While it prides itself as one beacon of modernity, medievalist eugenic principles do run deep inside the British Monarchy. There is not a single moment in their past or the present that they don’t think about the total eradication of the colored race plague.

To the rest of the world, it is the British Monarchy and the Roman Empire at large that are the plague that must be rooted out from the face of the planet for good.
Asia desires only two things, i.e. peace and collective prosperity.  We don’t aspire, but abhor global domination by the few.

Unspoken Story of Indian Holocaust: UK Remains Silent About Its Atrocities

sputniknews.com
While British policy makers are expressing their “righteous” anger over Russia’s decision to veto their resolution on the Srebrenica “genocide” of 1995 discussed by the UN Security Council earlier this month, London should obviously look in the mirror and recall its own colonial past, New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst Rakesh Krishnan Simha told Sputnik.
There is no need to delve deep into history, the analyst noted, referring to the infamous Bengal Famine of 1943-44 that can be classified as the greatest disaster in the subcontinent in the 20th century.
Citing Australian biochemist Dr. Gideon Polya, Rakesh Krishnan Simha underscored that the Bengal Famine was a “manmade holocaust” directly caused by UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s policies.
“Bengal had a bountiful harvest in 1942, but the British started diverting vast quantities of food grain from India to Britain, contributing to a massive food shortage in the areas comprising present-day West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar and Bangladesh,” the foreign affairs analyst narrated in his article “Remembering India’s Forgotten Holocaust” in 2014.
Just in a year, the manmade famine had claimed the lives of over 3 million Indians.
The Famine in India: Natives Waiting for Relief at Bangalore
“Winston Churchill was just the last of the many murderous despots who presided over India’s fate during the over 200 years of British rule. He said, “I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion”,” Rakesh Krishnan Simha told Sputnik.
Can We Classify the Bengal Famine as Genocide? 
Can we classify the Bengal Famine as genocide? Genocide is a systematic killing of a people in great numbers and Churchill intentionally, and with open malice towards Indians, diverted grain from India to Europe, the analyst pointed out. He added that even when desperate pleas came from the administration in Bengal, Churchill refused to dispatch emergency food supplies. The UK prime minister even went so far as to blame Indians for the famine, saying that they “breed like rabbits.”
“When the British representatives in India asked Churchill to stop diverting Indian food grains to Europe and to supply India with wheat from Australia, he replied: “If there is famine in India, then why is Gandhi still alive?”” the analyst remarked bitterly.
The Bengal Famine happened despite India being a food-surplus country with a bumper harvest that year, he stressed. And that had not been the first time when the British rulers facilitated food shortages in India.
Photograph of a South India family in 1878 by W.W. Hooper
Rakesh Krishnan Simha stressed that during over 200 years of British rule, India saw at least two dozen major famines, which collectively killed 60 million people. The journalist added that the figure is based on numbers collated by British officials and economists and in reality it is significantly higher.
The analyst pointed out that during the 1877 famine in India, the only acquire to get some food was to work in the British labor camps. Within those camps, starving Indians received only 16 ounces of rice per day — less than the Jewish inmates of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp of the Second World War.
One would say that India had faced famines even before the British colonial rule. However, “in the past 2000 years of Indian history, there were very few famine deaths because the Indian rulers ensured the well-being of the people through emergency food supplies and field kitchens,” the journalist underscored.
India’s Forgotten Holocaust 
The history of manmade famines in India under the British rule can be obviously compared to the Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War, according to Rakesh Krishnan Simha.
“Hitler’s hatred for Jews led to the Holocaust and Britain’s malice towards Indians caused the deaths of at least 60 million Indians, including three million people during the Bengal Famine. Proportionately, the Bengal Famine was a holocaust on a bigger scale than the Jewish Holocaust. It took Hitler 12 years to murder 6 million Jews, but the British starved at least 3 million Indians to death in a 15 month period from 1943 to 1944. Indian estimates put the toll at 7 million,” the journalist told Sputnik.
Rakesh Krishnan Simha pointed out that Hitler wanted to destroy the entire Jewish population of Europe because of race and religious reasons; furthermore, Hitler saw Jews as competitors in the German economy.
“Hitler also wanted to create Lebensraum in Europe for pure Germans. If you look at the history of English colonialism, they have created their own versions of Lebensraum in Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand after the genocide of native populations,” the analyst underscored.
“They [the British] may have wanted to do the same in India. But the British couldn’t replicate armed genocide in India because Indians put up a ferocious counter attack and defeated the British in several wars. So the British may have decided to systematically eradicate Indians through famines. In fact, Churchill’s scorched earth policy was intended to enfeeble the Indian population so the Japanese-armed Indian National Army which was planning to liberate India from the east would not find able bodied men in Bengal,” he elaborated.
Why Does the Story of the Indian Genocide Remain Unspoken?
So, why does the story of the Indian genocide still remain unspoken? Why does the West that has recently rushed to blame Serbs for “genocide” of Bosnian Muslims remains suspiciously silent about its own hideous atrocities?
“First up, why would the US, UK, Spain or France admit at all to genocides they have committed? It is precisely because the scale of their own crimes is so staggering that they quickly latch on to other countries’ internal problems. For instance, after an alleged 100,000 East Timorese were killed by the Indonesians, the West suddenly adopted the role of savior, conscience keeper and protector. It then invaded East Timor and illegally made it an independent country. It did the same in Kosovo,” Rakesh Krishnan Simha elaborated.
“The UK and British immigrants in America wiped out Native Indians by the tens of millions. In Africa, the British massacred Kenyans,” he added.
According to the journalist, considering the scale of the atrocities, the international community should conduct an official investigation into the Indian genocide.
“If the US Congress can condemn the Turkish genocide of Armenians a 100 years ago, then they can also censure Britain for even bigger holocausts in India. For this to happen, private Indian individuals must come forward to demand apology and reparations. There are a number of Indians who remember the holocaust and were affected by it,” the analyst pointed out.
And there is a precedent, he stressed: “Kenya has asked Britain for an apology, and the British have rendered one.”
However, there are a number of obstacles in the way of restoring justice. First of all it is not in the British interests to recognize such a hideous crime. Furthermore, the Indian elite have already established close ties with the British nobilities. Many of them have their children studying in American and British colleges, or have business connections, or have family living in Britain, Rakesh Krishnan Simha noted. Maybe that is why most Indians have no memory of these holocausts because they are not taught in Indian schools, the foreign affairs analyst emphasized.

