The article states that "Europe was massively enriched by the genocides in the Americas".
On the whole, I think this is untrue. For European countries that had colonies, as often as not the colonies had a negative effect on their economies. If you look at European states today, ones that didn't have colonies (e.g. Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Greece) are just as prosperous on the whole as ones that did (e.g. UK, France, Spain), or the ones that were owned by other European countries (e.g. Ireland, Finland, Slovenia).
Spain in particular suffered a good deal of long-term economic harm from its colonies as the importation of gold crowded out the real economy.
Germany and Italy had short-lived colonial empires that didn't run at a profit.
Probably the British did gain overall from their colonies, but much of their American colonies were lost in the 1770s. Jamaica OTOH made the fortunes of many wealthy British families.
>The article states that "Europe was massively enriched by the genocides in the Americas"
Whether Europe was successful or not in profiting from the genocide, genocide did happen and I think the author is merely saying that the western world for the most part doesn't own up to this.
Regarding the profitability of colonialism, while I agree that it's debatable whether Europe itself was massively enriched by the colonies, Europeans profited. European immigrants to North America were able to create an empire by consolidating their power over the indigenous residents then leveraging North America's land and natural resources.
The author seems to merely be pointing out that western society largely denies the magnitude of the human and environmental cost of its prosperity.