Hanging is too good for him – but it’ll do

It appears that in Britain today, there are people that really do believe they can get away with murder.

Karl Taylor - A stupid and Callous killerArrogant, and some would say, thick as pig shit, Karl Taylor went on a date with Kate Beagley intending to murder her and yet inexplicably believed that he would not be the prime suspect. Is he just extremely stupid, or has murder become so common place in British society, and harsh punishments so unlikely, that he really thought so little of it?

Karl Taylor certainly is not a criminal master mind, but how could he have thought that he would not be suspected of killing her after sending several texts to her and having arranged the date? To cap it all, he then drove around in her car for several days. Bit tough to explain that one away. Did he really think that it was worth the risk killing someone for their car, even in such an obvious way? Maybe he thought that washing her body with mineral water would remove all evidence of him.

I suppose to his tiny mind he thought why not, at worst he’ll serve a few years, at best he gets away with a £17,000 car.

His defence proved, as if it were in doubt, how truly dim-witted he is, stating that:

“I saw her prodding herself and she was moving her head and her neck towards the knife like you would do if you were hysterical.”

What? Did he really think that the jury would believe that Miss Beagley would choose a knife as a means to kill herself and decide to take her own life whilst on a date with him? Perhaps he took the phrase ‘a jury of one’s peers’ too literally and thought that they would be as simple minded as he is.

“He said that after she finished, he realised she had died.”

So he also expected the jury to believe that he’d just stand there and watch a woman stab herself in the face and neck 31 times and bleed to death?

Taylor fills up his newly acquired car, Kate Beagley's body is still in the boot.Taylor fills up his newly acquired car, Kate Beagley’s body is still in the boot.

 

This sick, callous man should never be released and is a prime candidate for hanging, it’s just a shame that it isn’t a possibility in the UK. It is shocking that someone who could so brutally and cold-heartedly take the life of another, innocent, human being is allowed to live out their life as if nothing had happened.

This was no accident, he stabbed Kate 31 times in the face, neck and chest in a vicious and sustained attack and in doing so he should surely have forfeited his own right to life. The possibility that this man may go on to procreate, something he prevented Miss Beagley from ever doing, chills me to the bone.

His letter to Kate’s parents says it all.

“In it he described Kate as “a kind but unhappy girl” and “an angel in the dark”.

He added: “Without any doubt what I did was wrong. But ask yourself this – whose life have I really taken?”

Kate’s, and the sad thing is, he gets to live on. I am sure that offered the choice, Kate would have chosen 30 years in prison, rather than death. She didn’t get any choice though, Karl Taylor decided she must die. Luckily for Taylor death wasn’t on the table for him.

30 years may seem like a long time, but assuming he does serve 30 years, he will still only be 57 when he gets out and could have another 30 years of life. Something that Miss Beagley will never have.

Advertisements

18 responses to “Hanging is too good for him – but it’ll do

  1. Mel the indifferent

    Back to the old debate on Capital punishment. In the West it seems that Capital punishment causes crime to increase, instead of decrease. Crime never went down in Arizona under the sadistic reign of Arpaio, to quote one example of the top of my head.

    Anyhow, it does seem to work in some parts of Asia, namely Singapore. Punishments such as hanging and caning have drastically reduced crime rates. So why is it that it works in Asia and not the West? The severity of punishments is what is generally emphasized in such debates, however the economic realities are ignored. At a micro economic level, it seems that Singapore is more prosperous than most of the West.

    Anyhow Charlie, after you calm your emotions, I’d like to hear your input in this issue.

  2. Mel the indifferent,

    I actually quite like Sheriff Arpaios’s approach, feeding prisoners on $0.30 a day is, well, what they deserve. Whether or not crime went down doesn’t really matter, he did after all get much tougher thereby increasing convictions, but the fear of crime has lessened in Maricopa County. He has been elected five times, so must be doing something right.

    I think that it is something of a myth that capital punishment causes an increase in crime. In Britain for instance the murder rate alone is twice as high now as it was during the 1960s when hanging was still carried out. It stood at 6.2 homicides per million in 1960. The death penalty was abolished in 1965 in the UK, by 1970 the murder rate had risen to 8.1 homicides per million. It has continued to rise ever since and today it is 13.7 per million.

    I think that it was and is a deterrent, but some people fudge the figures and claim it not to be.

    As for it working in Asia and not the West, I am not sure that’s true. I am sure that if hanging were introduced for a raft of crimes and birching too, the crime rate would plummet.

    The problem in the UK is a youth problem, the murderers and their victims are getting younger and younger. 1 in 10 victims last year were under 16 years of age.

    I am sure that witnessing a few birchings would bring them back into line. It certainly worked for my Grandfather.

  3. Mel the indifferent

    I was actually referring to Arpaios’s abuse of prisoners which is problematic. Prisoners have died in his jails at the hands of his officers. Nobody is saying that Prisoners need to have access to cigarettes and porn, but murdering them? There was a British documentary made on this guy I’ll try and google it later. Also, Americans are infamous for electing horrible candidates, case in point: Bush.
    Treating prisoners cruelly may SEEM like a logical strategy to reducing crime, but there is no
    conclusive proof for this. It’s an illusion. Kind of like the way people think that a bowling ball
    will hit the ground faster than an apple when dropped from heights. I think you need to include far more variables in your correlation.

    “Whether or not crime went down doesn’t really matter,”

    Wow, I cannot believe you just said that. Punishment is an instrument used to remove undesirable behaviour, and is not an end in itself (throwing a bit of Skinner’s psychology at you). The goal is the reduction of crime (so that innocents don’t suffer) and not in punishment. You could behead people Saudi style, but if homicides don’t go down, and innocents are still dying, it’s time to rethink your strategy.

    “I think that it was and is a deterrent, but some people fudge the figures and claim it not to be.”

    I’m willing to believe you, but I’ll need proof if you claim that research results are being tampered with.

