Miscellaneous News

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
I know someone posted what our foreign Secretary said about genocide. So I won't
Repeat that.

Instead, what caught my eyes was the respond from a senior member of the EU. Thtee words comes to mind, and not necessarily in that order. "Nerve raw hit"

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi blasted his European counterparts over the sanctions that were recently imposed over Beijing’s crackdown on its Muslim minority.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Wang Yi claimed Beijing does everything to ‘promote democracy and human rights in China.’ He compared the accusations of China committing ‘genocide’ against its Uyghur population to another episode of pot calling the kettle black, saying: ‘Our European friends know what is genocide.’

Reinhard Bütikofer, a senior member of the European Parliament from Germany, angrily hit back at the notion, saying that using the Holocaust as a ‘diplomatic football’ was a reckless new low in China’s wolf-warrior diplomacy
.

Follow our Telegram t.me/rtintl

FB_IMG_1622293990006.jpg
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Exactly when I get a cocky students starting to tell the class how "free" the U.S. economy is (it probably not his fault, after years of propaganda from the MSM on how "free and virtuous" the U.S. economy is).

I then produce the chart below and burst his bubble, the job satisfaction i get from doing that sometimes amazes even me. Lol

View attachment 72679

given that most US politicans are ambulance chasers...when the only tool they know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Reinhard Bütikofer, a senior member of the European Parliament from Germany, angrily hit back at the notion, saying that using the Holocaust as a ‘diplomatic football’ was a reckless new low in China’s wolf-warrior diplomacy.

Follow our Telegram t.me/rtintl

View attachment 72691

Reinhard (named after Reinhard Heydrich perhaps?).... it's gotta be low to kick you people in the balls, they're small, but we'll kick them nonetheless.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I know I'm being pedantic. But as an economics lecturer. This point, although small is a very important point.

Often I've students in my class come to my class with pre-conceived ideas about the virtues of the free markets. Then I've to let him down gently by asking if he thinks free markets exist and its real, and great. Then shouldn't the armed forces be provided by the free market? Police force? Fire brigade? Health and education? Should I go on?

It's like the bank collapse in 2008, private free market earns the money, but when it goes wrong, it's the socialist money that bails them out!

View attachment 72674

Exactly when I get a cocky students starting to tell the class how "free" the U.S. economy is (it probably not his fault, after years of propaganda from the MSM on how "free and virtuous" the U.S. economy is).

I then produce the chart below and burst his bubble, the job satisfaction i get from doing that sometimes amazes even me. Lol

View attachment 72679

Doesn't those two charts contradict each other?

The first chat implies that more Capitalism equals more Free Market, yet the second chart clearly shows otherwise.

This just reinforces my argument that Capitalism and Free Market are not the same thing.

I see the Free Market as similar to a chemical reaction. If you don't contain it in a bottle, it will make a big mess.
 

windsclouds2030

Senior Member
Registered Member
This is what genocide looks like:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
More on the genocide story at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia, Canada and others:

Kamloops Indian residential school, British Columbia, Canada 01.jpg

LIST OF THE CRUEL & WICKED CRIMES

TRUTH AND NATIVE ABUSE

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When Noam Chomsky says Canada’s famously defrocked United Church minister Kevin Annett is “more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than many who have received it in the past,” you can take his word for it if you want.

Kamloops Indian residential school, British Columbia, Canada 03.jpg


* * *

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission found THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN DIED AT SIMILAR SCHOOLS.

The Kamloops school was located over 350 kilometers from Vancouver and was the largest in the Indian Affairs residential school system, where thousands of Indigenous children were sent in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Canada’s residential school system, which forcibly separated Indigenous children from their families, constituted “CULTURAL GENOCIDE”, a SIX-YEAR INVESTIGATION into the now-defunct system found in 2015.

“Each child has been forever taken from a family and a community that loved them,” the B.C.’s premier, John Horgan said.

It found more than 4,100 children died while attending residential school. The deaths of the 215 children buried in the grounds of what was once Canada’s largest residential school ARE BELIEVED TO NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED in that figure and appear to HAVE BEEN UNDOCUMENTED until the discovery.

(…)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Kamloops Indian residential school, British Columbia, Canada 02.jpg

* * *

A mass grave containing the remains of 215 Indigenous children has been discovered on the grounds of a former residential school in the interior of southern British Columbia.

