A scholarly study found British colonialism caused 165 million deaths in India from 1880 to 1920, while stealing trillions of dollars of wealth. The global capitalist system was founded on genocide.
It all makes sense once it is understood that white supremacy is an oligarchically created system to "protect and maintain the European genotype against genetic annihilation," not for the sake of white people (covid has proven that given that Europeans make up only 15% of the global pop.) but by using race as a catalyst and buffer for the "will to power and control."
So, when the Moors were finally ousted from southern Europe, after 781 years of occupation, the Doctrine of Discovery came into play. This gave license to European "explorers", via the religious, political, and economic oligarchy, to act as reconnoiters for future colonization (global metastasis). But the added ferocity of colonization was imbued into the psyche of the colonizers by the license to dehumanize their "prey." This explains why the Arawak natives greeted Columbus and his men with gifts while Columbus was sizing the Arawaks up for genocide. Thus, the innate mechanism within the "civilized colonizer" had been deactivated, making it impossible for Columbus to see himself and the Arawak natives as being, Universally, One and the Same!
There's more to this. But this genetic compulsion to survive is still an ongoing war against re-melanation,* which also explains how a child like Emmet Till could be murdered in such a fashion when hatred and fear act as a composite for brutality on such an incomprehensible scale! Even today, the legacy, spirit and pathology, of the Doctrine of Discovery still lives on.
That low life expectancy number boggles the mind. I wonder if it includes or excludes infant mortality deaths. Even if you made it out of childhood, you were still only likely to live into your 20's?? Phew.
Hopefully one day the 19th and 20th Century British prime minister's names will be known with the same level of associated villainy as Gengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are today. They certainly have the blood to be included in that fraternity.
I will forever be against including names of Stalin (& maybe Mao) in the same sentence as Hitler & Churchill. If you take the proverbial 99% workers versus 1% capitalists, Stalin & Mao did all they could to better the lives of the 99%, while the others did all they could to better the lives of the 1%-ers. (The %-ages are for illustrative purposes, will probably differ but the gist is the same: worker proletariat is greatly outnumbering the capitalists, yet the others control the means of production and derive abnormal rent from this). That's a fundamental qualitative difference.
There's also a fundamental quantitative difference, in the sense that e.g. the excess death rate during Stalin's time had been greatly exaggerated and is nowhere near the excess death due to the actions of the capitalist and fascist regimes.
The goals matter greatly, the quantitative differences matter greatly.
While Churchill was inspiring Hitler with his genocide in India, and Hitler was trying to repeat the same in the lands of the Slavs (esp. USSR), Stalin was taking hundreds of millions of workers and peasants out of poverty, giving them power, educating them, and building up one of the most impressive industrial bases that ended up fighting the common industrial base of the collective fascist Europe (under the leadership of Hitler's Germany). Yes, the war was won with the US support, but USSR would've won on its own, anyway (would've taken longer, but there was enough strategic depth to do so).
So, please, leave the communists' names out of the sentences that include fascists, Nazis, and capitalists.
It all makes sense once it is understood that white supremacy is an oligarchically created system to "protect and maintain the European genotype against genetic annihilation," not for the sake of white people (covid has proven that given that Europeans make up only 15% of the global pop.) but by using race as a catalyst and buffer for the "will to power and control."
So, when the Moors were finally ousted from southern Europe, after 781 years of occupation, the Doctrine of Discovery came into play. This gave license to European "explorers", via the religious, political, and economic oligarchy, to act as reconnoiters for future colonization (global metastasis). But the added ferocity of colonization was imbued into the psyche of the colonizers by the license to dehumanize their "prey." This explains why the Arawak natives greeted Columbus and his men with gifts while Columbus was sizing the Arawaks up for genocide. Thus, the innate mechanism within the "civilized colonizer" had been deactivated, making it impossible for Columbus to see himself and the Arawak natives as being, Universally, One and the Same!
There's more to this. But this genetic compulsion to survive is still an ongoing war against re-melanation,* which also explains how a child like Emmet Till could be murdered in such a fashion when hatred and fear act as a composite for brutality on such an incomprehensible scale! Even today, the legacy, spirit and pathology, of the Doctrine of Discovery still lives on.
*Research the four laws of Nicola Tesla
That low life expectancy number boggles the mind. I wonder if it includes or excludes infant mortality deaths. Even if you made it out of childhood, you were still only likely to live into your 20's?? Phew.
Hopefully one day the 19th and 20th Century British prime minister's names will be known with the same level of associated villainy as Gengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are today. They certainly have the blood to be included in that fraternity.
I will forever be against including names of Stalin (& maybe Mao) in the same sentence as Hitler & Churchill. If you take the proverbial 99% workers versus 1% capitalists, Stalin & Mao did all they could to better the lives of the 99%, while the others did all they could to better the lives of the 1%-ers. (The %-ages are for illustrative purposes, will probably differ but the gist is the same: worker proletariat is greatly outnumbering the capitalists, yet the others control the means of production and derive abnormal rent from this). That's a fundamental qualitative difference.
There's also a fundamental quantitative difference, in the sense that e.g. the excess death rate during Stalin's time had been greatly exaggerated and is nowhere near the excess death due to the actions of the capitalist and fascist regimes.
The goals matter greatly, the quantitative differences matter greatly.
While Churchill was inspiring Hitler with his genocide in India, and Hitler was trying to repeat the same in the lands of the Slavs (esp. USSR), Stalin was taking hundreds of millions of workers and peasants out of poverty, giving them power, educating them, and building up one of the most impressive industrial bases that ended up fighting the common industrial base of the collective fascist Europe (under the leadership of Hitler's Germany). Yes, the war was won with the US support, but USSR would've won on its own, anyway (would've taken longer, but there was enough strategic depth to do so).
So, please, leave the communists' names out of the sentences that include fascists, Nazis, and capitalists.