    “The problem in the UK is a youth problem, the murderers and their victims are getting younger and younger. 1 in 10 victims last year were under 16 years of age.”

    Superb observation, now we’re onto something. If violent crime is being committed by youngsters, and if this trend is becoming the norm, it indicates a flaw in your culture (sort of like the exaggerated sense of ‘Honour’ in Pakistani tribal culture). There could be many socio-political and economic issues linked to this. Firstly, your schooling system is probly deteriorating, secondly, the feminazi destruction of traditional families (seperating kids from fathers) could explain the breakdown in values which would lead to violent crime. Recognize that during your Grandfather’s time (and going way back to Victorian times too) crime was a result of economic exploitation (child labour, horrible pay, you probly know your history better than I do). Today, however, crime is more of a social-political issue, and as such should be approached differently. I’m not saying that Capital punishment should be banned completely, but I am saying that we need to seriously launch a study of its effects and consequences to determine the relevance of it in our time. Liberals and Conservatives both spout their own theories, but serious research is lacking.

  4. I agree with Arpaio’s approach, but not necessarily all of his methods. I don’t know anything about prisoners dying in his jails, but that happens everywhere.

    “Wow, I cannot believe you just said that. Punishment is an instrument used to remove undesirable behaviour, and is not an end in itself (throwing a bit of Skinner’s psychology at you). The goal is the reduction of crime (so that innocents don’t suffer) and not in punishment. You could behead people Saudi style, but if homicides don’t go down, and innocents are still dying, it’s time to rethink your strategy.”

    What I meant was that the fear of crime has been reduced in Maricopa County, as long as people feel safe he is doing his job. As I mentioned though, I am sure the reason that the crime rate appears not to have gone down is because Arpaio and his officers are now tougher on crime. It would be interesting to see if violent crime has declined.

    I disagree, ‘Punishment is an instrument used to remove undesirable behaviour’, yes in dogs, not in people. The goal of punishment should not be to make sure offenders feel better, that they feel appreciated and perhaps if we are lucky a bit of TLC and understanding will make these criminals less inclined to commit crimes. Rehabilitation is a waste of time and money.

    For me the reason they are punished is not to make them change their ways, they won’t (70% re-offending rate in the UK at present) but to remove these people away from innocent, law abiding people, either temporally or permanently and give them a respite from the scum. I don’t believe we need to understand why a criminal commits crimes, or whether they are justified or underprivileged. In modern society crime is invariably due to one simple reason, greed.

    “I’m willing to believe you, but I’ll need proof if you claim that research results are being tampered with.”

    Proof? The numbers are concocted for, and read out by, politicians. Whose sole purpose is to cook the books to make their way seem better than the opposition’s. Doublespeak, cherry picking statistics and selling their views is their game, and they excel at it. To give you an example according to the Home Office gun crime is down. They even go so far as to say “There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.”

    But if you take a look at the stats yourself you’ll see that homicides involving guns are up by 17% in 2006/07. As I said it depends what statistics are chosen and which ones are mixed together. Murders are up, more than doubling in 40 years.

    “Superb observation, now we’re onto something. If violent crime is being committed by youngsters, and if this trend is becoming the norm, it indicates a flaw in your culture.”

    True, but it is more to do with an absence of culture rather than a flaw. In modern Britain, British is something of a dirty word. We’re made to feel so guilty about past indiscretions, wars, Empire, Imperialism and so forth, both by the countries that were our ‘victims’ and by the apologists within our own society. White people in particular are made to feel so guilty and inadequate that they shy away from anything remotely British for fear of being labelled racist imperialists by their own countrymen.

    Today there is no ‘British Culture’, evident in the way that the young of the ethnic minorities have been forced to retreat back to their own cultures as a replacement (and normally receiving a twisted, angry version of it), the Scots and the Welsh have retreated back into their own nationalist cultures. Leaving the majority of English youths, disenfranchised, and disillusioned with their own country and looking for something to belong to. Unfortunately they are finding that in gangs, crime and US media.

    The government recognises this and are planning on having 16 year olds swear allegiance to Queen and Country when they leave school. A nice idea but too little, too late, they won’t have anything to relate it to. British history is censored in schools, everything after the Spanish Armada up to World War I is skipped for fear of causing upset. British school children learn nothing of Britain’s past achievements, nothing to make them proud. Most leave school with indifference or worse loathing for their nation and its past.

    Of course this is just one aspect of the youth problem, although for me the main one.

    I’ve had a similar conversation on another post about the issues of crime and the youth problem:- Why we should bring back hanging

    I agree that the causes of crime are not the same as they were, however that doesn’t necessarily mean that the punishments should not be. I also agree that more debate is needed and serious research should be done, unfortunately even though at least 60% of people in the UK support reintroducing the death penalty, no political party would dare suggest it due to the very powerful and vocal liberal minority. So there can never be any debate, it would be pointless.

  5. Mel the indifferent

    “I agree with Arpaio’s approach, but not necessarily all of his methods. I don’t know anything about prisoners dying in his jails, but that happens everywhere.”

    It happens a lot with this guy, and no, it does not happen everywhere in the developed world. You’ll come to learn that the US is a developed country with some pretty third world standards (relating to education, healthcare, justice and of course wages).

    “What I meant was that the fear of crime has been reduced in Maricopa County, as long as people feel safe he is doing his job.”

    Come now Charlie, what sort of argument is this? As a rational man you should know that matters are judged on empirical evidence and not on how people ‘feel.’ Americans ‘feel’ free but don’t even realize that their Federal Reserve is owned by Private Bankers (even Ron Paul mentioned this believe it or not). Americans ‘feel’ that their media is free, however most major studios from Hollywood to News and even porn are run by Jews. From MGM, to the NY times, the Newhouse family to the porn company Vivid (run by Hirch) among others. The Jewish Asper Family owns much of the Media in Canada through their Corporation Canwest. Empirical evidence shows that crime has not declined in Arpiao’s turf. I’d looked this up some months ago, I’ll try and find those links (No guarantees, I’m very lazy).

