISH BRAINWASHING WOULD INEVITABLY LEAD TO ANTI-MUSLIM HATRED. MOST ANTI-BRITISH REVOLUTIONARIES WERE HINDUS DRIVEN BY HINDU IDEOLOGY, THE MUSLIMS WANTED THE BRITISH RULE TO BE STRONG.
    INDIANS LOOK AT CHINA AS THE NEW BRITISH RAJ. MOST OF US HATE THE BRITISH AND THE CHINESE. TOGETHER.
    IN INDIA ANTI-BRITISH SENTIMENTS CORRELATE 1000% WITH ANTI-CHINESE SENTIMENTS. MORE ANTI-BRITISH RAJ A PERSON IN INDIA IS, MORE ANTI-CHINESE/ANTI-CCP HE IS. 1000%
    YOU CHINESE ROBOTIC MORONS NEED TO GET THIS IN TOUR THICK HEADS.

    During the Anti-British Struggle, there was propaganda that foreigners want to keep India and Indians down. That emotions have now targeted the Chinese and the CCP.
    The foreigner British “exploited us” bullshit has now ( as it naturally would) turned towards Muslim foreigners “exploited”us.
    If you do not understand this, you do not understand India. India looks at itself as an anti-colonial revolutionary state. Our education system and media is 1000% anti-British Empire propaganda. Go and check our TV programs. Now that same propaganda is turning against the Chinese as well.
    In India, being anti British and being anti-Chinese tends to go hand in hand among the people. Both are looked as foreign aggressors who want/wanted to keep India down.
    Hindus look at both the British and Muslims are foreigners and will always look this way for the next 1000 years. Most Hindus will never accept the foreign religion of Islam as native to the Indian subcontinent, Hindus look at Indian subcontinent Muslims as disgusting traitors to their Indian heritage and collaborators with Islamic foreign invaders. Always will. There is nothing you guys can do anything about it.

    Anti-Chinese and anti-Muslim sentiments are the natural next step of anti-British sentiments.
    only those who understand India will understand this. But Chinese thick headed morons cannot seem to get this in their childish robotic heads, the world is divided into West and China. Imperialists Vs Revolutionary Chinese. Indians look at Chinese as the new British aggressors and imperialists. Stop being childish.

  340. Malla says:
    @barr

    By the way before the arrival of Bristh, Indian from Bihar UP or Tamil Nadu did not face abduction ,large-scale forced recruitment

    Nobody was abducted you stupid punk.
    An opinion is not peer reviewed work. The fact that this is bullshit is easy to prove as 45 trillion is way bigger than the entire GDP of India during that time. How can anyone steal an amount bigger than the entire GDP?

    Over ten million Indians died during each of the famines listed here:
    Great Bengal famine (1769–70)
    Chalisa Famine (1783–84)

    You really are a thickhead. Famines were happening every other year in India even before the British came here.
    FAMINES IN THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT, 1500 to 1767 with historical references.
    http://www.vinlandmap.info/india-famine/

    It were the British who took concrete steps to stop it.

    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.”

    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.”

  341. Malla says:
    @anon

    Mughal and Pathan did not take the money out .

    Pathan did not take money out? What are you smoking nutcase? The pathans came from Afghanistan, a foreign land and took the money there. They looted the wealth of Indian temples. In one case it were the British who tried to get the gates of the Somnath temple back. Once the British took control of India, the number of Afghan raiding and pillaging stopped completely.
    So what if the fat Mughal foreigners did not take money out.They ruthlessly taxed the farmer. They built great monuments for their own grandeour by looting the farmers dry. Yes they did build some public works but it were the British with their light taxes who built railways, postal system, universities which were far more beneficial.

    Britain should have avoided WW1. Britan became debt ridden and weakened . It was solvent and it could have stayed that way and preserved its empire .

    Who wants to give its Empire or possessions away? That does not mean economic benefits. It could mean benefits in pride and prestige

    when Singapore fell to Japan, order came to save India not Australia from Japan.

    Can you give me the exact quote? official documents and who gave this order? Was it Churchill?
    And after defending India from the Japanese Empire, they gave independence to their so important cashcow colony in just two years!!! They could have held on to India much longer if they wanted. They just walked out of their such an important colony!!

    • Replies: @anon
  342. Malla says:
    @anon

    https://openthemagazine.com/cover-stories/freedom-issue-2018/essay-freedom-issue-2018/economic-lessons-from-the-raj/
    Economic Lessons From the Raj The myth of colonial plunder by Zareer Masani.
    The Maddison figures show that India’s per capita GDP was only half that of Britain’s in 1600, when the Mughal Empire was at its peak. Thereafter India witnessed steady economic decline, with its trade heavily dependent on textile exports increasingly unable to compete with cheaper European cloth. That’s because the Mughal economy offered neither incentives nor opportunity for labour-saving technological innovation. Eighty per cent of its territories were allocated to a rentier class of jagirdars, who creamed off any agricultural surplus for their own luxurious lifestyles. Because their tenure was restricted to a few years, they had no incentive to reinvest their rents in improved productivity. Capital costs were prohibitively high, with interest rates double the 6 per cent average in Britain and peaking as high as 40 per cent in pre-colonial Bengal.

    That’s not the propaganda of colonial apologists but the judgement of eminent Indian historians as diverse as the Marxist Irfan Habib and the nationalist Tapan Raychaudhuri. ‘Not only was the Mughal state its own gravedigger,’ concluded Habib, ‘but no new order was or could be created by the forces ranged against it.’

    Both Habib and Western economists like Angus Maddison have agreed that the Mughal land revenue system was far more exploitative than anything later devised by the Company Sahib or the Raj. It’s estimated that the Mughal elite creamed off an average 15 per cent of national income for its own consumption, compared with a mere 5 per cent by the British. Under the rapacious warlords who succeeded the Mughals, land revenue demands soared as high as 50 per cent of production to fund their local wars.

    From “India Its Administration And Progress” by John Starchey

    Instead of giving opinions of my own to tlie same effect, I will make another quotation from. Mr. J. S» Mill:—

    A large portion of the revenue of India consists of the rent of land. So far as this resource extends in any country, the public necessities of the country may be said to be provided for at no expense to the people at large. Where the original right of the state to the land of the country has been reserved, ami its natural — but no more than its natural — rents made available to meet the public expenditure, the people may be said to be so far untaxed; because the government only takes from them as a tax what they would otherwise have paid as rent to a private landlord. … It is, of course, essential that the demand of revenue should be kept within the limits of a fair rent. Under the native governments, and in the earlier periods of our own, this limit was often exceeded. But, under the British rule, in every instance in which the fact of excessive assessment was proved by large outstanding balances and increased difficulty of realisation, the government has, when the fact was ascertained, taken measures for reducing the assessment. The history of our government in India has been a continued series of reductions of taxation; and in all the improved systems of administration the object has been not merely to keep the government demand within the limits of a fair rent, but to leave a large portion of the rent to the proprietors. . . . Thus, by far the largest item in the public revenue of India is obtained virtually without taxation, because obtained by the mere interception of a payment which, if not made to the state for public uses, would generally be made to individuals for their private use.” ^

    Since the middle of the last century the land revenue of British India has more than doubled in amount, but it must not be supposed that the burden on the land has become heavier. The truth is that the process, described by Mr. Mill as “ a continued series of reductions of taxation,” has gone on during this period without intermission. The increase of land revenue has
    been mainly due to the extension of the empire. Since 1840 there has been, as I have already noticed, an addition of some 500,000 square miles of territory.
    In our older provinces the growth of the land revenue has been entirely the result of increase in the area of cultivation and in the value of agricultural produce, and in no instance has it been due to enhancement of the incidence of the government demand. There has been, on the contrary, in the words of the Government of India, “ a progressive reduction of assessments extending throughout the last century, and becoming more instead of less active during its second half.”

    There has never, so far as our knowledge goes, been a government in India that has taken so small a share in the profits of the soil as that taken by ourselves. This is true of every province of British India, Under all preceding governments, and under native governments to this day, there has been, in the words of Mr. Thomason, “no other limit to the demand upon the land than the power of the government to enforce payment and the ability of the people to pay.”

    Under the system laid down by Akbar, and carried, into effect in the year 1582 by the famous settlement of Todar Mal, the sovereign was held to be practising a wise moderation when he fixed his share of the gross produce of the land at 33 per cent, but this was much less than was ordinarily demanded. The Marathas took at least one-half; and the same proportion was
    ordinarily assumed to be their proper share by the governments that preceded us in Madras.
    The result of minute inquiries made towards the end of the last century showed that the native rulers in Bengal usually took about 54 per cent. In the Punjab, when we first occupied the province, it was found that the share of the gross produce taken by the Sikh government was from 40 to 50 per cent. Elphinstone, in his History of India thus sums up the facts in regard to the land revenue under native governments : “ The sovereign’s share is now reckoned at one-half. A country is reckoned moderately assessed if he only takes one- third”; and in one of his minutes, referring to the Deccan, he says that it seems to have been “the original principle in all settlements for the Government to take half and leave half to the cultivator.”

    Compare the foregoing facts with the following.

    Instead of sweeping off the whole or the greater part of the surplus profit of the land, our Government never takes more than a fixed share, the rate of which necessarily varies, but which only in exceptional cases exceeds*7 or 8 per cent of the gross out-turn.Many of the native states of Bombay have been surveyed and settled on the system adopted by our government,
    and their rates are usually 10 to 15 per cent higher than in the British districts.
    In the Agra province, where the basis of the assessment is the rental of the land, and not the gross produce, our government, at the beginning of last century, took 90 per cent of the rent. We took the same proportion under the permanent settlement in Bengal. In the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh the share of the state is now less than 50 per cent of the rental, an amount estimated to be equivalent to 7 to 8 per cent of the gross produce.’-

    In Bengal the incidence is much less, but this has been the result of special causes, to which I shall again refer.

    Although the demands made upon the land by the British Government are far lighter than those of the governments that preceded it, it must be remembered that the principles on which our demands have been regulated are altogether different from theirs, and comparisons between the two are misleading. While our policy has been to encourage the growth of private property in land, and to take for the state only a moderate share of the rental or produce, former governments hardly recognised the existence of such property, and frequently took from the cultivator an amount as large as the full rack-rent which might have been taken by a private landlord, or the whole of the surplus profit after the expenses of cultivation had been defrayed. The cultivator was entitled to subsistence; everything else belonged to the state. This is often the assumption in Native states at the present time. In the words of Mr. J. S. Mill : “ Except during the occasional accident of a humane and vigorous local administration, the exactions had no practical limit but the inability of the peasant to pay more.” At the same time, when the peasant has no rights of property, and cultivates as a rack-rented tenant, it cannot be assumed that he pays less under our system than he paid before, when there was no private landlord between him and the state.

