... Thence 1.8 billion Indians died from deprivation.

Your Majesties, you are under arrest.

https://mronline.org/2019/01/15/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/


Quote:

Britain robbed India of $45 trillion & Thence 1.8 billion Indians died from deprivation Posted Jan 15, 2019 by Eds. Eminent Indian economist Professor Utsa Patnaik (Jawaharlal Nehru University) has estimated that Britain robbed India of $45 trillion between 1765 and 1938, however it is estimated that if India had remained free with 24% of world GDP as in 1700 then its cumulative GDP would have been $232 trillion greater (1700-2003) and $44 trillion greater (1700-1950). Deprivation kills and it is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from egregious deprivation under the British (1757-1947). The deadly impact of British occupation of India lingers today 71 years after Independence, with 4 million people dying avoidably from deprivation each year in capitalist India as compared to zero (0) in China. Professor Utsa Patnaik is professor emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Utsa Patnaik is a Marxist economist and taught at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning in the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) from 1973 until her retirement in 2010. She obtained her PhD in economics from Oxford University, UK, and has researched the transition from agricultural  peasant societies to industrial societies, and food security and poverty, especially in India.(1) Utsa Patnaik’s  latest book, co-authored with Prabhat Patnaik, is “A Theory of Imperialism” (2016).(2) We all know that the British rapaciously exploited India. Professor Utsa Patnaik has estimated the magnitude of the British robbing of India thus: Between 1765 and 1938, the drain amounted to 9.2 trillion pounds ($45 trillion), taking India’s export surplus earnings as the measure, and compounding it at a 5 per cent rate of interest.(3)–(5) (A) How and by how much did Britain rob India? After the betrayal and defeat of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-daulah, at the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the British installed their own puppet, Mir Jafar, as Nawab. The British extracted huge concessions from the defeated Bengalis including land, a monopoly of trade with Europe, and exemption from taxation on internal trade. The British subsequently replaced Mir Jafar with Mir Kasim as Nawab of Bengal. The Bengalis under Mir Kasim were finally driven to revolt when he was in turn sacked by the British and replaced by Mir Jafar for a second term. The Bengalis were defeated at the Battle of Buxar in 1764, and in 1765 the Moghul Emperor Shah Alam was “persuaded” to grant the power of taxation (diwani) in Bengal to the British East India Company. The British in turn sub-contracted rapacious revenue collection to Bengalis. Some of the revenue would go the Emperor and some to the Nawab, with the remainder being retained by the British. The British described this as “farming” the Bengali peasants (ryots), but over-taxing of Bengalis meant that  10 million Bengalis perished in the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1770. The East India Company used about one third of the collected revenue to buy Indian goods and thus the Bengalis were in effect being paid for their goods through the exorbitant taxes applied to them. 15 years later, exorbitant British taxation led to famine in the Gangetic plain to the west of Bengal. Indeed such British excesses led to the British Parliament (unsuccessfully) impeaching Warren Hastings (first Governor General of India and father by adultery of Jane Austen’s cousin Eliza) for crimes such as the violation of the Begums of Oudh–he was of course eventually acquitted.(6) By the 1840s the East India Company had dominion over most of present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh but the British Government was increasingly keen for greater  involvement in the exploitative proceedings. In 1847 the  British Government introduced a scheme whereby those wishing to buy Indian goods could only do so using Council Bills issued by the British  Crown in London. Traders would pay for such Bills in gold and silver and use them to pay Indian producers who would in turn cash them in for rupees at the local colonial office–rupees that been exacted by exorbitant taxation.(5) In his book “Inglorious Empire. What the British did to India”, Shashi Tharoor describes how the British looted and de-industrialized India and thus paid for Britain’s Industrial Revolution and violent global dominance: “At the beginning of the eighteenth century, as the British economic historian Angus Maddison has demonstrated, India’s share of the world economy was 23 per cent, as large as all of Europe put together. (It had been 27 per cent in 1700, when the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s treasury raked in £100 million in tax revenues alone.) By the time the British departed India, it had dropped to just over 3 per cent. The reason was simple: India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was financed by its depredations in India” ((7), page 3 (8)). This deadly and merciless taxation was accompanied by massive de-industrialization of India. Thus before the invasion by the British, India led the world in textiles, agriculture and metallurgy, but rapidly became an exporter of raw materials and an importer of goods manufactured in Britain.(6)–(8)

perhaps if we sent  you to India it will help make up for it ..they need all the help they can get..still.

cods wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 11:14pm:

perhaps if we sent  you to India it will help make up for it ..they need all the help they can get..still.