    “I disagree, ‘Punishment is an instrument used to remove undesirable behaviour’, yes in dogs, not in people.”

    Skinner’s work is centered around human behaviour. I think you have him confused with Pavlov =p

    “For me the reason they are punished is not to make them change their ways, they won’t (70% re- offending rate in the UK at present) but to remove these people away from innocent, law abiding people, either temporally or permanently and give them a respite from the scum.”

    This is the kind of argument that most conservatives make, but it misses the point. If you don’t address the root causes of crime, then punishment will only serve as a temporary fix. Claiming that ‘greed’ is the cause of all crime is a blanket statement that solves nothing. Recognize that I am not talking about rehabilitation now. I’m talking about addressing the root causes of crime. Economic inequity? Class/caste inequalities? Apartheid? Understand that punishments were far more severe a few hundred years ago when they broke people on the wheel and drew and quartered political opponents. But that did not deter the assassination of Henry the 3rd, nor Guy Fawkes for that matter. You keep saying that rehabilitation is a waste of money, but I never said that it wasn’t. All I said is that we need to address the root causes. That is a more permanent solution.

    As for the stats you provided, fair enough. I can’t say anything about that right now since I’ve never lived in the UK (visited, but never lived). I’ll take your word on that for now.

    “True, but it is more to do with an absence of culture rather than a flaw.”

    I strongly agree with you here, it’s the same in Canada unfortunately. These are essentially Christian societies that have had their institutions subverted by Masonic Bankers.

    “In modern Britain, British is something of a dirty word. We’re made to feel so guilty about past indiscretions, wars, Empire, Imperialism and so forth, both by the countries that were our ‘victims’ and by the apologists within our own society.”

    As you should. Britain’s divide and conquer approach had caused the civil war in India, not to mention several other tensions worldwide. Your nation invaded other peaceful nations, raped them, and then left them as third world entities. Guilt is the very least you can offer for atonement.

    “White people in particular are made to feel so guilty and inadequate that they shy away from anything remotely British for fear of being labelled racist imperialists by their own countrymen.”

    Ok, I can sympathize with you here. Brits have a lot to be proud of. You can take pride in Shakespear, Wordsworth, Chauncer, Hobbes, Bentham ect… You see, you can celebrate British culture without defending imperialism. I see that Whites in Canada have this same issue, and it bothers me. According to Canadian law, the following groups are protected (ie get special treatment): Women, Visible minorities and Aboriginals. This leaves out one obvious group: White males. You can say “Black power” and its fine, the minute you say “white power” tho… I may be a coloured man, but don’t think that I’m blind to this injustice. You can’t even say “Christmas” anymore. I feel your anger here and I resent being used as a political weapon against my fellow White countrymen. Whites should be allowed to celebrate their culture.

    “Leaving the majority of English youths, disenfranchised, and disillusioned with their own country and looking for something to belong to. Unfortunately they are finding that in gangs, crime and US media.”

    I find it damn odd that you fail to address the ravaging effects of Feminism on your society. By separating Fathers from children, the Feminazis are deliberately brewing disaster. By discriminating against men (especially white men nowadays) in education and employment (not to mention healthcare), men would eventually resort to crime. The feminazis have even tampered with the British educational system so that it would disadvantage boys, see Angry Harry’s article here http://www.angryharry.com/esWellDonetheGirls.htm

    Sorry for the late response, I was playing too much Warcraft this weekend.

  6. Mel the indifferent,

    I merely meant that the fear of crime is often greater than the reality of being a victim of crime. For example, I have never been a victim of violent crime, but that doesn’t stop me worrying about my loved ones becoming victims of violent crime.

    I didn’t know that about the Federal Reserve, very interesting but not all that surprising.

    Free press is a myth, all media outlets are owned by someone, and they all have some kind of agenda. Fortunately here we have the BBC, a fair and impartial news outlet that can report on any matter, except of course anything that criticises the Government.

    I agree that a permanent solution is preferable, but even if all the issues you mention were addressed, there would still be criminals, there always are.

    “As you should. Britain’s divide and conquer approach had caused the civil war in India, not to mention several other tensions worldwide. Your nation invaded other peaceful nations, raped them, and then left them as third world entities. Guilt is the very least you can offer for atonement.”

    Come on, don’t be naive! India did not exist before Britain. As for peaceful, the Mughal Empire was brutal, especially to non Muslims; and as for civil wars, they were happening long before the British arrived. If anything the British brought peace and stability, and for the average Indian, a better life. All the states that became part of British India, did so willingly.

    Raped? Most of the money made from the colonies remained in the colonies, of course resources were taken but you don’t get anything in life for nothing. Foreign investment in the former colonies by Western nations is paltry compared to how it was during colonial times.

    As for the third world, when Britain left, they were prosperous. Take Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they all also ‘suffered’ under British rule, yet are flourishing today. India, Rhodesia and others were extremely well off after British rule, what happened after Britain left is their own affair.

    Many nations found it hard to cope  without the generous aid and subsidies from the British taxpayer. The average African is now six times worse off than during colonial times, in many places life expectancies are down. As I have said before, blaming colonialism for these problems is like blaming the Luftwaffe for rising house prices in Britain.

    Guilt? I don’t feel guilty about what happened. I am in no way responsible for what happened, in the same that Hitler’s grandchildren (if he had any), would not be responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews. That kind of ‘the children must pay for the sins of their father’ mentality is what caused the genocide to spring up once the British left India, and in thousands of other places around the world. The same seeds are also being sown in Britain amongst the youth of the ethnic minorities at the moment.

    Revenge or atonement for the sins, slights and wrongdoings of past generations is what caused a million deaths in Rwanda, thousands of deaths in India in 1947 and even Kenya this year. You cannot hold people who were not even alive at the time responsible for past events, especially when they derived no benefit from it.

    The funny thing is, Britain does not hold any grudges against past transgressors. 