    An interesting investigation was made by the late Mr. Edward Thomas, in his Revenue Resources of the Moghul Empire, into the question of the amount of the revenue derived from the land and other sources by the Mughal emperors ; but the materials which he was able to collect were very imperfect. The revenues doubtless reached their highest point under Aurangzib.
    Mr. Thomas tells us that two manuscripts in the British Museum, copies apparently of official documents, give the land revenue of the empire for 1664-65

    ^ “The following maxim is believed to express the ruling idea of the revenue system maintained under the Emperor Akhar ; — ‘ There shall be left for every man who cultivates his land as much as he requires for his own support till the next crop be reaped, and that of his family, and for seed. This much shall he left to him ; what remains is land-tax, and shall go to the public treasury.’ ” —
    Sir E, Buck’s Statistical Atlas of India, p. 22.

    I quote also the following passage from the Report of the Indian famine Commission of 1901. “We have in the Ain-i-Akbari an authoritative contemporary record of what the share and the method of assessing it in the most highly organised and efficient native administration that India has had. Briefly stated, the land was classed according to its productiveness ; , . .
    a general average out-turn for each kind of crop was struck, ‘ one third part of which is exacted as the royal dues,’ . . . We know that this third part of the produce was constantly exceeded under the pressure of State necessity, or hyiarraers who contracted for the payment of the land revenue ; but apart from such excesses it is manifest that in the Mughal Hgime the la.nd revenue assessments were far more severe than any now enforced by the British Government.’*

    Akbar’s revenue was estimated at £26,743,000 and £24,056,000 Bernier, about the same time, gave the amount as £22,593,000 ; his details for the various provinces differ greatly from those in the Museum manuscripts, and Bernier himself describes his list as “ ce memoire que je lie crois pas trop exact ni veritable.” Towards the end of the seventeenth century a Venetian physician, Manucci, was employed at the Court of Aurangzib, and an account of much that he learned there is to be found in Catron’s Histoire generale de V Empire du Mogol (Paris, 1702). A list is given by Catron, on Manucci’s authority, of the amount of the land revenue in each province in 1697, when Aurangzib’s empire was much larger than it had been thirty years before. The total reaches the sum of £38,719,000. Whether these figures represent the demand or the collections is not stated, but no doubt the former is intended. Three manuscripts in the India Office library give the amount of Aurangzib’s land revenue at sums varying between £34,187,000 and £34,641,000; the years to which they refer are not stated, and although the totals do not much differ, the discrepancies in the details are great.

    Considering that the present land revenue of the British Government amounts only to £21,000,000, drawn from a more extensive empire than that of Aurangzib, the sums said to have been received or demanded from the land by the latter seem at first sight to deserve little credit. It seems, however, by no means impossible that even the largest amount mentioned may be approximately correct, because, as I have just explained, no comparisons are really possible between the land revenue of former Governments and our own. £38,000,000, or whatever may have been the actual amount of Aurangzib’s’ revenue from land, included not only all that we now take as land revenue, but the greater part of the profit that we leave to private proprietors. For example, the rental of the landholders of Bengal is now probably not less than £12,000,000, of which less than £3,000,000 is taken by the State, If a ruler like Aurangzib were to take our place, nearly the whole sum would be claimed by him which is now intercepted by the zemindars (landlords).”

  343. Malla says:
    @anon

    So it turned to opium . Cultivating it in India and exporting to China.

    From
    India Its Administration And Progress” by Sir John Strachey
    https://archive.org/download/in.ernet.dli.2015.278886/2015.278886.India-Its.pdf
    CHAPTER X: REVENUES OTHER THAN THOSE DERIVED FROM TAXATION , page 131
    Next to the Land revenue and Salt, the most productive source of the public income in India is Opium. The gross amount of the opium revenue in 1900-01 was £5,102,000. The average net annual revenue shown under that head for the five years ending with that year was £2,540,000, but to this must be added revenue obtained from opium consumed in India and credited under the head of Excise. It consists of duty and license fees for the sale of the drug, and an acreage tax on poppy grown in the Punjab. The average receipts from these sources for the same period were £668,000, making a total average net revenue from opium of £3,208,000. The seasons for the greater part of this quinquennial period were abnormally bad, and the actual net revenue for the year 1900-01 exceeded £4,000,000. Questions connected with the system under which the Indian Government derives this great revenue have been the subject of so much discussion in this country, and of so much ignorant, although honest misrepresentation, that it is desirable to state somewhat fully what I believe to be the truth. I am fortunate in being able to do this with an authority and accuracy not dependent on my own knowledge and experience alone.
    No more complete account of the facts regarding opium in India has ever been made public than that contained in a paper read by Mr. G. H. M. Batten, formerly of the Indian Civil Service, before the Society of Arts in March 1892, and Mr. Batten has been good enough to make the following abridgment of his paper, and to allow me to insert it in this chapter of my work. When necessary, the figures have been corrected to bring them up to date : —

    “Apart from moral considerations, the opium question, so far as India is concerned, is generally discussed as if it were one aflecting only the public resources of the Indian Administration, but it is much more far-reaching. The amount of revenue realised is but a part and not the greater part of the actual pecuniary value of the poppy crop and its products, while the well-being and happiness of hundreds of thousands of the people of India would be greatly affected by it’s extinction.

    India is essentially an agricultural country, and nearly the whole of its exports consist of products of the soil. One of the most important and valuable of these products is the opium-yielding poppy. It is impossible to state with accuracy when this plant was first introduced into India. There is little record of its early history, but it is known that the Mohammedans had succeeded, in the fifteenth century, in introducing the cultivation of the poppy into Cambay and Malwa, and that when the Emperor Akbar, in the latter half of the next century, established the Moghal Empire over Central India, he found Malwa opium a characteristic product of that country. He and his successors regarded opium as of necessity a State monopoly. There is ample evidence to prove that a large trade had been going on in opium between India and surrounding countries long before the East India Company, in 1773, undertook the supervision of the manufacture of opium in Bengal, Behar, and Orissa.

    The Company, in fact, inherited from the Moghal Government this important and legitimate source of revenue on an article of luxury which India had shown itself capable of producing in high perfection, and for which there was a large demand both in and out of that country. At first they continued the system of farming the exclusive right of opium manufacture, but this was found to entail many abuses. Amongst them was the pressure brought by the contractors, in spite of the most stringent regulations to the contrary, on the cultivators, whom they forced to carry on the cultivation, and whom they cheated in various ways. It also led to the adulteration of the drug and its illicit sale. The consequences were so injurious to the revenue that, in 1797, the contract system was abandoned, and the Government assumed the monopoly of manufacture through its own agencies, a system which has remained in force until the present day. There was, indeed, at that time, no practicable alternative. The strongest opponent to the system of Government manufacture would hardly contend that the growth of the poppy and the manufacture of opium should have been left free and unrestricted, as that would infallibly have led to a great increase in the produce of the drug, and probably to its deterioration. On the other hand, if it ever entered into the conception of the Court of Directors to suppress, in the interests of morality, the cultivation of the poppy in the territories then in their possession, it is doubtful whether they would have had the power in those times to have done so, and it is certain that they could not have controlled the production of the vast poppy-growing tracts outside those territories in Malwa, Cambay, and elsewhere. The only result would have been that the opium consumers in India would have been supplied from sources outside British territory, and that the export trade would have been transferred to ports other than British, It would certainly have been impossible in those days to establish a Customs line to prevent the entry of opium into the Company’s possessions.
    The Company would have sacrificed its revenue, and no one would have been benefited except the people of the territories outside the Company’s possessions, at the expense of those within them.

  344. Malla says:
    @anon

    From the same source
    India Its Administration And Progress” by Sir John Strachey
    https://archive.org/download/in.ernet.dli.2015.278886/2015.278886.India-Its.pdf
    CHAPTER X: REVENUES OTHER THAN THOSE DERIVED FROM TAXATION
    “The State monopoly continues to be administered by the Bengal Government, although its operations now extend into the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Under it, no person may cultivate the poppy except with a license from the Government, and every cultivator is bound to sell the opium produced from crop to the Government, in whose two factories, at Patna and Ghazipiir, it is manufactured into the opium of commerce. A portion of the manufactured opium is retained for consumption in India through vendors licensed by the Excise Department, and the remainder is sold monthly, by auction, in Calcutta to merchants, who export it. The Government prescribes rules for the cultivation of the poppy, the manufacture, possession, transport, import or export, and sale of opium, and any contravention of such rules is subject to stringent penalties, which may extend to imprisonment for one year or fine of 1000 rupees, or both. Poppy illegally cultivated, and opium the subject of any offence against the law, is liable to confiscation, together with the vessels, packages, and coverings in which it is found, and their other contents, and the animals and conveyances used in carrying it.

    “Like most crops, the poppy is subject to wide seasonal fluctuations, which formerly greatly affected the market prices of opium, led to speculation and gambling amongst the buyers for export, and caused corresponding uncertainty in the Government revenue. When, owing to the shortness of the supply, the price in Calcutta rose high, the direct effect was to stimulate the production of other opium competing in the foreign market with the Bengal drug, and amongst these the native production of China. Thus — and I would call particular attention to this fact, as having an important bearing on the question before us — the diminution of the supply of Indian opium to China was an incentive to the extension of poppy cultivation in China.
    ..snip..
    Recognizing the fact that the Chinese demand a large supply of opium, and that to whatever extent India was unable to satisfy that demand, it would be met, either by increase of the produce in China itself or by increased imports from other countries, the Government of India has thought it right, in the interests of the people of India, to shape its measures so as not to lose the natural advantages India possesses in the superior quality of its produce. Any one familiar with the records of the Government of India relating to this subject, must admit this is a fair representation of its policy and motives, and that nowhere in those records can he found any indication of a desire to stimulate the consumption of opium by the Chinese.

    “ In pursuance of this policy, the Government yearly regulates the extent of the poppy cultivation, guided chiefly by the market prices and the stock of opium in hand. No one is forced to grow a crop of poppy against his will. The sole inducement is the price offered by the Government for the produce. Since 1895 this price has been 5 rupees a seer, which is exactly equivalent to 2| lbs. troy. The Government makes advances, not bearing interest, before the crop is sown, and from time to time during its progress, thus saving the ryots (small farmers) from the exorbitant demands of the village money-lender. The crop, which is sown in the autumn and gathered in the spring, succeeds an autumn crop usually of Indian corn. The yield of opium per acre varies. For the five years ending 1900-01, the average produce per acre was 12 ‘7 lbs. Which, at 6 rupees a seer, gave the cultivator a gross return of nearly 37 rupees per acre. In addition to this, he receives payment for the poppy flower petals and the stalks and leaves, which are used in the factory for packing the opium cakes. The total average annual payments by the Bengal Government to the poppy cultivators exceed £1,500,000.