Does the House of Windsor Have Right to British Throne?

sputniknews.com

13:12 28.02.2015(updated 14:16 28.02.2015)
Ekaterina Blinova — The history of the British Royal Houses has always been shrouded in mystery: citing the results of DNA tests as well as hereditary genetic disorders researchers, have called into question the legitimacy of the present British royalties.
Scientists from the University of Leicester claimed last year there could be a break in the royal blood line, citing an astonishing mismatch of the DNA of Richard III to that of some of his descendants: it is not possible to trace his modern male-line relatives through the Y chromosome. Henry VII Tudor, who seized the power in 1485 after defeating the king in the Battle of Bosworth Field, cemented his power by marrying Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and niece of Richard III. The current royal family share a direct blood line to the Tudors, researchers underscored, calling into question the House of Windsor’s right to rule. In addition to the suspicious DNA tests’ results scientists also pointed to some hereditary genetic disorders, suggesting there could have been some skeletons in the closet of the Queen Victoria’s mother, German-born Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
In 1995 a book “Queen Victoria’s Gene” by D.M. Potts was published examining the defective hemophilia gene in the royal bloodline. The author claimed that while Queen Victoria’s son Leopold as well as some of her grandchildren suffered from the deadly disease, no member of the royal line before Leopold had been struck by the condition. In this light there could be only two possibilities: either one of Victoria’s parents had an extremely rare gene mutation (1 in 50,000), or Queen Victoria was the illegitimate child of a hemophiliac man.
According to the scientists from the Royal Society of Medicine, the defective gene has not been registered in seventeen generations of the family on Queen Victoria’s mother’s side. So far, experts suggest, neither the queen, nor her descendants could be recognized as legitimate British monarchs. However, Victoria was considered the only hope of the British crown: none of her grandfather George III’s sons produced a healthy heir, her uncle George IV’s daughter died when she was 21 in 1817, and none of King William IV’s ten children by the actress Mrs. Jordan could take the throne in accordance with the royal rules.
Historians note that hemophilia has played an important role in Europe’s history: the defective gene passed through Victoria to many of her descendants, including the son of Russian Tsar Nicholas II, Alexei, the heir to the Russian throne. Experts speculate that it was Alexei’s disease that led to the entry of Rasputin into the Tsar’s family undermining its prestige and contributing to the disastrous Russian revolution.
In addition, experts point out that George III, Victoria’s grandfather, suffered from porphyria, a rare inherited disease, resulting in such conditions as mental disorder, abdominal pains and itchy skin. Remarkably, none of Queen Victoria’s descendants has ever suffered from porphyria disease.
The question remains open whether the evidence obtained by scientists will ultimately shake the positions of the House of Windsor and particularly its current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.