    Despite fighting two world wars against the Germans and losing several members in the process, my family hold no ill will towards the Germans. Nor does my Grandfather who saw many of his friends killed by the Germans have anything but respect for them as a people. Nor do we Brits hold it against the Spanish for sending a huge invasion fleet to conquer us, and it is only through skill and a lot of luck that I am not writing this in Spanish. I also do not hold anything against the Danes, Swedes or Norwegians, even though their ancestors raped, pillaged and murdered many of my ancestors.

    Perhaps this is just a peculiar British trait, if it is I hope to god we do not lose it.

    Having said all that, I do not support colonialism or imperialism today. We are far more humanitarian today than ancestors, much better educated and informed. We can’t really blame them for being ignorant or for not realising they were being fed propaganda.

  7. Mel the indifferent,

    “By discriminating against men (especially white men nowadays) in education and employment (not to mention healthcare), men would eventually resort to crime. The feminazis have even tampered with the British educational system so that it would disadvantage boys, see Angry Harry’s article here”

    Thanks for the link, great article.

    There are serious problems with our education system and there does seem to be many losers.

    Currently those least likely to succeed in the British education system are black males, followed by white males, black females and then white females.

    Just 2% of Britons are black, yet they account for almost 25% of the prison population, a truly shocking figure. Most Black males leave school with practically no qualifications, it is little wonder that they end up involved in crime. This problem is now also apparent amongst white males. 

    Clearly the indicators as to the root causes of these problems are there, they are just being ignored. Again I think that is it is to do with this ‘We are all the same, there are no winners or losers’ mentality that pervades Britain at present. This removes individualism, culture and confuses identity.

    As a product of the school system when I first started reading the article you linked to I instantly thought that there was no difference in the ways that boys and girls learn. That was what I was always led to believe, in school. The more I read the more it struck a chord and I realised I was duped. I always thought it was just because girls try harder at school that they always seemed to excel.

    Clearly there are differences in the way boys and girls learn best, therefore if it isn’t possible to compromise then perhaps boys and girls should be separated in schools (another throwback to Victorian Britain) rather than disadvantage one group over another.

    It has certainly given me a different angle on many issue relating to crime and modern Britain. 

  8. Mel the indifferent

    Hmm I tried posting my response, but it didnt work, I’ll try again.

    I will devote one post just addressing the Federal Reserve and related issues because I believe it’s important.

    “I didn’t know that about the Federal Reserve, very interesting but not all that surprising.”

    Even Wikipedia denies it, which is sad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

    but in Ron’s own words: “The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”

    It’s no wonder that he dropped out of the race. It’s an even bigger miracle that he wasn’t assasinated. A blogger Arcanum said: “President Kennedy did some digging on this and gave a speech about it, he also had United States notes printed and distributed as he was going to put us back on to the gold standard and get rid of Federal Reserve Notes, and there is supposition that he was going to run on that platform in the next election. He was dead within a week of this happening and Lyndon Johnson recalled the United States Notes that Kennedy had distributed.” This is confirmed in the article “Kennedy versus the Federal Reserve” http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

    The Fed reserve board- All Jewish :http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/default.htm

    Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich was the man who helped set up the Fed. He was a traitor to the American people and became wealthy from investments in street railroads, sugar, rubber and banking. He married his daughter to the son of John D. Rockefeller. Can anyone say ‘aristocracy of wealth?’The illuminati is gentile freemasonry infrasturcture merged with Jewish banking as Dr. Makow points out. It is important to recognise that the ordinary jew on the street is used as a cover in this conspiracy, but ultimately it will be he that suffers the consequences (despite opposing it if he knew).

    The reason I’m bringing in this elite conspiracy is because these people are the ones who created communism/Liberalism/Zionism and their ofshoot ideologies: Feminism and Multiculturalism.

    Multiculturalism is about guilting White Hetrosexual males into yielding positions of power to minorities, namely Jews (Illuminati Jews specifically, not common jews). It is about using minorities to undermine Religion and Culture. Read Dr Makow’s article ‘The Truth about diversity’ here: http://www.savethemales.ca/the_truth_about_diversity.html

    Your heritage does not define your identity, the state does. Who do you think created Secular humanism? They did. By claiming that morality is relative, the state wipes out an induvidual’s code of morality (which typically stems from religion) and replaces it with a brand of their own. This makes a person’s mind more malleable and thus fertile for state indoctrination.

    Feminism plays a complementary role in their grand scheme. While Multiculturalism eliminates religion/Culture and Race, Feminism’s goal is to erradicate the family and turn us all into mindless hedonistic consumers. By reversing gender roles (empowering women/emasculating men) hetrosexual bonds are broken and familes fall appart. With families gone, who will teach culture to the children of tommorow’s totalitarian state? The State ofcourse. Tommorow Children will be reared by the State and not the family. What do you think the Daycare center is? That harmless building that our governments spend countless pounds and dollars on? While Feminist mothers are pursuing their ‘ambitions’ the daycare is prototype of the state indoctrination center for tommorow’s kids. Angry Harry’s website talks about the social ills spawned by Feminism and Dr Makow talks about the origins of this plague and deconstructs it. The elites wish to form a global government run on monopoly Capitalism supported by serfs who have no identity, religion, culture or families that could serve as a platform for resistance. The bankers engineered both world wars, and created the UN, a prototype World government. Each world war brings us perilously close to Global government tyranny. Who do you think funded Hitler’s steel industry? Prescott Bush. That’s right, George’s grandfather. This information had been circulating in conspiracy circles over the lastw 60 years, but is now moving into the mainsteam because it is too important to ignore: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

    The reason I’m writing all of this even at the risk of being labelled a consiracy nut is because you seem to be genuinely disillusioned by your sorroundings and are trying to make sense of the chaos around you. Our world leaders (including the Islamic ones) are all actors pretending to be either friendly or antagonistic towards one another. It’s a capital mistake to believe that world events occur spontaneously and are not orchestrated. This applies especially to ideologies like Feminism and Communism which claim that they were born from the dissatisfaction of the disenfrachised sectors of society. Nothing could be furthur from the truth.

