All in all, you're dealing with death tolls that span a few centuries... and numerous conspirators. Including ... smallpox... genocide of the North American colonial settlement which, oh yeah, by the way, like the colonial settlers, Lincoln believed too that God was picking off those "two-legged non-human" native savages" to clear passage for the Anglo-Saxon people and the divine will, for "One Nation" --the USA. As discussed, it was "Manifest Destiny". Lincoln slaughtered a whole lot of Indians and Presidents before him. (Former British).
Stalin accomplished to pack his grisly death toll into a couple decades... China too.
"...The evidence shows something much darker. Far from doing nothing during the famine, the British did a lot - to make it worse. They insisted that the Indian peasants carry on shipping out grain for global markets, and enforced this policy with guns. (Stalin did exactly the same thing in the 1930s, during the famines caused by collectivisation). This meant, as the historian Professor Mike Davis has noted, "London was eating India's bread" at the height of a famine. They even stepped up taxes on the starving, and insulted them as "indolent" and "unused to work"."
(Source)
And you on the left wing, that is, may not like that can of worms once opened because my Irish Ancestors are a part of the death tolls of which they speak.
--> "How "open" was it to an Irishman being tortured by the Black and Tans for advocating a free Ireland? <---
Politically Correct Choir: "Oh no, white (Irish) people never suffered racism, discrimination, slavery or oppression... but my ancestors did. The British treated the Irish, like the Colonists and Abe Lincoln treated the Indians -- slavery, starvation, genocide..."
Exacerbating The Irish Famine
"...If you want to see why large parts of Ireland still despise anything remotely British, look no further than the Irish Famine. What started out as an ordinary if brutal famine soon became something more like genocide when London sent the psychopathic Charles Trevelyan to oversee relief work.
A proud Christian who believed the famine was God’s way of punishing the “lazy” Irish, Trevelyan was also a fierce devotee of Adam Smith. How fierce? Well, he passionately felt that government should never, ever interfere with market forces, to the extent that he refused to hand out food to the starving Irish. Instead, he instituted a public works program that forced dying people into hard labor building pointless roads so they could afford to buy grain. The only problem was he refused to control the price of grain, with the result that it skyrocketed beyond what the road builders could afford. Trevelyan thought this would encourage cheap imports. Instead it led to a million people starving to death.
To cap it all off, Trevelyan also launched a PR blitz in Britain that encouraged people to blame the Irish for their own poverty. Suddenly Irish emigrants looking for work found themselves unemployable and subject to violence, even as their friends and families starved to death back home. Because fate laughs in the face of justice, Trevelyan was later officially honored for his “relief work.”
10 Evil Crimes Of The British Empire
(Source)
Oh my, --> "...A proud Christian who believed the famine was God’s way of punishing the “lazy” Irish..." <---
PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE'S "GENOCIDE"...
"Goddiddit."
--> "On average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of “the marvelous goodness and providence of God” to the Christians of course, e.g., the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as
for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.” <--
PRAISE THE LORDSKI?
--> The puritan commander-in-charge, John Mason, wrote after one massacre: “And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished...God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven...Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies.” So “the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance.” Because of his readers’ assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow: “Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them...” (Deut. 20) Mason’s comrade Underhill recalled how “great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers” yet reassured his readers that “sometimes the Scripture declares women and children must perish with their parents.” Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists’ own words: “blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastiffs to seize them.” In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. The surviving handful of Indians “were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for ‘a share’ of the captives, specifically ‘a young woman or girl and a boy if you think good.’”
Other tribes were to follow the same path. Comment the Christian exterminators: “God’s Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!” “Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!” Moreover, “Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians ‘grow secure upon (sic) the treaty’, advised the Council of State in Virginia, ‘we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cut down their Corn.’”
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. In a single massacre in “King Philip’s War” of 1675 and 1676 some “600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a ‘barbecue.’” <---
(Source)'tis merely Manifest Destiny, and Honest Abe Lincoln, Indian Killer, honestly believed.
Civil war (1861-1865)
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Indians would not even be recognized as fully "Human" or citizens ... until long after Lincoln was dead and buried.
I Am a Man: When American Indians Were Recognized as People Under U.S. Law
"...In 1877, as part of the government’s “removal” program (what we would now call ethnic cleansing), the Ponca tribe was forcefully relocated from it homelands in Nebraska to “Indian Territory in present-day Oklahoma. As with every tribe relocated by the U.S. government to strange and inhospitable land, the Ponca suffered huge losses to disease and starvation. However, this itself was not what began the momentous story of Chief Standing Bear.
[...] LONG EXCERPT [...]
"...And, then, recognition of American Indians as persons under the law did not grant them citizenship, which was not theirs for another forty-five years, in 1924. For the Northern Ponca, as for many other Native Americans, citizenship was not a miraculous cure for conquest and the government’s continuing and often malign mismanagement of it’s trust relationship with the tribe. In the 1960’s, under another of the government’s frequent changes of policy, the Nortern Ponca were misled into giving up their federally recognized status. When, within twenty years, they had recognized their error and sought arduously and expensively to correct it, they were at the last stage of the process coerced by their own non-Native U.S. congressman – against pain of his blocking the restored recognition – to forswear in perpetuity any future claim to a tribal reservation in Nebraska, on land that was theirs to begin."