Cods, you will have to be suspended upside down by your ankles and India will collect the money that falls.

Their majesties will be taken into custody pending recovery of the money.

The UK didnt teach Indians to be the filthiest people in the world and burn women alive, these degenerate habits became worse after the British departed. They can afford Nuclear weapons but they cant afford to build toilets for over half a billion of their people.

rhino wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 11:22pm:

The UK didnt teach Indians to be the filthiest people in the world and burn women alive, these degenerate habits became worse after the British departed. They can afford Nuclear weapons but they cant afford to build toilets for over half a billion of their people.

If the UK returned that $45 trillion, plus interest, everything would be better.

Evidently, Rhino has a guilty conscience.

If the UK gave 45 trillion to India there would still be one half of the population living without a basic toilet. Its culture not money driving their filthy habits. 45 trillion wouldnt buy them the brains not to throw diseased bodies in the river.

rhino wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 11:34pm:

If the UK gave 45 trillion to India there would still be one half of the population living without a basic toilet. Its culture not money driving their filthy habits. 45 trillion wouldnt buy them the brains not to throw diseased bodies in the river.

They could then afford to ship the dead bodies to the UK and employ UK citizens as servants.

The UK Royal family could afford this bill.

Here's the accountant's statement for the UK debt:


Quote:

Professor Utsa Patnaik’s estimate of Britain’s theft from India amounting to $45 trillion (1765-1938)(3)–(5) can be compared with estimates based on GDP considerations. According to Wikipedia, India’s share of the world economy declined from 24.4% in 1700 to 4.2% in 1950. India’s share of global industrial output declined from 25% in 1750 to 2% in 1900.(9) From available data on India’s GDP and India’s share of world GDP since 1700(10), (1) one can get a very rough estimate of what India’s cumulative GDP could have been from 1700-2003 if the British had not robbed and raped India. Thus the cumulative GDP (PPP) for India is given below for 6 periods since 1700 (A) at the observed average % of world GDP, and (B) if the average Indian % of world GDP had remained at the pre-British invasion 24.0% in 1770. 1700-1820: (A) $13.1 trillion (20.3%) versus (B) $15.8 trillion (24.0%). 1820-1870: (A) $6.2 trillion (14.0%) versus (B) $10.5 trillion (24.0%). 1870-1913: (A) $7.3 trillion (9.8%) versus (B) $18.0 trillion (24.0%). 1913-1950: (A) $7.9 trillion (5.5%) versus (B) $34.4 trillion (24.0%). 1950-1973: (A) $8.3 trillion (3.5%) versus (B) $$56.8 trillion (24.0%). 1973-2003: (A) $41.5 trillion (5.5%) versus (B) $180.9 trillion (24.0%). It has taken India 7 decades to partially recover from 2 centuries of rapacious British imperialism. The difference in cumulative GDP is $316.4 trillion (1700-2003) and $44 trillion (1700-1950), the latter estimate of India’s deprivation being consonant with Professor Utsa Patnaik’s estimate that the British had  stolen $45 trillion from India between 1765 and 1938.(3)–(5) (B) 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from egregious deprivation under the British. Imposed poverty kills. Poverty-derived  avoidable mortality (avoidable death, excess mortality, excess death, premature death, untimely death, death that should not have happened) can be estimated as the difference between the actual deaths in a country and the deaths expected for a peaceful, decently governed country with same demographics (birth rate and percentage of children).(12) Below are listed in rough  chronological order some shocking salient features of the deadly impact of rapacious British imperialism over 2 centuries in British India, Britain’s Auschwitz. In the 1769-1770  Great Bengal Famine 10 million out of 30 million over-taxed Bengalis starved to death(6), (13). Scores of millions of Indians perished in man-made famines between the  1769-1770  Great Bengal Famine and the 1942-1945 WW2 Bengal Famine.(6) Using Indian census data 1870-1950, assuming an Indian population of about 200 million in the period 1760-1870, and estimating by interpolation from available data an Indian avoidable death rate in (deaths per 1,000 of population) of 37 (1757-1920), 35 (1920-1930), 30 (1930-1940) and 24 (1940-1950), one can estimate Indian excess deaths of 592 million (1757-1837), 497 million (1837-1901) and 418 million (1901-1947), roughly 1.5 billion in total or 1.8 billion including the Native States.(14) Scores of millions of distant British keeping hundreds of millions of Indians on the edge of starvation was enabled by relatively small numbers of British soldiers and much greater numbers of well-fed Indian soldiers threatening requisite violence.(6) It has been estimated by Amaresh Misra that 10 million Indians were massacred in the decade after the 1857 Indian Mutiny (Indian Rebellion) as reprisals for 2,000 British deaths.(15), (16) Despite a very high birth rate, the Indian population did not increase between 1860 (292 million) and 1934 (292 million) [17]. This is indicative of massive avoidable deaths from imposed deprivation that can be estimated as 745 million (1860-1934) or an average of about 10 million Indian avoidable deaths from deprivation per year.(14) Addressing the House of Commons in 1935, racist, imperialist and mass murderer Winston Churchill made an extraordinary confession in stating of the subjugated Indians: “In the standard of life they have nothing to spare. The slightest fall from the present standard of life in India means slow starvation, and the actual squeezing out of life, not only of millions but of scores of millions of people, who have come into the world at your invitation and under the shield and protection of British power”.(6), (18), (19) 7 years later Churchill commenced  the deliberate starving to death over 4 years of 6-7 million Indians in Bengal, Orissa, Bihar and Assam as the British exported grain from India and slashed grain imports.(6)