    I’ll address your other points later.

    PS what do all these people have in common?: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm (I know its a bible thumping site, but bear with it)

  9. Sorry about that, not sure what happened there, for some reason your comments were picked up as spam.

  10. Mel the indifferent

    “I merely meant that the fear of crime is often greater than the reality of being a victim of crime. For example, I have never been a victim of violent crime, but that doesn’t stop me worrying about my loved ones becoming victims of violent crime.”

    I understand you perfectly, however, if crime hasn’t really reduced it means that the probability for danger is still present, despite you not feeling it (because you feel safe). It simply means you are being set up for a fall, and when you do, Arpaio’s propoganda unit covers up the failuire. He will tell you how his jails are tough on criminials (despite evidence that his methods are ineffective in reducing crime) and the probability of danger still remains, which means the cycle continues. He’s merely reinforcing your false sense of secuity.

    “Fortunately here we have the BBC, a fair and impartial news outlet that can report on any matter, except of course anything that criticises the Government.”

    The BBC certainly maintains a facade of impartiality, however, they did censor an interveiw in which Benazir Bhutto said that Bin Laden was dead. That part was cleverly edited. Put these words into google: “bbc censor benazir bhutto bin laden” and see what you get. The bankers/elites/illuminati need their Goldstein alive, atleast in the minds of the serfs.

    “Come on, don’t be naive! India did not exist before Britain.”

    False. Just like Greece, India was divided into several kingdoms, but they were all considered a “nation.” Athens, Sparta and other city states were sovereign, however they considered themselves as part of the ‘Greek nation.’ It’s the same with India, and you would know this if you had read the Mahabharat, the longest epic in Human history. You sound just as bad as the zionists who claim that Palestine (and Palestinians) did not exist (jews making the desert bloom myth despite British records to the contrary) or John Locke who said that America was a wilderness,sparelely populated (despite millions of natives already settled there) so that in both cases imperialism and ethnic cleansing could be justified.

    “As for peaceful, the Mughal Empire was brutal, especially to non Muslims;”

    Sheesh, the state of British education is worse than I thought =p

    According to the document available in the State Library of Bhopal, the Moghul Emperor Babur left the following will to Humayun :

    “”My son take note of the following: Do not harbor religious prejudice in your heart. You should dispense justice while taking note of the people’s religious sensitivities, and rites. Avoid slaughtering cows in order that you could gain a place in the heart of natives. This will take you nearer to the people.
    Do not demolish or damage places of worship of any faith and dispense full justice to all to ensure peace in the country. Islam can better be preached by the sword of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution. Avoid the differences between the shias and sunnis. Look at the various characteristics of your people just as characteristics of various seasons.””

    I’m not even going to speak of the enlightened rule of Akbar and his sons because you can wiki that, there is extensive material. I won’t elaborate on stuff which is common knowledge. The last emperor Aurangzeb however was a religious zealot. He alienated Hindus and Sikhs with his archainc policies. He effectively undid everything his predeccessors accomplished.

    “. If anything the British brought peace and stability, and for the average Indian, a better life.”

    If you consider high taxes with little return coupled with economic ruin as a “better life” then yeah, I agree with you.

    “All the states that became part of British India, did so willingly.”

    Is this the punchline or is there more? There was fierce resistance from the Marathas and the kingdom of Mysore in the South, to name a few.

    “Raped? Most of the money made from the colonies remained in the colonies, of course resources were taken but you don’t get anything in life for nothing.”

    Ok, this has got to be the punchline =p If you had ever taken any courses in the Social sciences you would never have uttered such an statement. In the Center-Periferee relationship the center is the imperialist power while periferee is the captured territory which is economically bled to death. Capitalism is the vehicle of plunder in this model. Typically the periferee’s economy is sabotaged and the its capital siphoned to the Center. In the words of Michael Parenti:

    ‘In 1810, India was exporting more textiles to England than England was exporting to India. By 1830, the trade flow was reversed. The British had put up prohibitive tariff barriers to shut out Indian finished goods and were dumping their commodities in India, a practice backed by British gunboats and military force. Within a matter of years, the great textile centers of Dacca and Madras were turned into ghost towns. The Indians were sent back to the land to raise the cotton used in British textile factories. In effect, India was reduced to being a cow milked by British financiers.’ This was done by forcefully shutting down the Mills in India. The amputation of the thumbs of Mill owners who did not comply has been amply documented. India’s textile industry (started by the Moghuls) was decimated by the benevolent Brits so that the country had to now import what it previously exported. Textiles is only area. This is the true expansionist face of Capitalism. As per the model, India’s capital was milked by Britain.

    Michael Parenti also writes:

    “By 1850, India’s debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped by almost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to send to Britain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to more than the total income of the sixty million Indian agricultural and industrial workers. The massive poverty we associate with India was not that country’s original historical condition. British imperialism did two things: first, it ended India’s development, then it forcibly underdeveloped that country.”

    So much for “the British brought peace and stability, and for the average Indian, a better life.”

    http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html

    For more information on this, you may also consult Amitava Krishna Dutt’s paper: “The rise of the west and the lag of the rest.”

    “As for the third world, when Britain left, they were prosperous. Take Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they all also ’suffered’ under British rule, yet are flourishing today.”

    These countries were never subjected to the center-periferee relationship. These countries were established as outposts, but were not forcibly underdeveloped by the Brits in the way that India was.

    As for the current state of Africa, I could type pages on how they were economically colonized by the IMF and world bank, I could talk about deceptive structural adjustment programs and ‘Austerity measures’, but I do not have the time to reproduce my Final exam right now.