It was part of a cross-Canada network of RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS created to FORCIBLY ASSIMILATE INDIGENOUS CHILDREN by REMOVING THEM FROM THEIR HOMES AND COMMUNITIES, and forbidding them from speaking their native languages or performing cultural practices. Physical, emotional and sexual abuse were rampant within these institutions, as was forced labour.

At least 150,000 children attended such schools in what a historic 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission described as a “CULTURE OF GENOCIDE” targeting Canada’s INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

“Every Indian student smelled of hunger.” The school was described as being cold in winter and unsanitary.

The same documents mention that students were exposed to outbreaks of measles, tuberculosis, influenza and other contagious diseases, and many died.

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES have long believed MASS GRAVES of residential school students existed, and proving it has been a DECADES-LONG PROCESS. “It matters because the story of secret residential-school mass graves is an URBAN LEGEND,” said a column in British Columbia news outlet TheTyee.ca.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has calculated at least 3,201 residential school deaths, although the true total may never be known due to unaccounted deaths and destroyed files.

(…)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Same game play all over the Anglo world...kidnapping, enslavement, abuse, genocide


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Introduction​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

January 30, 2001​

LONDON — In the United States, Native American children, “Red Indians,” had been forcibly taken from their parents and placed in institutions to “civilize” them. Australia tried a different approach.
In 1937, the chief protector of Aboriginals in Western Australia, A. O. Neville, a man generally recognized as a decent, progressive bureaucrat but who nevertheless believed in “breeding out the color” (commonly called “[expletive deleted] them white”), spoke at the first national governmental conference on Aboriginals, an occasion Robert Marine, associate professor of politics at La Trobe University, Victoria, has described as “a terrible moment in the history of the 20th-century Australian state.”
At the conference, Neville asked: “Are we going to have a population of one million blacks in the Commonwealth or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia?” The key resolution at the conference, “The Destiny of the Race,” passed unanimously, called for the total absorption into the white community of all non-full-blood Aborigines. Taking part-Aboriginal children from their mothers and families by force was part of this ambition. Over the years, various regulations had been invoked to make this possible.

Illegal: White man with Aboriginal woman​

In 1918, while the war in Europe was still on, the Australian government found time to pass regulations designed to segregate Aboriginals from the white population and reduce the number of children with mixed blood. It was now illegal for a white man to live with an Aboriginal woman. (No mention was made of a white woman living with an Aboriginal man because such a situation was considered unthinkable.) This met the approval of the Perth Sunday Times: “Central Australia’s half-caste problem must be tackled boldly and immediately. The greatest danger, experts agree, is that three races will develop in Australia — white, black, and the pathetic, sinister third race which is neither.” Control of all Aboriginal children was removed from their parents and given to government-appointed white superintendents. This was just another part of a process that lasted from the late 19th century until the middle 1960s. So-called “half-caste” children were seized by the state and placed in institutions where they suffered physical mistreatment and sexual abuse. To this day, no one is certain how many were involved — but Aboriginal authorities say at least 30,000.
The 1918 law caused no outcry. Government figures released in 1921 suggested that there were only 75,000 Aboriginals left, the lowest figure ever, and that since colonization, their ranks had been reduced by nearly 80 per cent. There is doubt that these figures were accurate. In the 1970s, a period of strong Aboriginal activism, many Aboriginal leaders I spoke with said that they had done their own, admittedly limited, census-taking in their own areas, and that their figures for the number of Aboriginals suggested that the official figures had been understated by anything from 25 to 50 per cent.
But the low official figures enabled the authorities to argue that since Aboriginals were dying out anyway, the new legislation was aimed at easing their passing and finding decent homes for their children, especially those who had some white blood or light-colored skin.