  345. Malla says:
    @anon

    From the same source
    India Its Administration And Progress” by Sir John Strachey
    https://archive.org/download/in.ernet.dli.2015.278886/2015.278886.India-Its.pdf
    CHAPTER X: REVENUES OTHER THAN THOSE DERIVED FROM TAXATION

    “The total annual value of the poppy crops in India may thus
    be estimated to be as follows : —
    Bengal crop …… £7,000,000
    Mahva crop, licitly consumed in British
    India and exported by sea . . . 3,250,000
    Malwa crop, consumed in Central India,
    Rajputana, and Baroda, and smuggled
    thence …… 2,000,000
    Total . £12,250,000

    This, less cost of production and transport, is divided between the producers and manufacturers, the landlords, the British and native administrations, the middlemen, merchants, shippers, vendors, etc., of India, and is paid by the ultimate consumers, principally Chinese.

    “ This is a very moderate estimate of the sum India is asked to sacrifice annually by suppressing her opium trade. The demand for this sacrifice is made not by the people of India, not by the people of China, not by the responsible administrators of those countries, but by an irresponsible party of philanthropists seeking to obtain their ends by the despotic action of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which India has no representatives.”

    …snip….
    “If there is one fact more certain than any other connected with this question, it is that the people of China had used opium for centuries before the people of England had any voice in the affairs of India. A valuable Historical Note on Opium in China has recently been drawn up by Dr. Edkins, of the Chinese Customs Service, and published by order of Sir Eobert Hart, the Inspector-General of the Imperial Maritime Customs of China. From this Note it appears that opium was first brought to China by the Arabs early in the eighth century, and it is frequently mentioned by Chinese writers of that time.”

  346. Smith says:

    Jesus Christ, Malla, cool it with the walls of text.

    You are really going down the rabbit hole by defending the indefensible like the British Empire.

    • Replies: @Malla
  347. Malla says:
    @Smith

    indefensible

    Not really bro.
    Walls of text—> Knowledge to destroy prevailing lies.

  348. Malla says:
    @d dan

    It is always sad to read trashes from house niggers / bananas.

    Questioning Chinese imperialism (rightly or wrongly) by a Vietnamese makes one a banana? We really deal with low IQ morons like d dan in this place some times who see all people who criticize China are lackeys of the West. The World is not simply China Vs whitey but different nations and powers having issues with each other and cooperating with each other.

    Meanwhile, you have to admire the power of brainwashing by their old colonial masters.

    Rubbish, Indian text books and media are totally anti-British propaganda.
    Again in India it is nationalist to be anti-British Raj, anti-Pakistani AND anti-Chinese. You guys need to get this in your big stupid heads. And yes Indian nationalism is very pro-Vietnamese (also Pro-Russian, pro-Israeli, pro-Japanese, pro-German, pro-Phillipines & pro-Mongolia). Vietnam is increasingly becoming extremely popular here among Indian Nationalists as a friendly brother nation. Indian Nationalism is also anti-American but that has reduced lately as the older anti-American generation loses influence. It used to be pro-Iranian but that has reduced too lately.

    • Replies: @antibeast
  349. Malla says:
    @barr

    financed its China tea trade by establishing a government monopoly over opium cultivation in India. Massive illegal sales of Indian opium in China made it unnecessary for the company to bring in silver to finance their purchase of tea.

    Stop blaberring nonsense and lets check some original sources.
    Check out posts 345, 346 and 347 on this page and learn facts.
    What do we learn?
    1] Opium State monopoly as revenue in India started with the Mughal Empire from the time of our Emperor Akbar.
    2] The British simply inherited this official revenue supply from opium from the earlier Mughal government of India before them.
    3] The revenues of the sale came to British India for Indian development. Government auctioned the opium to merchants who included British, Jewish, Indians etc…. Some of that merchant money might have gone to Great Britain and even the USA. But the government revenue by the sale of opium accrued to Indian revenues not that of Great Britain.
    4] One of the reasons of bringing opium into a State monopoly by the British was to stop Indian contractors cheating Indian opium farmers.
    5] No Indian farmer was forced to grow opium , they did it out of their free will to make money. And they made good money out of it. The total average annual payments by the Bengal Government to the Indian poppy cultivators exceed £1,500,000. Also
    Opium was grown by Indian farmers after the corn harvest was done and it did not coincide with any foodcrop farming cycle thus not affecting food security.
    6] The Government provided zero interest finance to the Indian farmers to protect them from Indian baniya money landers.
    7] Arabs have been selling Opium to China from the 8th century, their are Chinese records of this.

    • Replies: @barr
  350. anon[130] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    “In 1885, Lord Randolph Churchill said, “Without India, England would cease to be a nation.” E
    mpire’s most valuable possession, its “Jewel in the Crown,” was India.

    On Aug. 20, 1940, just four months after becoming prime minister, in a speech to Parliament Churchill thundered, “The British Empire stands invincible. . . ..https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/churchills-blunder-iron-rule-of-the-raj-in-india/
    Britain made money out of India and that enabled and defined British successes –in technology science, health ,medicine,and in propaganda.

    Does losing the argument matter? No. Move the goal post to taxation . So how many farmer- led rebel break out in India before Britain? I guess the farmers and small business owners just kept on singing hymns and tending to lilly never bothering about famine and torture.

    “Famines, never unknown in India, became increasingly lethal during the Raj because of the export of foodgrains and the replacement of food crops with indigo or jute.

    Churchill and his associates could easily have stopped the famine (India) with a few shipments of foodgrains but refused, in spite of repeated appeals from two successive Viceroys”-,https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/churchill-s-secret-war-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html

    British attitude was in 40s that sending more food would worsen the situation by encouraging Indians to breed more. An attitude that did not develop one morning out of nowhere.

    British apologist would continue to lie in straight face as long as the British empire ’s relics in academia, in Hollywood ,among Tories and Conservative maintain powerful financial grip and emotional control .
    Reality is this that the systematic stealing oppression looting ,enslavement and famishing had to wait few more centuries after the arrival of Mughal or reign of Shahjahan. That was unique European.

    Tourist visiting Taj generats revenues for India. Tourist visiting Indian collections in UK generates revenues for UK.

    Another piece of information —
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

    Even in 1941 Britain in principle was not ready to change status of India when it was ready to apply to other .
    Britain couldn’t maintain an empire any more and left .Attitude had hardened in Indian ( both leader and masses ) by that time .Empire was not cheap in 1946 as was it in 1916 0r 1926 Noietehr it was any more free form violence by 1946. Britain did not develop new mutation in DNA in 1946 and declare :Let Indian be free . They were neutered and castrated .

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
    , @Malla
  351. Malla says:
    @anon

    “In 1885, Lord Randolph Churchill said, “Without India, England would cease to be a nation.” Empire’s most valuable possession, its “Jewel in the Crown,” was India.
    On Aug. 20, 1940, just four months after becoming prime minister, in a speech to Parliament Churchill thundered, “The British Empire stands invincible. . . ..https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/churchills-blunder-iron-rule-of-the-raj-in-india/

    Of course India was a Jewel in the Crown for prestige and strategic location. Even through it was mostly a loss making colony.
    That is no official document about saving India over Australia from the Japanese Empire. Show me proof of such documents or shot bullshiting and lying.

    as long as the British empire ’s relics in academia, in Hollywood ,among Tories and Conservative maintain powerful financial grip and emotional control .

    You truly are a deluded monkey. The British have no control over Hollywood. Hollywood is controlled by leftist Jews. And Hollywood is quite anti-British. It were the financial Jews who benefited from these empires and now they want to escape the blame by putting it all on the Europeans.

    Britain made money out of India and that enabled and defined British successes –in technology science, health ,medicine,and in propaganda.

    Bullshit, Britain would have become a successful country without its Empire, easy. Read the memoirs of Persian Indian nobleman traveler Abu Taleb Khan to Britain in 1800. Britain was already far advanced in technology and medicine than the rest of the World.
    Anyways can you give any official documents that when Singapore fell to Japan, order came to save India not Australia from Japan.

    Tourist visiting Taj generats revenues for India. Tourist visiting Indian collections in UK generates revenues for UK.

    And it were the British who played a big part in protecting our monuments. Also it were the British who excavated many of our monuments which were destroyed with time. They all generate revenue.
    Not only did the British research Indian history and used archaeology to find about India’s pre Islamic golden Buddhist past like Emperor Ashoka and the Mauryas (William Jones,James Princep etc…), built museums to preserve Indian sculpture (Imperial Museum Calcutta (https://indianmuseumkolkata.org]), started colleges to preserve ancient Indian learning like the The Sanskrit College and University, Calcutta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sanskrit_College_and_University), started institutions to preserve classical Indian music (Marris Music College and others more here: https://indianraga.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/british-raj-and-indian-classical-music/) the British even passed laws to preserve Indian Monuments.
    Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Monuments_Preservation_Act_1904
    The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 was passed in 18, March 1904 by British India during the times of Lord Curzon. It is expedient to provide for the preservation of ancient monuments of British India, for the exercise of control over traffic in antiquities and over excavation in certain places, and for the protection and acquisition in certain cases of ancient monuments and of objects of archaeological, historical or artistic interest. Act preserves and restores ancient Indian monuments by Archaeological Survey of India.
    The Archeological Survey of India was formed in British India which is still the government arm of the present Republic of India to preserve Indian historical monuments.
    Read more here from the website of ASI, Government of India about this act of 1904 in detail
    http://asi.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/5.pdf
    The act passed by British India would fine Indians if we did not take care of our own monuments. To have dedicated teams and budget to work towards restoring historical Indian monuments and artifacts including Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain as well as Islamic.
    Most of those artifacts would not have been known if the British had not even come to India,they are the ones to excavated it and it is because of that we know our pre-islamic history. And only a small number of them went to the UK. Most including valuable ones were kept in museums in Calcutta and Bombay museums, an idea introduced by the British. The largest and oldest Museum in Asia was built by the British East India Company in Calcutta, the Imperial Museum to preserve these artifacts.

  352. Malla says:
    @Commentator Mike

    Yes, pity so many Africans drowned and died in the crossing thus missing out on the benefits of the cushy life of slavery under the lash of the whip

    A local African guy from Benin told Professor gates straight on his face, that had the slaves not been bought by Europeans, they would all had been sacrificed to the ancestors and deities of the dominant tribe like the Dahomey. Their genetic line would have ended right there and then anyways. But due to the stupidity of Europeans (including Jews) their descendants now have colonized vast swathes of the Americas. Today blacks (though mixed with some European and native American DNA) rule the Caribbean while the Arawaks, Carib, Hopi etc… Native Americans are nearly gone.