    You know Charlie, I sometimes get the impression that you are a 150 year old man who has not fully made the mental transition to the 21th century =p

  11. Mel the indifferent said:

    “Even Wikipedia denies it, which is sad: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System”

    I am not surprised Wikipedia isn’t 100% accurate. Despite claiming to be edited by millions etc, it is only a small circle of editors that have ultimate control and Jimmy Wales has shown several times how the rules can be altered, especially for a fee.

    But I did find this quite interesting:

    Private banks are regulated by the government. This means that there are some restrictions on what private banks are allowed to do. The Federal Reserve is the specific part of government that regulates the private banks.

    But if the Federal Reserve is run by unelected bankers, doesn’t this mean that they are regulating themselves?

    I have never heard that about Kennedy before, very interesting. I have to admit that I am something of a sucker for conspiracy theories and I will certainly be looking into that.

    I was also not aware of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the Nazis. To be fair though it does state that he worked for a German company before the war, and then after they distanced themselves from the Nazi leadership. Still something you would have thought might have been mentioned in the Presidential race. Not because Bush is responsible for what his grandfather did (and to be fair, Dubya has surpassed him), but because to be a President of the US you have to be a millionaire, and if that money came from supporting the Nazis….

    I’ve read a lot about the Illuminati before, still not convinced, although the fact that all US Presidents seem to belong to some secretive cult,  years after leaving university, is very worrying. 

    Then there is of course things like the Bilderberg Group, the Carlyle Group proving that there is corruption and self interest at the top.

    As for a global cult running world events, I do not believe so. I just think that the ruling elite in most Western countries are connected, either by family or money, believe they are better than the rest of us and serve only their own interests.

  12. Mel the indifferent

    Jokes aside, also recall that the US puppet Saddam Hussein was one of the biggest importers of US agricultural produce, despite having two rivers running through his country. What happened? Just as the Brits sabotaged India’s textile industry, the US puppet drained Iraq’s marshes thereby setting back agricultural projects by decades. Once again we have the center periphery (Jesus I misspell this word so many times) relationship in action.

    US imperialism is basically a carbon copy of British imperialism. Take Israel for example. Their exports to the occupied territories have grown significantly from 1967 to today. While the territories are forced to import products that they themselves can produce, (and thus lose their capital to Israel), the Parasitic Israel grows richer. If the Palestinians tried to use the foreign aid they received to start their own industries, Israel bombs them on the bogus pretext of “Terrorism” (which is never proven, our media always assumed that God’s chosen people never lie). Thus foreign aid coming into Palestine eventually makes its way back to Israel via imports.

    But of course, it’s easier to dismiss all this research and simply blame their poverty on inferior culture, or inferior genes as Noam Chomsky pointed out.

  13. Mel the indifferent,

    “The BBC certainly maintains a facade of impartiality, however, they did censor an interveiw in which Benazir Bhutto said that Bin Laden was dead. That part was cleverly edited. Put these words into google: “bbc censor benazir bhutto bin laden” and see what you get. The bankers/elites/illuminati need their Goldstein alive, atleast in the minds of the serfs.”

    The BBC has certainly changed since the David Kelly incident, I think they now know their place and do as they are told.

    “False. Just like Greece, India was divided into several kingdoms, but they were all considered a “nation.” Athens, Sparta and other city states were sovereign, however they considered themselves as part of the ‘Greek nation.’”

    I’ll take your word for it. All I know is that the civil wars were going on long before the British arrived and their were at least two Empires on the sub continent when the British arrived.

    I am not disputing the fact that the Mughal Empire produced some great works, but it was an Empire, just like the British Empire, it conquered peoples, espoused its own way of life and religion and stole resources from lands that were not its native land. You cannot claim Empires are bad, but OK if it is a neighbouring Empire. Or is it that the Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire are OK because they were not white? When does empire building go from being a joining together of neighbouring peoples, to an Imperialist Empire? When those neighbours did not wish to join?

    “Is this the punchline or is there more? There was fierce resistance from the Marathas and the kingdom of Mysore in the South, to name a few.”

    The Marathas were also fighting the Mughals, if they’d been conquered by the Mughals would that have been OK?

    I am not trying to be facetious but it just seems odd that you celebrate your ‘own’ Empires, yet lambast others as Imperialist Empires of Evil.

    “By 1850, India’s debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped by almost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to send to Britain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to more than the total income of the sixty million Indian agricultural and industrial workers. The massive poverty we associate with India was not that country’s original historical condition. British imperialism did two things: first, it ended India’s development, then it forcibly underdeveloped that country.”

    I am not disputing that things under the East India Company were bad, I certainly wouldn’t have wished that on anyone. However post Indian Mutiny things were remarkably different.

    Michael Parenti missed out the fact that in the same period Britain invested over £400 million.

    “….the colonial burden as measured by the trade surplus of the colony amounted to little more than 1 per cent of the Indian net domestic product a year between 1868 and 1930.”

    That kind of puts a different slant on it. Hardly the ‘raping’ that you were claiming earlier.

    So much for “the British brought peace and stability, and for the average Indian, a better life.”

    Between 1867 and 1941 the amount of Indian children in primary and secondary education increased eightfold, admittedly it was below the European average, but still pretty high, certainly a lot higher than it would have been.

    “They [the British] brought in an irrigation programme, which increased the amount of land available for farming by 8 times. They developed a coal industry, which had not existed before. Public health and life expectancy increased under British rule, mainly due to improved water supplies and the introduction of quinine treatment against malaria.”

    I would call that a better life, at least for the average Indian.

    “You know Charlie, I sometimes get the impression that you are a 150 year old man who has not fully made the mental transition to the 21th century =p”

    The Charlie Wilson of colonial times could not read or write and had a life expectancy of 30 years. Probably not too dissimilar from the average Indian.

  14. Mel the indifferent

    “I’ll take your word for it. All I know is that the civil wars were going on long before the British arrived and their were at least two Empires on the sub continent when the British arrived.”

