I recently attempted to listen to the Dave Chappelle interview on the JRE podcast and, sadly, within the first ten minutes Dave proved that he was still an egregious racist. The essence of the discussion was Dave sucking Ghandis dick despite Ghandis anti-black work in South Africa. He also said that Ghandi was fighting white supremacy by working to liberate India through civil disobedience. These views of course are the only way that an egregious racist can rationalize Ghandis clearly racist actions. Note however how he blames white supremacy not British colonialism, as somehow all white people were evil instead of every country grabbing as much power as possible. Even his own statements contradict “white supremacy” or even racism being the cause of British colonialism. Like he explicitly stated Ghandi was trained as a lawyer in London. Which should immediately raise an eyebrow. How terrible are British “white supremacists” when they are training “brown” people in lucrative and high tier professions that they don’t even offer to their own race first? Next is that Dave admits Ghandi wrote racist legislation in South Africa, but was not racist because he wasn’t white? Apparently getting trained by white people and writing racist legislation for them is A-OK, as long as you yourself are not white. Also, how horrendous are the British white supremacists when they turn over governorship back to the Indian people they trained and invested in? We all know how bloody the American Revolutionary War was.
What makes this worse is this is how history is being taught through crt. No other society can hold blame but the mystical white supremacy. Slavic people spent over 2000 years as slaves and breeding livestock for tan and brown people, but apparently they chose to do so as they were the oppressors of the black, brown, and tan people who brutalized them.
During World War II, the Labour ministers were some of the most loyal allies to Churchill and his resistance to Hitler, as opposed to some of the Conservatives (like Halifax and Chamberlain) who wanted to appease Hitler and later make peace after the disaster in France.
Other than that, I'm sure you don't like it, but the NHS apparently led to a great improvement in the health of common British people.
It's not that I don't like it, it's that I doubt it.
Did the NHS improve the lives of people, or did medicine advance enough to improve the lives of people despite the NHS.
I have a similar position about the Soviet Union. Did the Soviet Union ever recover from the economic devastation of the Russian Revolution, or did the Soviet Union steal just barely enough technology to become a partially submerged boat that rises with the tide.
Considering that most British poor people did not have health insurance, it's not that odd that the NHS improved people's health. William L. Shirer reported before World War II that British soldiers seemed crooked and in poor health, while the German ones seemed in excellent state.
Of course, if you removed it right now, it would not have that much of a negative impact on people's health as it benefited people after World War II, because people are much richer now.
What tide precisely?
Not having health insurance has nothing to do with either health care costs or availability. If people in Britain weren't being given good medical treatment, the question isn't "why didn't they have health insurance?" The question is, what government intervention likely stopped them from being able to seek it or get it while it was in demand.
You haven't noticed any economic or technologic improvements on the Earth since WW1? He said sarcastically from the internet.