QatzelOk wrote:This is such a mild criticism of colonialism that it ends up sounding like Winston Churchill would have said.
Like you, Churchill is saying that *unfortunately, white people must dominate others
Yes history can be irritating (to the Liberals). Its one of the unfortunate facts of history that Winston Churchill was a "White Supremacist" and Adolph Hitler was not. Adolph Hitler was A German nationalist Austrian bigot, who tried to dress up his ethnic nationalist prejudice in the garb of morphological "scientific" racism. So fraudulent was the Nazis so called "White Supremacism", that when they introduced their racial marriage laws they forgot to include Black Africans.
As I say you just can't make this stuff up.
Although Winston Churchill was a war monger, he did at least try and limit the loss of British life. He even wept when he saw the results of the allied bombing on Germany. Even his Dardanelles adventure was intended to save lives not throw them away. With 3 million Indians dying in the Bengal famine there is a case to be made that Churchill was a little more careless when it came to the lives of "non-White" people, At the very least I lean towards the view that if 3 million British had starved to death in World War II we would hear a lot more about it in our history books.
Adolph Hitler on the other hand was a genius. A world leading genius. And what was his area of brilliance, his area of genius? In getting "White people" to exterminate each other. His spirit seems to live on today in the Russia Ukraine war. "White men" slaughtering "White men", have we finally found a forever war that the Liberals can really get behind?