So I see where this post is coming from. Many people use travel as a sort of status symbol or don’t actually learn anything about the places they go to and are simply there for personal enjoyment. It can be superficial.

But that’s ok. I think the douchebag here is the person questioning the value in travel (likely assuming this woman took a superficial approach). That’s not fair, people should be given the benefit of the doubt. For all we know she may have connected to her heritage and learned some key life lessons.

In this case if the person is of Europoid heritage (sometimes referred to as European) it might be a good opportunity to learn more about why they travelled and where they may originally be from.

An anarcho anti-capitalist? What’s the proposal here? That he would have loved his life if he was born a few thousand years ago?

Needs?

People’s needs are things like food, water, air and Costco rotisserie chicken.

In fact this ‘need’ could be easily fulfilled by two Costco rotisserie chickens taped to the chest and that way meals would be covered too.

Jesus was clearly an anarchocapitalist. /s

I’m sure they could could explain it but them they’d have to explain their Totenkopf tattoo.

The question is when though. The British empire only got its comeuppance a third of a millennia into its imperialistic practices. We have a rules based world order now, which can help, but with America rocking in the fetal position in the corner and China continuing to ascend (and China-Russia relations growing) the West is going to have to get its house in order if it wants a favorable outcome here.

Its possible as a once or twice off but I think with how the population skews in many Western countries, retirees will always have a disproportionate voice. Essentially death by gerentocracy. It’s why new legislation often amounts to a transfer of wealth from young to old.

Even if that skew wasn’t a factor, many young people are consuming far right propaganda on social media and accepting that ideology as their worldview.

Finally even if there is a massive rebuke against Trump/MAGA etc. by 2028 it may be too little too late.

Its fascinating to watch news within the US versus outside of it. Within the US there are political commentators recommending that allied nations do their best to hold out to 2028 when the US hopefully gets back on track. Outside the US, countries are reorganizing supply chains to minimize US involvement / dependency wherever possible.

When your most reliable partner suddenly becomes unreliable, you don’t forget that in one election cycle.

Interestingly, the moral imperative behind the switch to electric was largely acknowledged up until China established itself as a major player in the industry.

As soon as it became apparent a non Western-aligned country / corporation could be leading this shift, there’s been hesitation either in the form of doubling down on hydrocarbons or rapid adoption / incentives to spur indigineous manufacturing in the West.

The reality is China has the lead and, at this rate, is going to keep widening the gap. The question is what is best for EU member states? To accept what may become a long term dependence on Chinese technology or try to play catch up.

Fascinating to see the Western world fall apart while quadrupling down on the possibility AGI and fossil fuels.

5 to 10 more years of these disproportionately wealthy nations quibbling with each other and fighting within themselves due to far right politics and one wonders what the world will look like in a few decades.

Most empires fall when they spend more time looking backwards than forwards. Looking at you America…

Sounds like it applies to any form of governance.

We can dress it up in all manner of legality but the outcome is the same to the people affected and the West’s bias towards settler-colonialism seems to only flourish with time.

Is it though? People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. No one wants to believe that their privileges are predicated on suffering elsewhere.

Westerners in particularly have always been very “heads in the sand” when it comes to modern history but it’s not surprising. Every nation struggles with the darker aspects of their history.

Never related to hookup culture.

Growing up there was very much a mantra of you don’t know how to fuck unless you’ve fucked a bunch of random people.

Which could be true if using another body to masturbate is the same as fucking.

It turns out many women are coded to experience pleasure most when they feel safe. This doesn’t apply to every women and that doesn’t mean you can’t experiment consensually but a ONS is really not conducive to immersive pleasure in my opinion.

There was a lot of we need to confirm sexual chemistry before a relationship too. I personally find building something with a person (from as little as a small commitment to life itself) to be a force multiplier behind intimacy, elevating it from hopeful ember to an all consuming flame of passion, satisfaction and fulfillment.

I prefer building a relationship, exploring affection and intimacy and then sexual exploration. Is it masculine? Depends who you ask. But if it isn’t then the problem lies in how we define masculinity in my view.

As the oldest denomination mysticism is bound to be present and in some cases persist.

We call that extortion in our part of the world. I assume the British call it that today too.

Where I’d say Friedman is arguing in bad faith is that the obvious goal of colonialism is value extraction by force or coercion. He may argue that due to inefficiency or resistance it didn’t actually produce significant wealth for Britain but the evidence shows otherwise.

That or he may argue that the East India Company (the origin of multinational capitalism) was not colonialism which would be divergent from historical consensus.

There are several estimates. Some as high as $45 trillion.

Friedman’s take has been repeated in many Western circles.

As you’ve mentioned there were multiple members of Parliament who were directly invested in the EIC and made sizable profits. The EIC managed to extract explotative taxation during the Bengal famine of 1770 (promoting starvation) while shareholders increased their dividend from 10 to 12.5%. The massive transfer of wealth from India, the Atlantic slave trade and Opium sales to China essentially built Britain during this era. It was the seed capital of the industrial revolution.

The British Raj took over after the failed sepoy mutiny in mid 1800s. It was at this point Britain introduced the strategy of the ‘civilizing mission’, denigrating Indian culture as a justification to the British public to continue colonization. The British public accepted this. It was the independence movement in India that ultimately secured freedom (along with Nazi destruction of British infrastructure).

As we watch power and wealth slowly drift back from West to East and South, African, Indian and many other voices that speak truth on this matter will be heard more clearly.

Often times Westerners are not open to accepting voices from the global south on these matters and portray them as biased. I usual refer to the writings of historian William Dalrymple (the self admitted descendant of colonists) as a starting point to those that feel morally threatened by this history but want to learn more from someone who doesn’t feel too foreign.

For those that are open to Indian voices, Sashi Tharoor’s writings or his YouTube series ‘Imperial Receipts’ does a good job capturing the history and scale of extraction.

Didn’t know much about the guy except that he’s a Nobel laureate. Happened to come across a YouTube video where a curious college student asks him about how slavery and colonialism contributed to Western wealth. He had an elaborate answer but within it he actually said Britain did not have slaves and America did not have colonies (for the most part).

Nevermind the fact that America absolutely had slaves and Britain certainly had colonies (he was selective on who didn’t have what), Britain absolutely did profit from slavery also.

He added on that Britain spent more on administering colonies than it gained extracting their resources which may be one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard. How can someone that worships at the altar of capitalism not understand that greed was the obvious motivator? Or is it only the motivator when it fits his narrative?

If this is the messaging we get from our intellectuals, what hope does truth have?

Perhaps. Theres no way to know for certain but one wonders whether India would have remained India if that were how things played out. My suspicion is there would have been civil war and India would have broken up into 3 or 4 nations.

Kerala achieved remarkable progress in human development with land reform, workers protections, environmental protections and investments in public health and education. But the Kerala of today struggles with lagging industrial output and unemployment. A large amount of economic investment comes from remittances. The people are educated, and healthy, but can’t find work in their home state so they leave to another state, the middle east or the West and send money home to their family from there. Reform is desperately needed for the state to become more business friendly.

How would you propose India would have achieved this as a multi party democracy that requires consensus building that would not be necessary in either the USSR or China? Particularly as a nation with 123 languages, 30 of which have over a million speakers. Would you say democracy was a poor choice for India?