  353. Malla says:
    @anon

    Churchill and his associates could easily have stopped the famine (India) with a few shipments of foodgrains but refused, in spite of repeated appeals from two successive Viceroys”-,https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/churchill-s-secret-war-madhusree-mukerjee-2068698.html
    British attitude was in 40s that sending more food would worsen the situation by encouraging Indians to breed more. An attitude that did not develop one morning out of nowhere.

    Oh, these bullshit and lies are very easy to debunk. Madhusree Mukerjee eh, Bengali brahmins. Patniak, Oddisa brahmin. Lots of Brahmins with an axe to grind on the British (writing anti-British lies and propaganda) for the British emancipating the poor lower castes whom the Brahmins used to ruthlessly rule for millennia. Interesting eh?
    Yeah Churchill did some horrid things such as starting WW2 (after having his debts paid up by banker Jews) and ordering the fire bombing of German cities and killing many including the ghastly Dresden genocide by firebombing. but w.r.t Indians he has not much to be shamed about.
    Anyways on debunking your lies.
    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.” 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

    Amery [Secretary of State for India] and Wavell [Lord Wavell – Viceroy of India] continued to press for wheat for India, and in the Cabinet of February 14th Churchill tried to accommodate them. While shipping difficulties were “very real,” Churchill said, he was “most anxious that we should do everything possible to ease the Viceroy’s position. No doubt the Viceroy felt that if this corner could be turned, the position next year would be better.” Churchill added that “refusal of India’s request was not due to our underrating India’s needs, but because we could not take operational risks by cutting down the shipping required for vital operations.”13

    The war pressed Britain on all sides; shipping was needed everywhere. Indeed, at the same time as India was demanding another million tons, Churchill was fending off other demands: “I have been much concerned at the apparently excessive quantities of grain demanded by Allied HQ for civilians in Italy, which impose a great strain on our shipping and finances,” he wrote War Secretary Sir James Grigg. “Will you let me have, at the earliest possible moment…estimates of the amount of food which is really needed….”14
    Churchill and his Cabinet continued to struggle to meet India’s needs. While certain that shipping on the scale Amery wanted was impossible without a “dangerous inroad into the British import programme or a serious interference with operational plans,” the Cabinet grasped at every straw, recommending:

    (a) A further diversion to India of the shipments of food grains destined for the Balkan stockpile in the Middle East. This might amount to 50,000 tons, but would need War Cabinet approval, while United States reactions would also have to be ascertained; (b) There would be advantage if ships carrying military or civil cargo from the United States or Australia to India could also take a quantity of bagged wheat.15

    A month later Churchill was hoping India had turned the corner when his Minister of War Transport, Frederick Leathers, reported “statistically a surplus of food grains in India.” Still, Leathers emphasized “the need for imported wheat on psychological grounds.” What were they? Amery explained that “the peasant in 750,000 villages” might hold back “his small parcel of grain” if no outside aid was in sight. He said he could ship 200,000 tons, “provided that the twenty-five ships required were surplus to the Army’s needs.” But Amery wanted double that quantity.16

    Again trying to help, the Cabinet suggested that India had underestimated its rice crop. While agreeing to send the 200,000 tons, Churchill told Amery he could get another 150,000 tons from British Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in exchange for excess rice: “The net effect, counting 50,000 tons previously arranged [was] 400,000 tons of wheat.”17

    In April, it was Lord Wavell asking not for 400,000 but 724,000 tons for India! Now the problem was unseasonable weather and a deadly explosion in the Bombay Docks, which destroyed 50,000 tons of food grains. Peasants were still holding back their crops, he said; rumors were circulating [in India] “that London had refused to ask America for help.” The exasperated Cabinet retorted: “If we now approached the United States and they were unable to help, it would at least dispel that allegation.”18

    One can sense Churchill’s frustration. Whatever they did, however they wriggled, they could not appease the continued demands from India—even after calculations showed that the shortage had been eased.

    Churchill agreed to write President Roosevelt for help, and replace the 45,000 tons lost in the explosion. But he “could only provide further relief for the Indian situation at the cost of incurring grave difficulties in other directions.”19

    As good as his word, and despite preoccupation with the upcoming invasion of France, Churchill wrote FDR. No one, reading his words, can be in doubt about his sympathies:

    I am seriously concerned about the food situation in India….Last year we had a grievous famine in Bengal through which at least 700,000 people died. This year there is a good crop of rice, but we are faced with an acute shortage of wheat, aggravated by unprecedented storms….By cutting down military shipments and other means, I have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944. This is the shortest haul. I cannot see how to do more.

    I have had much hesitation in asking you to add to the great assistance you are giving us with shipping but a satisfactory situation in India is of such vital importance to the success of our joint plans against the Japanese that I am impelled to ask you to consider a special allocation of ships to carry wheat to India from Australia….We have the wheat (in Australia) but we lack the ships. I have resisted for some time the Viceroy’s request that I should ask you for your help, but… I am no longer justified in not asking for your help.20

    Roosevelt replied that while Churchill had his “utmost sympathy,” his Joint Chiefs had said they were “unable on military grounds to consent to the diversion of shipping….Needless to say, I regret exceedingly the necessity of giving you this unfavorable reply.”21

  354. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    Questioning Chinese imperialism (rightly or wrongly) by a Vietnamese makes one a banana? We really deal with low IQ morons like d dan in this place some times who see all people who criticize China are lackeys of the West. The World is not simply China vs whitey but different nations and powers having issues with each other and cooperating with each other.

    Smith was blaming ‘Chinese’ imperialism for the Mongol and Manchu invasions of Vietnam during the Yuan and Qing Dynasties, respectively. I told him that the Mongols and Manchus were alien invaders who had conquered China and proceeded to invade Vietnam which should not be blamed on ‘Chinese’ imperialism. Than he retorted that if the Mongols and Manchus were non-Chinese, then China should return the lands conquered by the Mongols and Manchus back to their original owners, citing Xinjiang and Tibet which were ‘annexed’ by the Mongols and Manchus after co-opting the Uyghurs and Tibetans who later became their allies. My reply was that the Mongols, Manchus who later adopted Tibetan Buddhism and the Uyghur script for their languages, together with their Uyghur and Tibetan allies had settled in China since the Yuan and Qing Dynasties and had long ago amalgamated to become ‘Chinese’. Smith then went all the way back to the Han Dynasty to prove that Chinese are ‘imperialist’ for trying to invade Vietnam during the Yuan and Qing Dynasties some 1,200 and 1,600 years later. He also claimed that China was being ‘imperialist’ for supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80s. I then replied that the Soviet Union was ‘imperialist’ by invading Afghanistan which China opposed back then.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Smith
  355. Malla says:
    @antibeast

    Sure antibeast, I understand all that but all that does not make him a banana (yellow outside-white inside). The Vietnamese like us Indians and the Chinese have their own Nationalist narratives.

    My understanding of Chinese history has always been that China had been most imperialist during the rule of the Northerners like Mongols. Manchus etc…, the Han culture grew by others seeking to admit to this superior culture and that is true to a large extent. Actually I see the Han Chinese more intellectual than martial in nature. But (Northern) Vietnam may be an exception. The Trung sisters rebellion took place during Han ruler ship, did it not?

    • Replies: @antibeast
  356. Malla says:
    @anon

    Reality is this that the systematic stealing oppression looting ,enslavement and famishing had to wait few more centuries after the arrival of Mughal or reign of Shahjahan. That was unique European.

    Stop jabbering like a lying monkey. I have given enough evidence here that the British Empire in many ways were far better than the earlier rulers. Yet you keep jabbering your bullshit for all to see.

    From Sir T. W. Holderness’s Peoples and Problems of India:[2]
    [2. Williams & Norgate, London, 1920, pp. 48-50.]
    The first comers were Arabs, who founded dynasties in Sind and Multan as early as [A.D.] 800…About [the year] 1000 the terror came. By that time the Tartar races had been brought into the fold of Islam, and the Turks, the most capable of these races, had started on the career which in the West ended in their establishment at Constantinople…In 997, Mahmud [a Turkish chieftain] descended upon India. His title, “the Idol-breaker,” describes the man. Year by year he swept over the plains of India, capturing cities and castles, throwing down idols and temples, slaughtering the heathen and proclaiming the faith of Muhammad. Each year he returned with vast spoils [to his home in Afghanistan].

    For five hundred years, reckoning from A.D. 1000, successive hosts of fierce and greedy Turks, Afghans and Mongols trod upon one another’s heels and fought for mastery in India. At the end of that time, Babar the Turk founded in 1526 the Mughal Empire; thenceforward for two hundred years the passes into India were closed and in the keeping of his capable successors.

    “The Mughal Empire…was of the ordinary type of Asiatic despotisms. It was irresponsible personal government. For India it meant the substitution of a new set of conquerors for those already in occupation. But the new comers brought with them the vigour of the north–they came from the plains of the Oxus beyond the Kabul hills–and they drew an unlimited supply of recruits from the finest fighting races of Asia. In physical strength and hardihood they were like the Norsemen and Normans of Europe.”

    To check the Islamic tide in its flood toward the south, a Hindu power, known as the Empire of Vi-jayanagar, sprang up among the Tamils. Its rulers built a gorgeous city and lived in unbounded luxury. But here, as elsewhere all over India, the common people’s misery provided the kings’ and nobles’ wealth, and only their abject submission made possible the existence of the state. Yet the glories of the Hindu stronghold soon eclipsed. In the year 1565 one blow of Muslim arms, delivered by the sultans of small surrounding states, slaughtered its people and reduced the splendid city to a heap of carven stones.

    Yet the earlier of the great Mughal Emperors tolerated the old religion. Their chief exponent, Akbar, even married a native lady, and admitted Rajput chiefs and Brahman scholars to place and posts. But the Mughals administered always as conqueror strangers; and though they made use of the talents or learning of individuals among the Hindus, they took care constantly to strengthen the Muslim hand from their own transmontane source.

    Then, in 1659, the Emperor Aurangzeb again brought to the Mughal throne an Islamism that would not countenance the idolatry of the Hindu mass. His heavy hand, destroying temples and images, broke the Rajput’s fealty and roused the Hindu low-caste peasantry of the Deccan–the Mahrattas–in common wrath. So that when Aurangzeb, in his ambition for more power, more wealth, attacked even the little Muhammadan kings of the Deccan, the Mahrattas rose up as guerilla bands, and, under cover of the general embroilment, robbed, slew and destroyed on their own account, wasting the land. A half-century of Aurangzeb’s disjointing rule so weakened the Mughal Empire that, at his death, it fell asunder, leaving the Mahratta hordes, now trained in raids and killings under their bandit chiefs, to play a brief rôle as the strong hand in India.

    Then again happened the historic inevitable, as happen it will whenever the guard of the north is down. The Mughal Empire fallen, the door open to Central Asia, Central Asia poured in. First came the Persian, then the fierce Afghan, who, in a final battle delivered in 1761, drove the Mahrattas with wholesale slaughter back to their Deccan hills.

