Unacceptable Carl
33.9K posts

Unacceptable Carl
@NotFrodo
On a quest for freedom Indigenous person








Sudbury tent city Canada is unrecognizable




Australian aboriginals 🟡🇦🇺, edited to be depigmented with straight hair They are all 80%> aboriginal. Also, some people are assuming these posts are opinionated or a “dogwhistle” It’s simply to show how drastically slight phenotypical changes affect impressions


Beauty is morally salient. If you believe these two are morally equal, then you are more disordered than Satan himself.















Tomorrow voting starts in the BC Conservatives’ leadership race! I hope Kerry-Lynne Findlay wins! BC has an awful NDP government and we had an awful Liberal one before that. BC needs change and we need @KerryLynneFindl, a competent, experienced conservative as our next premier.







The claim you’re sharing — that the British drained $45 trillion (Utsa Patnaik) or $64.82 trillion (Oxfam) from India — is one of the most widely circulated myths about British colonial rule in India. It is not supported by rigorous economic history and has been repeatedly debunked by scholars across the ideological spectrum. Here’s why it falls apart: 1. Utsa Patnaik’s $45 trillion figure is not a serious economic calculation Patnaik’s method (published in 2018) is extremely simple and flawed: • She takes the value of goods exported from India to Britain and elsewhere (mostly through Britain) between 1765–1938. • She assumes 100% of these exports were “stolen” (i.e., India received nothing in return). • She then compounds that value at 5% interest for up to 253 years. Problems with this approach: • India was paid for its exports — in gold, silver, and later in British pounds credited to Indian accounts. Exports were not “looted” in the sense of being seized without payment. • A huge portion of Indian exports (especially cotton, opium, indigo, jute, tea) were sold voluntarily by Indian merchants and producers on the global market. • Compounding at 5% for over two centuries turns even tiny historical sums into astronomical modern figures. If you did the same with British exports to India (machinery, railways, textiles), you’d get similarly absurd numbers in the opposite direction. • Patnaik herself has admitted in interviews that her $45 trillion is not a literal amount Britain owes, but a rhetorical device to illustrate exploitation. It is not an estimate accepted by any mainstream economic historian. 2. The Oxfam $64.82 trillion figure is fake This number does not come from any Oxfam report. It originated from a viral fake graphic in 2022–2023 that falsely attributed the figure to “Oxfam International.” Oxfam has officially denied ever publishing such a study. It appears to be a deliberate escalation of Patnaik’s already inflated number. Source: @grok






