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 11:38pm:

rhino wrote on Jun 3rd, 2021 at 11:34pm: If the UK gave 45 trillion to India there would still be one half of the population living without a basic toilet. Its culture not money driving their filthy habits. 45 trillion wouldnt buy them the brains not to throw diseased bodies in the river. They could then afford to ship the dead bodies to the UK and employ UK citizens as servants.

they would still throw the dead bodies in the river, money doesnt make Lords out of servants.

rhino wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 11:58pm:

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3rd, 2021 at 11:38pm: rhino wrote on Jun 3rd, 2021 at 11:34pm: If the UK gave 45 trillion to India there would still be one half of the population living without a basic toilet. Its culture not money driving their filthy habits. 45 trillion wouldnt buy them the brains not to throw diseased bodies in the river. They could then afford to ship the dead bodies to the UK and employ UK citizens as servants. they would still throw the dead bodies in the river, money doesnt make Lords out of servants.

How would Rhino know about the influence of wealth from driving a 20-year old ute?

Rich Indians own expensive cars but dont have roads to drive them on. Cultural peacocks.

We can look at India from the perspective of what good the Indians do for Britain that makes the British allegedly owe Indians. The idea that the British took resources from India without compensation is quite reasonable for an allegation to make. Or we can talk about the massacre at Amritsar. Or we can talk about the way the British used the Indians as slaves. And finally, we can mention how the Indians did the bulk of fighting for the British in WW2 -- and fought well the Indians did.

But, we can go about looking at laugh's mention of the 1.8 billion Indians that died from an alleged deprivation caused by Britain. However, the reality is "does that even matter?". According to statista.com , Indians went from post-colonial 350+ million, to that of 1.3 billion Indians in 2020. That is an increase of nearly 1 billion people in the space of 72 years.