  357. Malla says:
    @anon

    More quick history lesson for you of our shitty condition before the British came.

    Now, in the scanty official records of all these troubled centuries, little indeed is said of the common people. The histories are histories of little kings and tribal chiefs, their personal lives, ambitions, riches, intrigues, fights and downfalls. Such glimpses as appear, however, show the populace generally as the unconsidered victims of their master’s greed, be that master Hindu or Muhammadan. Hungry, naked, poverty-stricken, constantly overridden by undisciplined mobs of soldiers, bled of their scanty produce, swept by exterminating famines and epidemics, our clearest knowledge of them comes from the chronicles of strangers who from time to time visited the country.

    Many western travelers–French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish–have left records of the country, north and south, as it was during and after Akbar’s day. All agree in the main points.

    The poor, they say, were everywhere desperately poor, the rich forever insecure in their riches. Between common robbers and the levies of the throne, no man dared count on the morrow. The Hindu peoples constituted the prostrate masses. The nobles and governing officials, few in numbers, were almost all foreigners, whether Turks or Persians. Their luxury and ostentation arose, on the one hand, from an insatiable hunger for sensual pleasure, and, on the other, from the necessity not to be outshone at court. All places and favors were bought by costly bribes, and the extravagance of life was increased by the fact that, in northern India at least, whatever a rich man possessed at the time of his death reverted to the royal treasury.

    To acquire means to keep up their gorgeous state the officials, from the pro-consuls down, had but one method–to squeeze the peasantry. They squeezed.

    In Madras, wrote van Linschoten, who saw the country in the decade between 1580 to 1590, the peasants [4]

    [4. The Voyage of John Huyghen van Linschoten to the East Indies, edited for the Hakluyt Society, 1884.]
    ...are so miserable that for a penny they would endure to be whipped, and they eat so little that it seemeth they live by the air; they are likewise most of them small and weak of limbs.

    When the rains failed, they fell into still deeper distress, wandered like wild animals in vain search of food and sold their children for “less than a rupee apiece,” while the slave-market was abundantly recruited from those who sold their own bodies to escape starvation, of which cannibalism, an ordinary feature of famine, was the alternative.

    The Bádsháh Námah of ‘Abd Ai Hamïd Láhawri bears witness that in the Deccan during the famine of 1631, “pounded bones of the dead were mixed with flour and sold…Destitution at length reached such a pitch that men began to devour each other and the flesh of a son was preferred to his love. The number of the dying caused obstruction in the roads.” The Dutch East India Company’s representative, in the same year, recorded that in Surat the dearth was so great that “menschen en vee van honger sturven…moeders tegen natuer haere kinderkens wt hongers-noot op gegeten hebben.” Two years later Christopher Read reported to the British East India Company that Mesulapatam and Armagon were “sorely oppressed with famine, the liveinge eating up the dead and men durst scarcely travel in the country for feare they should be kild and eaten.” And Peter Mundy wrote from Gujerat during the same period that “the famine it selfe swept away more than a million of the Comon or poorer Sort. After which, the mortallitie succeeding did as much more among rich and poore. Weomen were scene to rost their Children…A man or woman noe sooner dead but they were Cutt in pieces to be eaten.” These testimonies will be found, and at greater length, in the text and Appendix of the Hakluyt Society’s edition of the Travels of Peter Mundy, Other old chronicles corroborate them.

    Slaves cost practically nothing to keep and were therefore numerous in each noble’s household, where their little value insured their wretched state. The elephants of the nobles wore trappings of silver and gold, while “the people,” says the contemporaneous observer, de Laet,[5] “have not sufficient covering to keep warm in winter.”

    [5. De Imperio Magni Mogolis, J. de Laet, Leyden, 1631.]
    Merchants, if prosperous, dared not live comfortably, dared not eat good food, and buried their silver deep under ground; for the smallest show of means brought the torturers to wring from them the hiding-place of their wealth.

    The village masses constituted practically the only productive element in the land. All their production, save their bare subsistence, was absorbed by the State. As to its redistribution, that took a single route, into the pockets of the extremely small body of foreigners constituting the ruling class. None of it returned to the people. No communal benefits existed.

    A very few bridges and such roads as are made by the plodding of bullocks’ feet through dust and mud comprised the communication lines of the land. No system of popular education or of medical relief was worked, and none of legal defense. Fine schemes were sometimes set on paper by rulers and their ministers, but practically nothing was actually done toward the economic development of the country; for if any one ruler began a work, his successor destroyed it or let it decay.[6]

    [6. India at the Death of Akbar, by W. H. Moreland, Macmillan & Co., London, 1920, gives an elaborate and heavily documented digest of contemporaneous authority on this general subject.]
    Fifteen years after the death of Akbar, or in the year 1620, the Hollander, Francisco Pelsaert, began that seven years’ residence in India of which he left so valuable and so curious a record. In the course of his narrative Pelsaert writes:[7]

    [7. The Remonstrantie of Francisco Pelsaert, translated from the Dutch by W. H. Moreland and P. Geyl Heffers, Cambridge, 1925, pp. 47-59.]
    “The land would give a plentiful, or even an extraordinary yield, if the peasants were not so cruelly and pitilessly oppressed; for villages which, owing to some small shortage of produce, are unable to pay the full amount of the revenue-farm, are made prize, so to speak, by their masters or governors, and wives and children sold on pretext of a charge of rebellion. Some peasants abscond to escape their tyranny…and consequently the fields lie empty and unsown and grow into wildernesses.”.

  358. Malla says:
    @anon

    And finally continued, pre British India history 101

    As regards the laws, they are scarcely observed at all, for the administration is absolutely autocratic…Their laws contain such provisions as hand for hand, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; but who will ex-communicate the Pope? And who would dare to ask a Governor “Why do you rule us this way or that? Our Law orders thus.”…In every city there is a…royal court of Justice…[but] one must indeed be sorry for the man who has to come to judgment before these godless “un-judges”; their eyes are bleared with greed, their mouths gape like wolves for covetousness, and their bellies hunger for the bread of the poor; every one stands with hands open to receive, for no mercy or compassion can be had except on payment of cash. This fault should not be attributed to judges or officers alone, for the evil is a universal plague; from the least to the greatest, right up to the King himself, every one is infected with insatiable greed.

    …It is important to recognise that [the King, Jahangir] is to be regarded as king of the plains or the open roads only; for in many places you can travel only with a strong body of men, or on payment of heavy tolls to rebels…[and] there are nearly as many rebels as subjects. Taking the chief cities, for example, at Surat the forces of Raja Piepel come pillaging up to, or inside the city, murdering the people and burning: the villages, and in the same way, near Ahmedabad, Burhanpur, Agra, Delhi, Lahore, and many other cities, thieves and robbers come in force by night or day like open enemies. The Governors are usually bribed by the thieves to remain inactive, for avarice dominates manly honour, and, instead of maintaining troops, they fill and adorn their mahals with beautiful women, and seem to have the pleasure-house of the whole world within their walls.

    The observant Dutchman[8] repeatedly dwells on the disastrous contrast between

    the manner of life of the rich in their great superfluity and absolute power, and the utter subjection and poverty of the common people–poverty so great and miserable that the life of the people can be depicted…only as the home of stark want and the dwelling-place of bitter woe.

    [8. The Remonstrantie of Francisco Pelsaert, p. 60.]
    Nevertheless, he says, having discovered the numbing influence of the doctrines of fate and caste:[9]

    [9. Ibid.]
    The people endure patiently, professing that they do not deserve anything better; and scarcely any one will make an effort, for a ladder by which to climb higher is hard to find, because a workman’s children can follow no occupation other than that of their father, nor can they inter-marry with other castes…For the workman there are two scourges, the first of which is low wages…The second is [the oppression by] the Governor, the nobles, the Diwan…and other royal officers. If any of these wants a workman, the man is not asked if he is willing to come, but is seized in the house or in the street, well beaten if he should dare to raise any objection, and in the evening paid half his wages or nothing at all.

    Forty years after Pelsaert’s departure from India came a French traveler, François Bernier. His stay covered the period from 1656 to 1668. His chronicle perfectly agrees with that of other foreign visitors, and gives a vivid picture of men, women and things as he found them in the reigns of Shahjahan and Aurangzeb–the climax of the Mughal Empire. Speaking on the subject of land-tenure and taxation, this observer writes:[10]

    [10. Travels in the Mogul Empire, François Bernier, Oxford University Press, 1916, p. 224.]
    The King, as proprietor of the land, makes over a certain quantity to military men, as an equivalent for their pay…Similar grants are made to governors, in lieu of their salary, and also for the support of their troops, on condition that they pay a certain sum annually to the King…The lands not so granted are retained by the King as the peculiar domains of his house…and upon these domains he keeps contractors, who are also bound to pay him an annual rent.

    Bengal, he thinks probably “the finest and most fruitful country in the world.” But of the other regions he writes:[11]

    [11. Ibid., pp. 226-7, 230.]
    As the ground is seldom tilled otherwise than by compulsion, and as no person is found willing and able to repair the ditches and canals for the conveyance of water, it happens that the whole country is badly cultivated, and a great part rendered unproductive from the want of irrigation»…The peasant cannot avoid asking himself this question: “Why should I toil for a tyrant who may come tomorrow and lay his rapacious hands upon all I possess and value?”…The Governors and revenue contractors, on their part reason in this manner: “Why should the neglected state of this land create uneasiness in our minds? and why should we expend our own money and time to render it fruitful? We may be deprived of it in a single moment and our exertion would benefit neither ourselves nor our children. Let us draw from the soil all the money we can, though the peasant should starve or abscond, and we should leave it, when commanded to quit, a dreary wilderness.”...It is owing to this miserable system of government…that there is no city or town which, if it be not already ruined and deserted, does not bear evident marks of approaching decay.

    The country is ruined by the necessity of defraying the enormous charges required to maintain the splendour of a numerous court, and to pay a large army maintained for the purpose of keeping the people in subjection.”

  359. @Smith

    You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Before any ethnic group named the Uighurs showed up – parts of Xinjiang were Han territory. Again in Tang days. The material wealth the oil and such there wasn’t known until later – which at that time the Russians tried to get into the game.
    As to Tibet – again – learn your history. Tibet used to attack China. Until the days of the Tang when they wanted an alliance. It was off and on and off and on again and again. When the Han took back rule from the Qing – only an idiot would think they would give it back… And let the Brits have free reign to keep terrorizing China. The Brits were creeping in to Tibet solely to destabilize the Qing.