(Source)
A hangover from the British Empire's stupid superiority superstition.
Genocide is genocide.
A few million here, a few million there... like Stalin is attributed to have stated, "One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic," but the Leftwing for some queer reason beyond me rationalizes "some genocides are more 'excusable' than others."
-
Some suggested authoritative links on Leftwing Death Tolls:
- How Many Did Communist Regimes Murder? By R.J. Rummel
- Communism Killed 94M in 20th Century, Feels Need to Kill Again
- So, how many did Communism kill? (UPDATED: The historical reality of communist oppression is being ignored. But the truth must not be buried)
"In total, this is not far short of 100 million deaths at the hands of a single ideology. Nothing like this has ever happened before. (As an aside, my personal view is that the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews was the greatest single crime of the modern era, while communism was the greatest criminal system.)"
The frightful thing is that such a staggering death toll was achieved within a single century under policies of single dictators. The figure does not even take into account the ongoing death tally beyond 1989, in modern communist regimes."Apologists have adopted a number of strategies -- beyond outright denial which lasted for decades. One of the most popular and enduring is that we should not spend much time on the crimes of communism because Western countries have also committed crimes, most particularly when they had their empires.
To say that this is disingenuous is an understatement. Even if it were true that Western countries had committed similar crimes -- which it most certainly isn't -- why would that be an obstacle to discussing the crimes of communism? Jack the Ripper isn't any the less of a killer because Ted Bundy was too."
Other relevant death tolls apply which should be taken into consideration as they are a direct result of applying Marxist-Communist ideology of "International Socialism" philosophies into political systems, i.e., George Bush' unprovoked "pre-emptive war" in the Middle East which produced a death toll of at least 1,000,000 in Iraq: - Death toll of communism
- Atheist Governments of the 20th Century: The Death Toll of Godless Goodness Last, but not least:
- “An 800-page compendium of the crimes of Communist regimes worldwide, recorded and analyzed in ghastly detail by a team of scholars. The facts and figures, some of them well known, others newly confirmed in hitherto inaccessible archives, are irrefutable. The myth of the well-intentioned founders—the good czar Lenin betrayed by his evil heirs—has been laid to rest for good. No one will any longer be able to claim ignorance or uncertainty about the criminal nature of Communism, and those who had begun to forget will be forced to remember anew.”
—Tony Judt, The New York Times
“When The Black Book of Communism appeared in Europe in 1997 detailing communism’s crimes, it created a furor. Scrupulously documented and soberly written by several historians, it is a masterful work. It is, in fact, a reckoning. With this translation by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer, English-language readers may now see for themselves what all the commotion was about.”
—Jacob Heilbrunn, The Wall Street Journal
The Black Book of Communism
Crimes, Terror, Repression
Stéphane Courtois
Nicolas Werth
Jean-Louis Panné
Andrzej Paczkowski
Karel Bartošek
Jean-Louis Margolin
Edited by Dr. Mark Kramer
Translated by Jonathan Murphy
Published by Harvard University Press
The Neocons: An Illustrated Progression
From exile to redemption to exile again: a history of "militaristic idealists" known as neocons.
CHOOSING A SIDE
There's no "left vs right" ... no "good guy vs bad guy" ... no "right vs wrong". It's futile to try to salvage these monsters and maniacs from history and whitewash their bloodthirsty genocide and ethnic cleansing.
It's ALL GENOCIDE. Human madness (and yeah, all of it above was inspired either by theistic-influenced empires, or atheistic-influenced regimes. ALL of it is pure insanity, evil... and there's no excuse for even one death. Stalin was wrong, one death is a tragedy and a million deaths are a million tragedies.
As the left/right scramble to defend "their side" -- the way I see it, there was never any valid justification for any of it 100, 200, 300, 500 years ago.. no more than there is now.
So don't waste your time defending them. They're all criminals. Guilty as charged.
APACHE TEARS
This piece was created as a tribute to the North American Indian people. A collage of symbolic images frame the center piece which is that of an Apache chief of 1889. (Source)
I won't allow Abraham Lincoln to steal the legacy and honor of this Apache Chief anymore, no apologies. Lincoln was complicit in the genocide of the Indian people. Lincoln and Sherman were war criminals. I do not feel that the white race (being Irish, my ancestors weren't even counted among the so-called "white people" (no doubt due in great part to the Irish majority preference for Roman Catholic religion) any more than Mulato children were "white," being direct offspring of Anglo-Saxon Protestant slave-owners but never counted among rightful heirs or "legitimate," and sometimes sold by their own biological parent into slavery. The Irish --relegated among the "Negro" race and others deemed racially "defective" and "inferior" -- the Anglo Saxon Protestants were in no way "superior" to the people they slaughtered because they condescendingly looked down on their race or religion... they were cold-blooded butchers, --the worst kind of savage beast and how harmoniously it fits within Charles Darwin's theory of human evolution.