Kidnapping becomes government policy​

This cannot be over-emphasized: The Australian government literally kidnapped these children from their parents as a matter of policy. White welfare officers, often supported by police, would descend on Aboriginal camps, round up all the children, separate the ones with light-colored skin, bundle them into trucks and take them away. If their parents protested, they were held at bay by the police.
Sometimes, to avoid harrowing scenes of parents clinging to the sides of the trucks, and to frustrate attempts to hide the children when the trucks drove into the camp, the authorities resorted to subterfuge. They would fit out the back of a truck with a wire cage and a spring door — like an animal trap. Then they would park the truck a short distance from the camp and lure the children into the cage with sweets scattered on its door. When enough children were in the cage, they would spring the trap door and drive rapidly away.
Aboriginals tried to save their children by blackening their skin so that they did not look half-caste. “Every morning, our people would crush charcoal and mix that with animal fat and smother it all over us, so that when the police came they could see only black children in the distance,” witness No. 681 told the National Inquiry into “stolen children” (1995-97). “We were told to be on the alert and, if white people came, to run into the bush, or stand behind the trees as stiff as a poker, or else run behind logs or run into culverts and hide.
Mothers were equally stricken. “Bringing Them Home,” the 1997 report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into stolen children, tells of an Aboriginal woman so ashamed of being unable to prevent her children being taken from her that she carried on her person, until the day she died, references testifying to her good character. And of an Aboriginal family who for 32 years carried out a ritual mourning ceremony every sunrise and sunset to mark the loss of their daughter.

Siblings separated — easier to control​

Where the children were taken depended on how old and how light-skinned they were. (Either way, siblings would not be allowed to stay together because the authorities believed that what they called the “split the litter” system made the children easier to control.) Some started out in Roman Catholic orphanages where they were well treated — “All the kids thought it was one big family. We didn’t know what it meant by ‘parents’ because we didn’t have parents and we thought those women [the nuns] were our mothers,” one said.
But as they grew older, they were moved on to “homes” run by churches and missionary societies. There, they were beaten and sometimes sexually abused. Some of the stolen children did not have even a short spell of reasonable life, but went straight from the Aboriginal camp from which they had been abducted into so-called “half-caste homes” in Darwin or Alice Springs. The aim was to keep them segregated from local “full bloods.” Conditions in these homes were deplorable. At Alice Springs, the half-caste home, “The Bungalow,” consisted of a very rough frame of wood with some dilapidated sheets of corrugated iron thrown over it.
The prime minister, Stanley Bruce, thought something should be done about the half-caste homes and made an approach to the South Australian government to try to persuade it to help. He suggested: “If these babies were removed at their present early age . . . to homes in South Australia, they would not know in later life that they had Aboriginal blood and would probably be absorbed into the white population and become useful citizens.” The South Australian government was having none of this. It replied: “To give effect to this suggestion would be greatly to the disadvantage of South Australia . . . These persons of Aboriginal blood almost invariably mate with the lowest class of whites and, in many cases, the girls become prostitutes.”
Robert Manne found in the National Archives of Australia the views of Dr. Cecil Cook, who had the job of “chief protector of Aborigines” in the Northern Territory between 1927 and 1939 and the architect of Aboriginal policy there. Manne wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald in 1999, “No one endowed the sorry business of child removal with a grander social and geopolitical purpose than . . . the progressive intellectual, Dr. Cecil Cook.”

 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Doesn't those two charts contradict each other?

The first chat implies that more Capitalism equals more Free Market, yet the second chart clearly shows otherwise.

This just reinforces my argument that Capitalism and Free Market are not the same thing.

I see the Free Market as similar to a chemical reaction. If you don't contain it in a bottle, it will make a big mess.

Not really, the two charts are slightly different, and they are produced by different agency. I'll start with the second chart first.

The second chart comes from credit Sussie. It try to measure protectionism in foreign trade as opposed to an entire economic system. It measures tariffs, subsidies, and other forms of trade barriers and ranked them in order, with the surprising results that US turns out to be the most protectionist. Now, the chart was produced around 2015, well before Trump's trade tarrifs, so if you factor that in it will look much worse for the U.S.

Even though it is only trying to measure only one aspect of the economy. ie: it's trade policy. One can deduce from it that the economic system is not as "free market" as the U.S. trying to portrait. (And that's the message I'm trying to convey to my students).

Now with the first chart, it is really a simplistic view, and really should be use with caution. It really trying to "best fit" a country along the spectrum between a free market and command market economies. I use it for my students as a opener to dispel any pre-conceived ideas that most students have. And that is pure black and white. ie: you're either free market or command economies. Life isn't like that, so it's used by me as a tool.

Further, i disagree with some of the countries position. For example, I disagree that Sweden and China's position. And think the two could easily be swapped around.

Now, that's the two system, free market and command system. Where does capitalism fits in? Well, it's difficult to say. Yes you are right, capitalist and free market are not exactly the same thing . But are quite similar. So historically, capitalism is associated with free market. Most writers and academics do and does lump the two together.
 
Top