    As to the Spratly’s – you are simply a clown. Vietnam claims the Spratly’s FACT. And seizing them wouldn’t stop any “chink expansion”. China booted Vietnam out of the Paracels and could have easily done the same in the Spratly’s. China decided not to use military means to dislodge anyone any more. That is a fact. Your logic doesn’t even make the slightest bit of sense if Vietnam doesn’t claim 200 miles from shore. The Spratly’s Vietnam took are further than that – so you are admitting thievery. Using China as an excuse. Your intellect is not as high as you think if you don’t know ONLY 12 MILES from shore is territory. It is EEZ that is 200 miles. And that’s why ALL the claimants were scrambling once they realized the ROC navy was too weak to hold it’s claims.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @antibeast
    , @Smith
  360. @Malla

    “That may be true but if colonies were so important for their economies, how the boom? how the boomwithout the revenue stream from their jweel in their crown?”

    You write a lot for no reason… The colonies were sucked dry and had no more use…. I explained that later in the comment. It is so comedic you can defend European – and especially British colonialism. If you are really an Indian – they themselves would laugh at you.

    “People voluntarily moved to areas of colonization.”

    You really live in a parallel universe. I referenced the Boer Wars when you tried to jump in the fray. At least the Boer’s were more honest than you. They hated the British because they felt the British just wanted their gold. They themselves left Holland etc because they were poor themselves. They said point blank they felt God gave them the territory and gave them black Africans to be their servants.
    You really are in a parallel world.

  361. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    The Brits were creeping in to Tibet solely to destabilize the Qing.

    Not solely. The Qing were a factor but the Russian Empire were a factor too.

  362. Smith says:
    @antibeast

    But antibeast, I pointed out in another post that the Yuan and Qing were NOT the only chinese dynasties who invaded and expanded. The Han did many invasion and conquest, in the 111BC even:
    Invasion of Vietnam: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Era_of_Northern_Domination
    Invasion of Korea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_conquest_of_Gojoseon
    Invasion and annexation of Xiongnu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han%E2%80%93Xiongnu_War

    When the Yuan and Qing “became” chinese (pure lies, the mongolian to this day still maintain their fierce identities against the chinks), they did not relinquish their hold over conquered territories. Thus the “chinese” get to have more land or resources. Or we can say this is just chink imperialism (Yuan and Qing were both recognized chink dynasties) and antibeast is having a mental gymnast (it’s “mongol and manchu” when they invade, but it’s “chinese” when they hold conquered territories).

    Regarding the claim of “expansionist” USSR, USSR heeded the call of Afghani to help resist muslim terrorists, how is that expansionist?
    In the meantime, China helped supplying arm to muslim terrorists and then invaded (and get beaten off by) Vietnam in 1979, how is that NOT expansionist? We have a clear case of projection here.

    It could be that antibeast didn’t know these history but I believe he knew (since I pointed out to him repeatedly in the past) but chose to lie in order to reinforce his narrative found in local Chinese history book. Why do you do so, antibeast? Why do you lie? It’s not good for your health.

    Regarding the “chinese” part, this guy was also an AMERICAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lee
    Was he not a chink also? Who do you get to decide who’s a chink? PRC’s citizenship? Submission to Tibetan Buddhism?

    The wonderful matter of Schrodinger chinks, not chinks when they do something bad, chinks when they do something good. The fact this is denied shows how much brainwashed chinese nationalists and sycophants are regarding their own history.

    • Troll: d dan
  363. antibeast says:
    @Malla

    Sure antibeast, I understand all that but all that does not make him a banana (yellow outside-white inside). The Vietnamese like us Indians and the Chinese have their own Nationalist narratives.

    I didn’t call him banana. That was from somebody else.

    My understanding of Chinese history has always been that China had been most imperialist during the rule of the Northerners like Mongols. Manchus, etc, …, the Han culture grew by others seeking to admit to this superior culture and that is true to a large extent. Actually I see the Han Chinese more intellectual than martial in nature. But (Northern) Vietnam may be an exception. The Trung sisters rebellion took place during Han ruler ship, did it not?

    The Han Chinese became ‘expansionist’ right after the Fall of the Qin when they conquered Xinjiang and started the ancient Silk Road trade for economic reasons. But they weren’t ‘militaristic’ unlike the original Qin State which was a warrior State or the Mongols and Manchus who were warlike nomads living in the North. The Western Han Dynasty did invade, conquer and colonize the Nanyue tribe who are the ancestors of the North Vietnamese. Dai Viet later became independent after the Fall of the Tang and then proceeded to invade, conquer and colonize the Champa Kingdom to become Central and Southern Vietnam today.

    What you don’t hear from Smith is this ‘expansionist’ history of Dai Viet which became ‘militaristic’ throughout its 1,000 year history. Instead, he’s trying to coverup Vietnam’s own ‘militarism’ by vilifying China as ‘expansionist’ early in its history 2,000 years ago. For most of Chinese history, the Chinese were fighting wars against the Northern nomads and keeping the Empire intact after rebellions tore China apart. In most cases, the Northern nomads either amalgamated to become ‘Chinese’ or traveled westward to conquer vast swaths of Europe and Asia.

    There is nothing wrong about Asian ‘nationalism’ of either the Indian or Vietnamese kind. The reason why Smith is accused of being a ‘banana’ is due to his hypocrisy not due to his ‘nationalism’. He even repeats Western propaganda about China regarding Xinjiang and Tibet by distorting or omitting the history of China in Central Asia. The same is true for so-called Indian ‘nationalists’ in the RSS/BJP who ignore the history of genocide perpetrated by Hindu Brahmins against Indian Buddhists while claiming victimhood under either Muslim invaders or British colonialists. That’s Hindu chauvinism not Asian nationalism which authentic Indian nationalists could promote by identifying with and reclaiming the Indian Buddhist contribution to Asian Civilizations.

  364. antibeast says:
    @showmethereal

    Both the Paracel and Spratlys were relinquished by the Japanese to the ROC as part of the Treaty of Taipei. The PRC got involved only much later after the ROC had lost control of the Paracels and Spartlys to several Southeast Asian States who began claiming those islands after UNCLOS was ratified. The most aggressive is Vietnam as it occupies the largest number of Spratly Islands.

  365. Smith says:
    @showmethereal

    Oh yeah, let’s see if this “facts check out” checks out, demented boomer.

    Xinjiang

    Han conquered parts of this in their war against Xiongnu. Never held fully, got pushed out by the Kushan.
    In Tang era, also conquered just a part of it, lost it to the muslims turkics.
    This area was never traditional Han land, but a contention between the chinks and the turkics. To claim otherwise is lying.

    Tibet used to attack China

    The first instance of Tibetan attacking China, under the Tang, was because of the Tang’s own westward conquests that bring these empires close together. And then these empires attack each other, but China has conquered Tibet many times, yet Tibet has never conquered China.

    When the Han took back rule from the Qing – only an idiot would think they would give it back… And let the Brits have free reign to keep terrorizing China. The Brits were creeping in to Tibet solely to destabilize the Qing.

    Cao Cao mentality, Tibet can be independent and pursuit their own policies. You are justifying imperialism by using the brits, just like how the americans “had” to invade Afghanistan and Iraq or Vietnam to contain “communism”. By using this security excuse, the chinks can invade every of their neighbors, and did with Vietnam.

    Vietnam claims the Spratly’s FACT

    Vietnam’s official claims reject China’s ownership of these islets, but Vietnam follows international laws i.e. 200 miles per the EEZ. Source:
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c95932aebeb233f369940dae750b6c03-c

    The Spratly’s Vietnam took are further than that – so you are admitting thievery. Using China as an excuse.

    Vietnam takes these islands to counter chink expansionism, by holding and militarizing them, chinks cannot expand in the South East Asea sea.

    And that’s why ALL the claimants were scrambling once they realized the ROC navy was too weak to hold it’s claims.

    ROC’s claim is imperialism in the first place, it has no consideration or agreement from the maritime South East Asian nations, by defending the ROC’s claim, PRC is continuing its history of chink imperialism.

    Your “facts of history” don’t impress me, old singy chink. Truth is against you. It’s undeniable that chinks were imperialists and colonizers in the area.

    @ antibeast

    Ah, when pointed out chink imperialism, you push back to Viet imperialism, very nice trick. Unfortunately, it has been tried many times and now gets old.

    One look at the nine-dash-claim can tell you who’s the greedy aggressor here:
    And nah, the reason I’m accused of being a “banana” is because I know of chink imperialism, and any asian who attacks chink imperialism is called one, no matter what he believes. It’s just like anyone who defends China is accused a chink shill. Imperialists always dislike people calling them out.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  366. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    The colonies were sucked dry and had no more use

    This is lie you keep on repeating. It is not true at all. I have explained very well how decolonisation was a disaster for many regions of Africa.

    If you are really an Indian – they themselves would laugh at you.

    Sure that is true. I might even have been physically attacked by Indian nationalists. but after a good debate I would be laughing at them (from a distance). You do not know how psychotic Indian nationalists are. And guess what chump, if I would push for t he truth that in 1962, we invaded China and not the other way round, they would laugh at me too and maybe physically attack me. But after a debate (from a distance), I would laugh at them.

    At least the Boer’s were more honest than you. They hated the British because they felt the British just wanted their gold.

    I do not know if they were poor or not but the Netherlands during those days was one of the richest place on earth on per capita income. The Afrikaners were definitely well off compared to most of the peasant populations on Earth. Also you forget Netherlands has always been one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Secondly they came because of religious convictions and difference of opinions with their Christian neighbour who had different beliefs just like the Puritans or the Anabaptists (Amish & Mennonites today) who went to North America.
    Black Africans be their servants? There were no blacks in South Africa when they came, Black South African Bantus were migrating southwards and expanding and colonizing lands. The land originally had Khoi and San tribes who are a different race than black Bantus and it was rarely populated. The truth is both the Bantu blacks and Whites came from outside to South Africa. The Afrikaners (Boers are just the farmers of these groups) first settled in the Cape.
    One more thing, strangely the Afrikaners of the Dutch Reformed Church as well as the Puritans were more into the Old Testament, the “Jewish” side of the Bible than the New Testament, the more Christian side of the Bible. It is from the Jewish Bible they took some ruthless tendencies towards Khoi San and Native Americans.
    The Boers did not migrate North because the British wanted their gold. They were an insular people who wanted to keep away from the “wrong kinds” of Christians like maybe Anglicans or Presbyterian British. They trekked North and took up empty lands (lands emptied out by ruthless Zulus) and built two Republics, Orange Free State and Transvaal. And all they wanted was to be left alone.
    The British conquest of Boers had to do with resources but there were many jews like Oppenheimer involved in this. The Boers fought like lions against the most powerful Army of the world, the British Army. They were tough sons of the soil,knew the land and fought a great guerrilla warfare. The British even resorted to Concentration camps leading to the deaths of many Afrikaner women and children. The British united South Africa with the Boer republics as part of the Empire. The British also stopped black on black and Afrikaner on black slavery.
    It were the Afrikaners who took independence and became a republic and they also instituted Apartheid. To be honest the Afrikaners just wanted their two republics and divide up the Imperial construct of South Africa and give the blacks their lands. But the “International Community”, basically bankers would not allow that. Blacks in Apartheid South Africa had a far better standard of living than blacks in other parts of Africa and unlike those other parts, Apartheid South Africa was stable. Blacks from other parts of Africa would jump the borders to migrate and live in Apartheid South Africa. Opposite to Communist countries who have to build borders to prevent people escaping. Now South Africa is becoming a shithole.