    What civil wars? The marathas were battling the Moghuls, but that was a later development only during the reign of the last Emperor Aurangzeb. I’m not aware of any other empire in India between the 15 to 18th centuries appart from the Moghuls, who controlled most of the country (except the southern tip). The marathas were not an empire in the technical sense (tho some people think otherwise)

    “I am not disputing the fact that the Mughal Empire produced some great works, but it was an Empire, just like the British Empire, it conquered peoples, espoused its own way of life and religion and stole resources from lands that were not its native land.”

    It conquered foreign peoples yes, I’ll give you that, however, all your other assessments are dead wrong. It never espoused its culture and religion on the people, basic empirical evidence shows us that Muslims are only 10% of the population, and much smaller during the Moghul era. Unlike the aggressive salesmanship of Christian missionaries, Islam, along with Persian cuisine/literature/poetry (sher/shairy)and language diffused naturally and evenly over the centuries. Bollywood with their fine Urdu poetry and Indian cuisine (with it’s butter chicken, jalebis, barfis ect) would never have seen the light of day without the Moguls. They enhanced our culture. As for resource plundering, I can’t see how that is possible (forget probable). The Capital of the Moghul dynasty was Agra in India (eventually moved to Delhi) and not in Afganistan. Therefore all the industries that the Moghuls set up, all the wealth generated, REMAINED in India. It was not shipped of to London, usurped by a monarchy whose goal was plunder and nothing else. AK Dutt’s paper quoted in my above post notes that during the 17th century, empirical evidence clearly shows that India’s economy was on par with Britain. This despite the fact that Britain was going through the Industrial revolution whereas the Moghul Empire was on the decline. That’s how pathetic Britain was Charlie ol Boy. Your forefathers were nothing more than glorified thieves, whose piracy was (and still is) celebrated by shallow platitudes steeped in false patriotism. This is why when you talk about the Brits building railroads or increasing agricultural gains it is a joke. This is because India and Britain were on par with each other, whose to say that India would not have developed had the Brits not arrived? You suffer from massive hindsight bias.

    “Or is it that the Mughal Empire and Maratha Empire are OK because they were not white? ”

    It’s pearls like these that make blogging so amusing 😀

    “I am not trying to be facetious but it just seems odd that you celebrate your ‘own’ Empires, yet lambast others as Imperialist Empires of Evil.”

    European empires forced their colonies to import their economic surplus, barred their colonies from exporting their own surplus (thereby wrecking their industries, shrinking GDP and reducing per capita income), engineering civil strife which would hinder long term development, destroying languages and cultures, and restructuring the colonies economies so that its capital was sucked out and it was left a third world country. The railroads that you often boast about were not built for the natives, but to service British industries expediently. I believe I’ve already explained the center-periphery model, but you seem to clean ignore it. Oh well, its easier to just ignore these inconvenient facts and rather blame it the other’s inferior culture/genes, as Chomsky pointed out.

    Now lets take a look at the older empire models: Islam, Moghuls, Romans ect…

    The case of the Romans is quite instructive. Conquered areas were efficiently and effectively integrated into the empire. The territory became a province and thus the ceasar invested in it (there was no milking of Capital ala Brit style) The people too became equal citizens for the most part. Unlike the second class “natives” of British India, the citizens of Rome were all treated equally regardless of their ethnicity. Consider the case of Paul of Tarsus. This man was a Jew, but a Roman citizen who was sentenced to death. Being a citizen, he was given the privilege of beheading instead of an agonizing crucifixion. Conquered peoples automatically became second class citizens (latin rights) but eventually were granted full citizenship.

    As far as the farming issues goes, enjoy: http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_crops_frameset.htm

  15. Mel the indifferent,

    “What civil wars?……I’m not aware of any other empire in India between the 15 to 18th centuries”

    There was the Pandyan, Vijayanagara, Durrani and of course Mughal and Maratha Empires in the time frame that you mention. Also when the British arrived there were many Kingdoms and much infighting between them, many of the former provinces of the Mughal Empire became Kingdoms themselves (such as Arcot and Hyderabad).

    “It never espoused its culture and religion on the people, basic empirical evidence shows us that Muslims are only 10% of the population, and much smaller during the Moghul era”

    Now who is suffering from ‘massive hindsight bias’? The building of new Hindu temples was banned for much of Mughal rule. There was a tax on non Muslims, the Jizyah, hardly tolerant to tax citizens purely for not following the religion of the Empire is it?

    “Aurangzeb’s ultimate aim was conversion of non-Muslims to Islam. Whenever possible the emperor gave out robes of honor, cash gifts, and promotions to converts. It quickly became known that conversion was a sure way to the emperor’s favor”. – John F Richards

    There was also the wide scale destruction of temples, banning of certain religious practices, such as dancing, and the closing of religious schools. The Sikhs still carry animosity towards Muslims from these times, no doubt in part due to Guru Arjan Dev being tortured to death, the execution of the Guru Tegh Bahadur  and the assassination of Guru Gobind Singh.

    “empirical evidence shows us that Muslims are only 10% of the population, and much smaller during the Moghul era”

    Which of course makes all of the above even worse.

    “Unlike the aggressive salesmanship of Christian missionaries, Islam, along with Persian cuisine/literature/poetry (sher/shairy)and language diffused naturally and evenly over the centuries.”

    Of course it did, the laws, persecution and oppression just helped it along a little. I don’t agree with how the Christian missionaries conducted themselves, or with their mission but if you’re worshipping idols, some half wit is always going to come along with a superior one.

    “Bollywood with their fine Urdu poetry and Indian cuisine (with it’s butter chicken, jalebis, barfis ect) would never have seen the light of day without the Moguls. They enhanced our culture.”

    Nor would the education system, opportunities, system of government, equality, independence, agricultural infrastructure, medicines and public health system, water system and so on in India be as high quality as they are today, without the British. And of course the legacy of British rule has also left India  well placed to capitalise on its cheap labour and production costs. Most large UK, US and Canadian companies now have Indian call centres and even Indian remote workers.