Year 1948: India with a population of 358 million.  Year 2020: India with a population of 1380 million

So, I can hardly think that the problem of "deprivation" relates fittingly with Indians when they have no issue with popping out replacement babies and ignores the issues of overpopulation. You can have either a rich life or a populous life. Not both. There is no point about complaining about having a deprived life when a very small percentage of colonial rulers are irrelevant to the cause of your lack of quality of life.

If $45 trillion is the estimated value of what was stolen from India over a few centuries, imagine what the British did for India when they introduced railway, system of modern law, transportation, extended trade with overseas countries that Indians would not have known about if it was not for the British. Archaic practices of widows committing suicide on their husbands' funeral pyres. The list could go on and on. In fact, whatever debt the Indians claim to be owed by the British, I bet the British could claim that the British are owed trillions more in terms of what the Indians would not have without Indian being colonised.

If the British did not conquer India, it is fair to say that the United States would still be a colony (for a while longer) until a different independence date. Australia probably would not have been colonised until later.

Indians are poor because they intermarry and schit where they eat. Yuck.

I guess you sum up the problem Indians have in general better than I could, Gordon.

Quote:

The deadly impact of British occupation of India lingers today 71 years after Independence, with 4 million people dying avoidably from deprivation each year in capitalist India as compared to zero (0) in China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

The Great Chinese Famine (Chinese: 三年大饥荒, "three years of great famine") was a period between 1959 and 1961 in the history of the People's Republic of China (PRC) characterized by widespread famine.[1][2][3][4][5] Some scholars have also included the years 1958 or 1962.[6][7][8][9] The Great Chinese Famine is widely regarded as the deadliest famine and one of the greatest man-made disasters in human history, with an estimated death toll due to starvation that ranges in the tens of millions (15 to 55 million).

At what point do Indians become responsible for their own welfare?

At what point does the State of Israel become responsible for its own welfare?

I don't see anyone blaming a dead Israeli on something that happened generations ago. Except perhaps you.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 8:44am:

I don't see anyone blaming a dead Israeli on something that happened generations ago. Except perhaps you.

This was the question Effendi:

At what point does the State of Israel become responsible for its own welfare?

Try answering that one, ey?

They have taken responsibility for their own welfare from the beginning Aussie. That's how Israeli came into existence. It's pretty much the exact opposite of the OP trying to blame the British for Indians dying in the street today.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 9:09am:

They have taken responsibility for their own welfare from the beginning Aussie. That's how Israeli came into existence. It's pretty much the exact opposite of the OP trying to blame the British for Indians dying in the street today.

Palestinians are dying in the streets of their own country today killed by bullets from foreigner Israelis who have turned the murder of Palestinians into a sport.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 9:27am:

freediver wrote on Jun 5th, 2021 at 9:09am: They have taken responsibility for their own welfare from the beginning Aussie. That's how Israeli came into existence. It's pretty much the exact opposite of the OP trying to blame the British for Indians dying in the street today. Palestinians are dying in the streets of their own country today killed by bullets from foreigner Israelis who have turned the murder of Palestinians into a sport.

Perhaps they should stop lobbing rockets at Israel every time someone gives them aid money.

Just a thought.

Do you blame Britain for Indians dying in the street today? Or did you just not read the article before posting it?

The actions by Hamas were cynical.

Their true point was to impress Palestinians in the West Bank to turn them towards Hamas.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 9:09am:

They have taken responsibility for their own welfare from the beginning Aussie. That's how Israeli came into existence. It's pretty much the exact opposite of the OP trying to blame the British for Indians dying in the street today.

Horseshit.....it relies heavily on Western aid.

Horseshit......it came into existence as an expediency for the UK and UN.

We will never know will we.

Aussie wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 11:43am:

freediver wrote on Jun 5th, 2021 at 9:09am: They have taken responsibility for their own welfare from the beginning Aussie. That's how Israeli came into existence. It's pretty much the exact opposite of the OP trying to blame the British for Indians dying in the street today. Horseshit.....it relies heavily on Western aid. Horseshit......it came into existence as an expediency for the UK and UN. We will never know will we.