  367. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    People voluntarily moved to areas of colonization.”
    You really live in a parallel universe.

    No I live in this universe. Boers are one case. Most people wanted to live in European colonial built areas. This is very true for Africa and Indian subcontinent. In India British built cities like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were thronged by Indians coming everyday to live there. Same with European colonial cities in Africa. 30% of India was semi independent Princely States, ruled by native Kings, where the British had only nominal control. People from British India proper would have run to these places if the direct British rule was so bad, there was not much restriction on this, nothing of this sort happened but the opposite happened.
    People were not fleeing British Empire Hongkong or Portuguese Empire Macau to Maoist Worker’s paradise China. Unlike Communist Countries which have to build walls like the Berlin Wall to keep people in, one could easily leave a colonial state or get as far away from the European Imperial metropolises. Nothing much of that sort happened.

  368. Ron Unz says:
    @showmethereal

    You write a lot for no reason… The colonies were sucked dry and had no more use…. I explained that later in the comment. It is so comedic you can defend European – and especially British colonialism. If you are really an Indian – they themselves would laugh at you.

    I haven’t been closely following this long thread, but it seems a central dispute is whether the European colonies were financially beneficial to the powers taking them or not. From what I’ve read, some were but most weren’t.

    My impression is that you’re someone living in China, and perhaps the Chinese example colors your view of the history. I think the wars fought to force the Chinese to accept imports of opium were enormously financially valuable since otherwise the European countries were forced to pay silver for the tea they imported, which had become a huge drain on their finances. So the quasi-colonial domination of China was indeed valuable.

    Similarly, the seizure of the gold and diamond rich Boer territories was very valuable to Britain, and the control of the Suez Canal and Egypt had great strategic benefits.

    But aside from these and a few other cases, I think most of the other colonies were mostly good for the prestige they provided rather than any material benefits. Even in the case of gigantic India, I think Malla may be correct that it was probably neutral or even a net-negative to Britain as a whole, though very beneficial for some British elites.

    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  369. @showmethereal

    You write a lot for no reason

    If you call what he does, his technique of presenting text on the UR comments section and eating up bandwidth, writing. It’s not authoring as one would commonly understand it. If it is, it is the fastest writing ever devised, like faster than any champion trained secretary or stenographer could possibly “write”. Yes, the Guinness World Record for “writing” goes to Malla. Must be an Indian thing.

    • Replies: @showmethereal
  370. barr says:
    @Malla

    1 https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/economic-history/economic-drain-in-india-concepts-components-extent-and-its-theory-indian-economic-history/5972

    2 Colonialization of the Indian Economy, 1757 – 1900-Social Scientist
    Vol. 3, No. 8 (Mar., 1975), pp. 23-53 (31 pages)
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3516224

    3 The Economic History of India: Under Early British Rule; From the Rise of the British Power in 1757 to the Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 (Classic Reprint)  by Ramesh Dutta (written around 1900 )

    4 Literacy measure universal presence of school in villages pre -colonial era and degradation of availability of education under British ‘ https://openthemagazine.com/essay/did-britain-educate-india/

    5 Rebellion against Raj-1763-1800,1824-1825,1827-1828 , 1857 Military, labor , Adivasi peasant revolution—as mentioned in-Social Scientist Vol. 14, No. 8/9 (Aug. – Sep., 1986) https://doi.org/10.2307/3517436

    —————————————-
    Excerpts:

    “Today India is more illiterate than it was fifty or a hundred years ago…,” he [MG]declared, “because the British, instead of taking hold of things as they were, began to root them out. They scratched the soil and began to look at the root, and left the root like that, and the beautiful tree perished.”
    Hartog, who was in the audience, promptly wrote to Gandhi pointing out that, according to census figures, male literacy in British India had steadily, if not spectacularly, increased— from 8 per cent in 1881 to 14.4 per cent in 1921. The two men exchanged letters and met to discuss their differences. While Gandhi cited the near universal prevalence of village schools in the pre-colonial period, Hartog pointed out that mere numbers in school were a far from accurate index of literacy. — ‘ Hartog’s rebuttal to Ghandhi’s claim is that the number of schools are not the measures !!!

    2 Last bengal’s Nawab extracted 8 hundred thousands sterling from land revenue in its last year . In 30 years time Britain was extracting 2.6 million per year from land .

    3 No body left India before British . No peasant rebellion , religious rebellion ( Saint monk Fakir ) ,no military rebellion t( not coup ,not attack by king or displaced king . D ) took place before British .

    4 Famine was known before British arrived but it was commonplace under Raj .

    John Keay’s Indian History mentions very few famines of importance before British 9 counting from 700 AD)

    5 All famines are not same neither are all opium trade . Neither the 10 famines in 200 years are same as less than 10 famines in 1000 years. Nor are all opium monopoly. Rebellion by masses by citizen are not same as invasion by ambitious dynastic king or by foreign rulers .

    6 Britain did not develop inertia or disillusionment .Neither it got enraged over Indian ingratitude and left. Defeat and bankruptcy forced . This could have been possibly but unlikely be achieved in 1914 but there was still no major familiar Indian leader to coordinate and the public was still not united .

    7 Issue at the beginning has digressed – Let’s recapture and revisit
    Britain impoverished India , deformed ,set back ,and stilted its social economic political and educational developments and destroyed Chinese economy society and political stability .

    By the way RC Dutta wrIting from London from university of London in 1900 telling us- that land taxation on rental was 5-20 % in UK but was 80- 90 % in India.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  371. Malla says:
    @barr

    You keep on posting bullshit by marxist monkeys who were desperate to prove that without colonies Capitalism in Western Europe could not have survived

    1 https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/economic-history/economic-drain-in-india-concepts-components-extent-and-its-theory-indian-economic-history/5972

    Idiotic bullshit. Totally debunked in this page

    Colonialization of the Indian Economy, 1757 – 1900-Social Scientist
    Vol. 3, No. 8 (Mar., 1975), pp. 23-53 (31 pages)
    3 The Economic History of India: Under Early British Rule; From the Rise of the British Power in 1757 to the Accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 (Classic Reprint) by Ramesh Dutta (written around 1900 )

    Habib, Dutta, all of them easily debunked by my posts on this page.

    Famine was known before British arrived but it was commonplace under Raj .
    John Keay’s Indian History mentions very few famines of importance before British 9 counting from 700 AD)

    FAMINES IN THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT, 1500 to 1767 with historical references.
    http://www.vinlandmap.info/india-famine/
    Read it again, you meathead. Famines were far more common before the British came. WITH HISTORICAL REFERENCES and maps.

    Literacy measure universal presence of school in villages pre -colonial era and degradation of availability of education under British ‘ https://openthemagazine.com/essay/did-britain-educate-india/

    Did you even read the link? it proves the opposite.

    No body left India before British .

    Hindus were barred from leaving India in those days due to Orthodox impurity laws.

    All famines are not same neither are all opium trade . Neither the 10 famines in 200 years are same as less than 10 famines in 1000 years. Nor are all opium monopoly

    Yes it becomes automatically “worse” when caused by evul Whites but “better” when done by muslim rulers. Excellent logic.

    No peasant rebellion , religious rebellion ( Saint monk Fakir ) ,no military rebellion

    Stop bullshiting. Peasents were sucked dry and living in fear before the British. What about the Marathas, Sikhs. India was full of rebels during the time of the Mughals. IbnBattuta was hijacked by these rebels.

    Britain impoverished India , deformed ,set back ,and stilted its social economic political and educational developments and destroyed Chinese economy society and political stability .

    British lost money in India and improved the economic foundations of India and were far better than the rulers before them. The British introduced modern education in India and tried with limited means to increase it.

  372. barr says:

    1-Opium, Empire and the Global Political Economy A Study of the Asian Opium Trade by Carl A .Trocki

    “I argue here that without drugs, there would have been no British Empire .19 th century opium trade destroyed the social and political strictures of China and of South East Asia . At the end of 19th century opium was thoroughly embedded in ever aspect the political economies of the countries east of Suez. European structures of imperial control and the capitalist structure were intimately tied to opium .
    Introduction xiii

    2–“For Churchill never intended that the Australian troops should return to Australia, only to the eastern theatre. Their destination changed with each victory by the Japanese, and each time the destination shifted further rather than closer to Australia. At various times, Churchill intended that the Australians go to Singapore, Sumatra, Burma or India — almost anywhere but Australia. Even more important than the denial of her troops, Australia was deprived by Britain of the modern aircraft, tanks and other weapons of war that would have ensured Austraha remaining inviolate. When war came to the Pacific in December 1941, Australia was left as unprepared as it is possible to imagine. There were no tanks, no fighter aircraft worthy of the name and no heavy bombers. Had a Japanese invasion force landed in Austraha in early 1942, a swift victory would have been assured to the forces of Emperor Hirohito”– 
HAS BRTIAIN LET US DOWN ?
    http://espace.library.uq.edu.au ›
    Dr David Day as a research fellow at Clare College, Cambridge

    3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

    4 On education ,no It does n0t represent the opposite . MG was countered by the English guy regarding the quality of the education . Yes the is still true today . India has IITs and AIIMs but doesn’t have minimum required educational presence in villages and the towns .
    —————————————-

    Britain lost money in India for 200 yrs but it supported financially technologically and militarily the poverty stricken India to uplift its morale ,education, spirit, and economy and liberate the Hindus and the Muslims – by tolerating humid hot Delhi Calcutta and Bombay , by printing Sterling ,by cultivating paddy field in London , and lifting the religious restriction on the Indian to become serf and slaves in the foreign lands . sources — malla and call 800 number for more free information . Britain has done same in Kenya and S Africa with same zeal and self -denial.

  373. Malla says:
    @barr

    “Today India is more illiterate than it was fifty or a hundred years ago…,” he [MG]declared, “because the British, instead of taking hold of things as they were, began to root them out. They scratched the soil and began to look at the root, and left the root like that, and the beautiful tree perished.”
    Hartog, who was in the audience, promptly wrote to Gandhi pointing out that, according to census figures, male literacy in British India had steadily, if not spectacularly, increased— from 8 per cent in 1881 to 14.4 per cent in 1921. The two men exchanged letters and met to discuss their differences. While Gandhi cited the near universal prevalence of village schools in the pre-colonial period, Hartog pointed out that mere numbers in school were a far from accurate index of literacy. — ‘ Hartog’s rebuttal to Ghandhi’s claim is that the number of schools are not the measures !!!