    Taking advantage of Indian workers last century was imperialism, today it is progress.

    “As for resource plundering, I can’t see how that is possible (forget probable). The Capital of the Moghul dynasty was Agra in India (eventually moved to Delhi) and not in Afganistan.”

    So when the foreign invaders stay, that is acceptable?  The wealth may have remained in India, but it remained with a rich elite within India. The average Indian was no worse off under the British than the Mughals, but benefited from long term investment under British rule. Much of the accumulated wealth of India was taken from the Mughal elite and carried of by Nader Shah and his men, and it was so great that Nader Shah stopped taxation in Persia for three years!

    “AK Dutt’s paper quoted in my above post notes that during the 17th century, empirical evidence clearly shows that India’s economy was on par with Britain. This despite the fact that Britain was going through the Industrial revolution whereas the Moghul Empire was on the decline.”

    Very true. Britain was having a tough time of it, surrounded by larger, richer and more powerful imperial neighbours, and subjugation by one of which was inevitable. Britain too was in decline, in fact you could draw many parallels between the predicament of the Mughal Empire and Britain. But the British knuckled down and innovated, the industrial revolution gave them an advantage and they used it to survive.

    When Britain first arrived in India in the 17th century they were begging for scraps, dependent on the whim of the Mughal Emperor. Things soon changed however, when the industrial revolution began in the 18th century but even that didn’t really make a difference until the 19th century.

    “That’s how pathetic Britain was Charlie ol Boy”

    I’d be careful with your choice of words if I were you. After all 200 million of your forebears were ‘conquered’ by 200,000 of those pathetic Britons.

    “Your forefathers were nothing more than glorified thieves, whose piracy was (and still is) celebrated by shallow platitudes steeped in false patriotism.”

    Steady on, this is starting to sound like sour grapes. The fact is, most of the ‘thieving’ was done with bribes, as I said before most of the kingdoms joined the Empire willingly, their rulers could see the economic benefit, at least to themselves. The fact that India had such unaccountable leaders who were not only able, but willing to sell their fellow countrymen down the river, is no fault of the British.

    Fortunately the British Empire left a far more democratic system in its wake.

  16. Mel the indifferent,

    “This is because India and Britain were on par with each other, whose to say that India would not have developed had the Brits not arrived? You suffer from massive hindsight bias.”

    You said yourself that the Mughal Empire was in decline. India was being picked apart by its neighbours, as I mentioned before Nader Shah captured and routed Delhi, fortunately he didn’t stay long but did manage to kill 30,000 inhabitants in one day.

    The Durrani Empire took chucks out of the Mughal Empire, also capturing Delhi and taking what was left of the wealth. The only thing that stopped the whole of India being conquered by its voracious neighbours was the East India Company, or at least the fear of it. The possibility of falling prey to these barbaric foreign invaders was what prompted most the kingdoms to side with the British. Add to this the civil wars between the kingdoms, the Marathas, and the Sikhs and it is no wonder the British described India at the time as ‘anarchy’. 

    Developed? Not a chance, India was in decline and was always going to be conquered it was just a question of by whom. Luckily for India Britain wasn’t as merciless as its neighbours.

    “I believe I’ve already explained the center-periphery model, but you seem to clean ignore it.”

    You mentioned a theory, which didn’t seem to fit the facts, nor reason. Cotton was worth more, therefore it was inevitable that it would replace other produce. Blaming the British for Indians wanting to produce more profitable commodities such as cotton and tea etc, doesn’t really make sense. Britain was able to create better textiles, cheaper and faster but they couldn’t mass produce cotton. Should the Indians have continued to turn out produce that they couldn’t sell, and what they could sell didn’t make enough to cover production costs? That would have led to further poverty. Or should the British have invested even more money into India and industrialised the textile industry too?

    “The territory became a province and thus the ceasar invested in it (there was no milking of Capital ala Brit style) The people too became equal citizens for the most part.”

    The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years, so it is difficult to work out which Utopian era you are referring to. The Romans, like all Empires were an imperial power, and they milked their conquests dry. Take Britain for instance, the Romans plundered the tin, copper and other natural resources and transported them back to Rome. They did not stay in Britain. They also took Britain’s most precious resource, its people, as slaves, sending them all over the Empire.

    The amount that Britain invested into its colonies makes the Roman ‘investment’ look insignificant.

    Even Michael Parenti puts the Roman Empire on a par with the British Empire and other Empires.

    It is hypocritical to assume that the Roman, Persian, Macedonian, Byzantine, Mughal etc empires were benevolent, but that recent European Empires were evil. All Empires are built at someone’s expense.

    “Unlike the second class “natives” of British India, the citizens of Rome were all treated equally regardless of their ethnicity.”

    Not true. To become a Roman citizen a non Roman had to serve ten years in the army. Besides, all treated equally? What about the slaves? The Italian and Greek provinces were pretty much treated as equals, but the rest were not.

  17. As far as the farming issues goes, enjoy:

    I am not sure what this proves. Chennai was far from the war torn areas of India at that time and assuming that this area is indicative of the state of agriculture throughout India of the time is foolish.

    That is not to say that India didn’t have a decent agricultural structure before the British arrived, but it is inevitable that foreign invasions, civil strife and conflict will push farmers from their lands, probably never to return. The Mughal Empire may have had an extensive farming system, but it certainly wasn’t in place at the end of the Mughal Empire.

    One only needs to look at Zimbabwe, which once had a great agricultural system, and now cannot even feed its own citizens. It only takes a few years for a good system to crumble.

    My information came from the National Archives:

    http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/empire/g2/cs4/background.htm

  18. Mel the indifferent

    “I’ve read a lot about the Illuminati before, still not convinced, although the fact that all US Presidents seem to belong to some secretive cult, years after leaving university, is very worrying. ”

    Read these and tell me what you think:

    http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/hitler_was_a_rothschild.htm

    http://www.savethemales.ca

Please feel free to add your own thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s