When thugs go looting

There is a reason that tRump wrote THUGS in his tweet that was so violent that Twitter had to hide it from people!

I, as one from India, am intimately familiar with the word thug.  The colonial bastards got that word from the Subcontinent and exported it all over the English speaking world.

But, when tRump used that word, he was not referring to any anti-social people.  Nope, the evil man chooses words that he knows will cause immense harm to "others" but will inject enthusiasm into his base.  

What is so harmful about the word thug?

To answer that question, here is a simple and straightforward counter-question.  Have you ever come across white-American no-gooders being described as thugs?  There's your answer, which I blogged about in May 2015--Thug is the new N-word:

Well, the truth is that thug today is a nominally polite way of using the N-word. Many people suspect it, and they are correct. When somebody talks about thugs ruining a place, it is almost impossible today that they are referring to somebody with blond hair. It is a sly way of saying there go those black people ruining things again. And so anybody who wonders whether thug is becoming the new N-word doesn't need to. It's most certainly is.

Looting is what the bastards did in the colonies.  Read, for instance, the following quote that I had used in this post about how tRump's shitholes were systematically created so:

Consider India. At the beginning of eighteenth century, India’s share of the world economy was 23 percent, as large as all of Europe put together. By the time Britain left India, it had dropped to less than 4 percent. “The reason was simple,” argues Shashi Tharoor in his book Inglorious Empire. “India was governed for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for two hundred years was financed by its depredations in India.” Britain, Tharoor argues, deliberately deindustrialized India, both through the physical destruction of workshops and machinery and the use of tariffs to promote British manufacture and strangle Indian industries.

Now, those bastards are honorable men!

This review essay adds fuel to my fires within:

Through adroit use of its well-trained, disciplined armies, over the course of the eighteenth century the company expanded its influence inland from the three littoral “Presidencies” of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. By the 1750s, William Dalrymple tells us in The Anarchy, his new account of the rise of the company, it accounted for almost an eighth of Britain’s total imports of £8 million and contributed nearly a third of a million pounds to the home exchequer in annual customs duties.

The British bandits got away with quite a loot!