Good Grief.  Look who has found out how to do COLOURS!!!!!!! Next thing he will be playing with BIG PRINT!! Playing with crayons, are you?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Israel came into existence because the UK, USA, and their allies did not want millions of Jewish refugees.

If these countries had wanted Jewish refugees Israel would not have existed.

Even American Jews were against large scale migration of Jews into the USA because it would aggravate and increase US anti-semitism.

https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/when-jewish-refugees-were-a-problem-no-one-wanted-to-solve/


Quote:

A big part of this story is the reluctance by the world, including the United States, to resettle these Jews. A painful, painful story. We have grown up – Jews who were children in the 1950s – with the belief that after six million had died, America, having neglected to assist the Jews, when the war is over opened its arms and gates to the survivors and they poured in. The reality is very, very different. The United States in ’45, ’46, ’47, ’48, ’49, kept out the Jewish survivors. Every nation on earth kept the Jews from resettling. By ’47, ’48, the nations that had belonged to UNRRA and now the International Refugee Organization sent labor recruiters to the camps. Belgians needed miners, the British needed nurses, Canadians and Australians need farmers and railroad workers. Recruiters go into the camps to pick and choose those of the last million who they want to accept for resettlement. In every case, they chose first the Latvians, the Lithuanians, the Poles and would have nothing to do with the Jews. What accounted for the reluctance of the U.S. to absorb what, at a few hundred thousand, does not sound like very many people? An abiding anti-Semitism is not the whole reason. Jews were considered subversives, communists, rebels, troublemakers, and the world war quickly gave way to cold war, and with it the notion that Hitler had been defeated and what we have to worry about is the communists. This was a lie that Hitler had told over and over again, that the Jews are not only a biological poison but subversives. Jewish refugees are removed after a bloody battle from the Exodus 1947 in the port of Haifa, July 18, 1947. After two days, the illegal immigrants were deported to France and from there to Germany, where they returned to displaced persons camps. (Palmach Photo Gallery, from PikiWiki) Most Jews would have preferred to have gone to Palestine, but that way was blocked by the British, who were in control of the Holy Land. President Truman was unable to persuade the British to open Palestine to Jewish migration. Was this a moral failing on the part of Great Britain, or simple realpolitik? There is no doubt that the British upper classes and governing classes were frighteningly anti-Semitic and had always been so. But more than that, the British realized at the end of the war – and it is not Churchill in power, but the Labour government that had always been friendly to the Jews – that Great Britain is no longer a great power. India would have to be given up, the empire will shrink and in order to maintain any standing and economic leverage they have to hold onto the Middle East and be friendly with the Arabs. The only way to do that is to restrict Jewish immigration. There is no doubt that the British upper classes and governing classes were frighteningly anti-Semitic and had always been so. By 1947, Truman realizes the British will keep Palestine closed, and by 1948 there is no way to convince Congress to let into America large numbers of Jewish survivors. He has to get the 250,000 Jews out of Germany, which has to be done in order to establish an independent German state, which he can’t do with Jews in concentration camps on German soil. So Truman supports the partition of Palestine in 1947, and in 1948 supports Israel’s independence — not because he is a Zionist, but in part for humanitarian concerns, and more than that geopolitical concerns. You write about the particularly nasty debates in Congress, especially the opposition by midwest Republicans and southern Democrats to absorbing Jews. What were their objections – simple anti-Semitism? Was there any merit to the argument that Polish Jews were sympathetic to communism, because the Soviets had sheltered them during the war? The organized U.S. Jewish community is divided in ’45, ’46. The Zionist community says, let all the Jews go to Palestine, period, end of story. The larger American Jewish organizations, like the American Jewish Committee, say Jews should have the opportunity to come to the U.S. if they want. AJC is so fearful, however, of anti-Semitism in Congress, that instead of arguing that Jews deserve to be let in because of their unique suffering during the war, it forms a coalition with Catholic and Protestant organizations and sets up this campaign to let in displaced persons – not Jews as Jews. If a bill is passed, Jews, who make up a quarter of the refugees, will come in that way.