    Except Gandhi wavered.
    Further
    Hartog pointed out that mere numbers in school were a far from accurate index of literacy. The Mahatma, he urged, should publicly withdraw his mistaken claims about Indian literacy declining under the Raj. Gandhi, now back in India and busy with his civil disobedience campaigns, pleaded lack of time to research his own position. ‘My prejudice or presentiment,’ he wrote to Hartog, ‘still makes me cling to the statement I made at Chatham House.’
    Prejudice and Presentiment and making tall fat claims and avoiding debate. Oh yeah!!!1

    • Replies: @Barr
  374. @Commentator Mike

    LOL. I actually don’t like censoring comments but this guy really spams up the comments sections. He seriously could cut out 75% of his comments to get his point across -(whether I agree with it or not). but yeah he doesn’t seem like a “normal” commenter. Who has the time for all of that? Unless he’s retired or something. Or it’s just as you say it is

  375. @Ron Unz

    I appreciate your comment.

    While of Chinese heritage – I don’t live in China – and never did (though I do have family there). My direct family left after the Opium Wars and the 8 Nation Alliance against China. So that absolutely does colour my view. I learned very early (as my family migrated to a British colony with a similar climate to Guangdong) life often what was taught in Anglo history books. So my generations are a direct result of experiencing British invasion and then being in a British colony that was later given “independence”)

    As to the benefits of European colonization…. But of course – like any business – there will be winners and losers. You gave some examples. The sugar industry was another – as it was worth it’s weight in gold. Until the production became so high then the price dropped – and then the colonies were no longer valuable… That’s when countries were generally “given independence”.
    But as to India – I agree with what others wrote to him regarding India. In addition the fact the British used India to plant the tea process they stole from China – and the opium they used. But of course – after a time India no longer was useful – except for strategic purposes… Which after WW2 no longer made sense to try to maintain either. But I absolutely dispute Malla’s idea that imperialism and colonialism wasn’t about money and resources. These were not people just venturing into the wilderness for a nice place to camp overnight. It was a race between nations to see who could secure the most territories with the hope of exploiting. I mean if no precious metals were to be found in South America – would the Spaniards and Portuguese have stayed?

    Would the Brits have taken New Amsterdam from the Dutch if they didn’t see potential for riches in what we now know as NY?
    It seems to me that Malla would say “no” and claim all of those territories were burdens.

  376. @Smith

    “stopping chink imperialism”? Do you even have a clue where your ancestors migrated from? Do you have a clue where Nam Viet came from? Did they teach you fake history???

    Only small people have a need to try to insult others using derogatory terms..

    As to military innovations in China – the internet can be great… I found the old video I was talking about (of course since China is now the “enemy” – it was hard to find). So watch this and tell me what is fake history (I saw this one before but I’m not sure if this touched on the metallurgy techniques as I didn’t have time to watch the whole thing):

    • Replies: @Smith
  377. @Malla

    Oh brother… You and your half history. Well for one you skipped over the fact it was a Qin general who broke off and started a kingdom in what would be Southern China and Vietnam and Laos today. That’s why they ended up fighting “Nam Viet” – which was a translation from a “Chinese” name. Do you even know where the first Vietnamese ethnic groups migrated from?
    Once China let Vietnam go – it didn’t take it back. Even when it did attack it in the 70’s that was to punish for what was going on in Cambodia. That wasn’t imperialism to colonize Vietnam. The part of Vietnam it held – it gave back when Vietnam left Cambodia and a formal peace treaty was signed. If it was being imperialistic – it would have kept that piece of Vietnam. There wasn’t anything Vietnam could have done. It had tried for 10 years to get it back. China pushed Vietnam off the Paracel’s yes in 1974 – but be serious – even the US – who was the South Vietnamese ally wouldn’t even step in to help because they knew they were squatting on those islands.

    • Replies: @Malla
  378. Barr says:
    @Malla

    The discussion was about if opium trade financed the empire and built the foundation of the empire .It did . Discussion was about the literacy and education . Britain introduced much developed western education but it according to the exchange between the two also negatively impacted existing nationwide educational system .
    Discussion was about famine . Wikipedia and Keys both talked of famines in pre colonial era going back to 70 AD . More famines took place under Raj and they were man made .
    Famines before were due to flood and drought
    .
    Did Britain run a money losing empire that saw rebellions of peasants , religious communities , and of self- organized armed gangs with military backgrounds , that was rife with forced indentured labor , enslavement and expulsion or removal to foreign lands and saw periodic famines that were never seen in any 50 yrs period, with and without hurting its own economy while using the products made in the empire outside the England , it invaded and occupied Chinese cities and monopolized Chinese economy ?

    Sure , Kabul has good university So does Kurdish Iraq .More freedom for women and more blah blah and more blah which should allow us to endorse American current occupation and futureI
    invasion of other lands and persuade us to believe that without the invasions , these countries wouldn’t have progressed at all (OMG ! it would have remained fossilized stuck in 2000 just as India would have remained stuck and fossilized and frozen into 1700AD .The pet theory of the imperialist of yesteryear and neocons of today! )

    Did USA’s economy or fate improve because of invasion ? Depends on who you ask and which segment is your focus . But that doesn’t absolve Americans of all stripes it’s collective responsibility. It doesn’t prove the absence of rosy expectations, allures of wealth and grabbing of power of those who came out in support of the war
    Most of them were taken for a rough bitter ride by the war makers .

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @antibeast
    , @Malla
  379. Sean says:
    @Jiminy

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
    [Editor’s Note (4/24/20): This article was originally published online on March 11. It has been updated for inclusion in the June 2020 issue of Scientific American and to address rumors that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from Shi Zhengli’s lab in China*.]
    With the SARS virus, just how the civets got it remained a mystery. Two previous incidents were telling: Australia’s 1994 Hendra virus infections, in which the contagion jumped from horses to humans, and Malaysia’s 1998 Nipah virus outbreak, in which it moved from pigs to people. Wang found that both diseases were caused by pathogens that originated in fruit-eating bats. Horses and pigs were merely the intermediate hosts. Bats in the Guangdong market also contained traces of the SARS virus, but many scientists dismissed this as contamination. Wang, however, thought bats might be the source. In those first virus-hunting months in 2004, whenever Shi’s team located a bat cave, it would put a net at the opening before dusk and then wait for the nocturnal creatures to venture out to feed for the night. Once the bats were trapped, the researchers took blood and saliva samples, as well as fecal swabs, often working into the small hours. After catching up on some sleep, they would return to the cave in the morning to collect urine and fecal pellets.

    *That is Wuhan China. She found that bat crap (then used as an eye medicine for humans in China) caused disease in mice that breathed it, and said there was a proto disease in bats. So it was not just Lipkin saying this wildlife trade was risky for many years before the current pandemic.

  380. Malla says:
    @showmethereal

    Even when it did attack it in the 70’s that was to punish for what was going on in Cambodia.

    China can go and punish countries but Murica cannot? India cannot?

    That wasn’t imperialism to colonize Vietnam.

    Ofcource Chinese perfect people, never colonise. Only foreign barbarians colonise. Chinese civilize

    China is truly exceptional nation.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @showmethereal
  381. Malla says:
    @Barr

    The discussion was about if opium trade financed the empire and built the foundation of the empire .It did

    No it did not.

    but it according to the exchange between the two also negatively impacted existing nationwide educational system

    Traditional education systems were allowed and ran in parallel to modern education. British Raj govt state funded Madrasas and traditional Hindu schools existed throughout the EIC + British Raj period. But as the country industrialized, traditional education could not provide employment in new fields.
    For example, a letter by the lower caste leader Mahatma Phule to the British discusses education for lower castes and in that letter he does mention traditional schools but according to him they were useless fro dalits.

    Wikipedia and Keys both talked of famines in pre colonial era going back to 70 AD . More famines took place under Raj and they were man made .

    The link I have provided is much more latest research and supersedes all of that. There are proper historical references to famines. Overall the British were very beneficial to Indian farmers by increasing irrigation and supporting them against greedy moneylenders.

    invasion of other lands and persuade us to believe that without the invasions , these countries wouldn’t have progressed at all (

    That could have been true but it is alternative history.

    But that doesn’t absolve Americans of all stripes it’s collective responsibility.

    Some people are driven by hate YT and hate West than the truth.

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @barr
    , @barr
  382. antibeast says:
    @Barr

    My view is that the British Government lost money on its overseas colonies because most of the profits extracted from those colonial enterprises went to private merchants not to the colonial governments. As the taxes collected by the colonial authorities did not cover the cost of colonial administration, the British Government ended up having to subsidize its overseas colonies.

    A good case is the EIC in India.

    The EIC started by exporting Indian cotton textiles to England. But that export trade began declining after England started producing its own cotton textiles. With lost revenues from declining exports of Indian cotton textiles, the EIC had to resort to tax farming the Indians after the Battle of Plassey in 1757. After Indian cotton textiles started collapsing at around 1800, the EIC then went into opium production in India in order to sell opium to China in exchange for silver which was used to pay for Chinese imports to England as well as to cover its costs of administrating India. By the mid-19th century, English cotton textiles had flooded into the Indian market, thereby decimating whatever was left of the Indian cotton textile industry. By that time, the First Opium War had greatly facilitated Indian opium exports to China which had become the largest source of revenue for the EIC in India.

    The British Raj took over the colonial administration of India in 1858 while the EIC was eventually dissolved in 1874. As part of the ‘buyout’ by the British Government, the shareholders of the EIC were guaranteed 10.5% annual dividends for a period of 40 years from Indian taxes paid to the British Raj and a final payoff for the redemption of its shares which was finally paid off by the British Government after WWII.

    The British Government may have lost money running the British Raj after taking over the colonial administration of India in 1858 but the stockholders of the EIC still made money from their shareholdings in the EIC even after its dissolution. In addition to EIC, private merchants such as Jardine-Matheson also made fortunes from the Opium trade with China which was financed by private banks such as the HSBC, both of which were based in HK.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Barr
  383. Malla says:
    @Barr

    indentured labor , enslavement and expulsion or removal to foreign lands

    I say bullshit, and I do not care how many crackpot Marxist bullshit theories you bring to the table.
    Why.
    There was a speech delivered by Lord Lytton at the close of the Legislative Council held on December 27, 1877, about famines in India.
    The British Raj Government of India looked at three options, Emigration to reduce the pressure on the land, irrigation and railways. I only include the first part of the speech relatedto emigration and not the other part which deals with irrigation and railways in detail. Check out the bold part.

    “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. . . .”

    • Troll: d dan
    • Replies: @barr