With history in correct perspective, I don't see how Protestants can deny the Theory of Evolution, since after all, back in Abraham Lincoln's day, Lincoln himself espoused belief that Native Americans and Black slaves, were nothing more than beasts... "two legged" creatures who merely resembled "human persons," and fair game for ethnic cleansing. Sherman would either enslave or slaughter the Native American Indian, while Lincoln wished to put the Africans on ships and send them to Liberia or back to Africa. He had no desire to live beside them... any of them.
Darwin's theory fit nicely with the prevailing and widespread attitude of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Christians in Europe and abroad... he was no doubt, widely received by the most affluent intellectuals, even further justifying genocide.
There are documentaries about that very topic: Francis Galton (the cousin of Charles Darwin), referred to as the "Father of Modern Eugenics".
Darwin was merely a product of his time, nothing more, nothing less.
Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship black people back to Africa while being in full support and complicit with General Sherman's razing and rape and pillaging southward and then westward expansion' ethnic cleansing of Native American Indian tribes.
Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism
Charles Darwin is brought into play at 29 minutes and 10 seconds... a worthwhile listen.
The theory of human evolution fit neatly within the prevailing religious beliefs of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and even 19th and 20th century... however, when Charles Darwin proposed the same theory applied to Anglo-Saxon Protestants, surely that was a huge blow to their exaggerated sense of self-importance. They were already heavily reliant on the notion every other race was a "beast" while they themselves, were born "Children of God" with a divine significance that set them apart, with a cringeworthy "Manifest Destiny" in the world.
Abraham Lincoln shared much more in common with Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler's "ethnic cleansing" than Lincoln and his butcher, General Sherman would ever share in common with Martin Luther King.
The documentary does an expose on Francis Galton and Eugenics. Christianity wasn't so far removed from Darwinist principles, back then. Lincoln would be the first to agree with the British Empire that the "Tasmanians were a godless, primitive beast... savage... left behind by history... and no loss if treated like animals."
A footnote to all this information:
I'm sure for some, there is a faint glimmer of hope that to criticize the British Empire (who's ideology was deeply grounded in an idolatrous-like, religious-based racist bigotry), would somehow justify the Communists in their wanton bloodbath?
Somehow make the lives that were lost, of less significance?
Somehow soften the brutal reputation of such murderous communist regimes?
Or perhaps by making an example of the British Empire, make Communism appear to be "Really not so bad"? It was BAD... no, it was worse.
Unlike the British Empire of which there's been full disclosure... an almost boastful disclosure because they were under the delusion they were "Men on a Mission from God," -- the majority of Communist Archives remain SEALED. We will never know the full extent of the atrocities; horrific war crimes, brutality, torture and death that were carried out under Communist regimes.
Does any person doubt for a moment, Theodore Bundy was a "vicious, brutal killer" who derived sadistic pleasure from his victims' suffering? To make such comparison is like saying, "Since Gary Ridgway was convicted of killing 49 victims, and Ted Bundy only killed 36, Bundy deserved to be exonerated." It's a moot issue but that's the logic! ;-)
Genocide is genocide.
Francis Galton, (cousin of Charles Darwin) was the crackpot ... the "mad genius" behind the latter day "British Empire" atrocities and founder of the modern Eugenics programme we're all too familiar with -- pseudo-scientific racism, or "Racial Hygiene" was implemented in early 1900's America which included laws in about half or over half of the United States, enforcing sterilization of persons deemed "unfit" to reproduce.
Notably, Adolf Hitler so admired the American Eugenics programme... and copied it.
The British Empire based their own version of "British Racial Superiority" on Galton's racist philosophy.
So for those seeking to somehow justify the death tolls under Communism, by invoking the British Empire? Well, there it is.
As far back as the 1600's ... English colonists expressed a deeply held belief that Native People were merely "Beastlike". So unworthy of Life, Liberty and Happiness, that they were wiped out like a common animal and when man didn't do it through weapons and ammunition, starvation by broken treaty, "Goddidit" through the act of sending a little Smallpox here or there.
Darwin and Galton merely jumped on the bandwagon with the rest of the herd that widely believed, humans were "animals".
Galton was probably an Agnostic considering Charles Darwin was as well (according to those who knew Darwin), if not, it is safe to speculate Galton was Atheist.
So, will those on the Left, quick to defend Communist Regimes also properly lay blame on Francis Galton's Agnostic or Atheist influence on the British Empire's folly?
First, I will refer to a book which touches on the topic of Galton's spiritual views,
"Boyle on Atheism"
Robert Boyle, John James MacIntosh
University of Toronto Press, 2005 - Philosophy - 493 pages
And here, I quote another web source to base a conclusion on as to what "spiritual persuasion" Galton was of.
"...The founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, was not only an agnostic, but also openly hostile toward religion."
The Darwin Effect: It's influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism & Sexism
Jerry Bergman
New Leaf Publishing Group, Sep 26, 2014 - Religion - 360 pages
So, please, in all fairness, include that Agnostic among the motivations behind the British Empire's ghastly wreckage in human misery and death.
Additional Video
The History of Racism - Episode 1 (part 1/6)
No comments:
Post a Comment