Aussie wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 8:53am:

freediver wrote on Jun 5th, 2021 at 8:44am: I don't see anyone blaming a dead Israeli on something that happened generations ago. Except perhaps you. This was the question Effendi: At what point does the State of Israel become responsible for its own welfare? Try answering that one, ey?

They ARE already.....SAHIB

Shmuck off Fuzzball.

FleaDriver attempts to pervert each string to his own ends.

Aussie wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 8:34am:

At what point does the State of Israel become responsible for its own welfare?

You mean, without billions in United States aid?

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 2:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 5th, 2021 at 8:34am: At what point does the State of Israel become responsible for its own welfare? You mean, without billions in United States aid?

Err.......that was my point.

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2021 at 4:26pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 5th, 2021 at 2:13pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 5th, 2021 at 8:34am: At what point does the State of Israel become responsible for its own welfare? You mean, without billions in United States aid? Err.......that was my point.

It was not really explicitly stated. But, I agree with you about the implication of the clarifying statement. Israel would be focked if the United States stopped aid and weapons assistance to Israel. The United States needs Israel only in terms of being a buffer in the Middle East in terms of hosting a democratic society. Israel, I surmise, is also used to mediate on behalf of United States' foreign affairs.

As soon as the United States (and perhaps Europe) no longer needs Israel, the foreign aid will stop.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

Shmuck off Fuzzball. FleaDriver attempts to pervert each string to his own ends.

And I thought you were the Islamic pervert Rastus.......... ;)

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2021 at 9:32am:

Perhaps they should stop lobbing rockets at Israel every time someone gives them aid money.

Perhaps Israel should stop occupying more and more Palestinian land if they don't want rockets lobbed at them

I blame the Italians who were in Britain from 55BC to AD410 and bled Israel white.  That forced the poms to live with rats and alcohol, eating pig dung and chalk and unable to speak clearly except to order flogging for rabbit poachers.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2021 at 11:20pm:

cods wrote on Jun 3rd, 2021 at 11:14pm: perhaps if we sent  you to India it will help make up for it ..they need all the help they can get..still. Cods, you will have to be suspended upside down by your ankles and India will collect the money that falls. Their majesties will be taken into custody pending recovery of the money.

You're an idiot Rastus..........

The descendants of UK robbers are still enjoying the profits of the crime. The British Museum has robbed many countries.

Reparations? Her Majesty in handcuffs for complicity?

https://im.indiatimes.in/content/2018/Dec/british_raj_1544973675_725x725.jpg

Yes .
After 70 years, India's GDP is 2.869 trillion USD (2019), China 14.34 trillion USD (2019), even with Hong Kong being robbed in daylight by the Queen and her corgi gang.

China and India have similar populations now and Indian corruption is abusing their economy, losing 11.5 trillion/ year.  India must be hand-cuffed and penalised by hard labour under Chinese war-lords.
Dharma.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2021 at 3:42pm:

Yes . After 70 years, India's GDP is 2.869 trillion USD (2019), China 14.34 trillion USD (2019), even with Hong Kong being robbed in daylight by the Queen and her corgi gang. China and India have similar populations now and Indian corruption is abusing their economy, losing 11.5 trillion/ year.  India must be hand-cuffed and penalised by hard labour under Chinese war-lords. Dharma.

And next the Chinese regime over its collaboration with triad gangs to swamp Vancouver with fentanyl and precursor chemicals for meth.

Regretfully, the Justice Access Centre of Vancouver has declined to offer legal services against Beijing for fentanyl dumping.  Due to the Opium Wars of HM Victoria, Empress of India and Afghan Poppies, the Chinese get off this one. The name "British Columbia" is a worry also.

chimera wrote on Jun 13^th, 2021 at 4:31pm:

Regretfully, the Justice Access Centre of Vancouver has declined to offer legal services against Beijing for fentanyl dumping.  Due to the Opium Wars of HM Victoria, Empress of India and Afghan Poppies, the Chinese get off this one. The name "British Columbia" is a worry also.

So it’s even….

The Chinese regime has turned a blind eye to the triad drug export trade around the world.