1,347 words
Before departure: Europe on the eve of expansion (14th century). Click to enlarge.
Jettison political correctness and pre-1945 European colonialism can be viewed as an expression of demographic growth, dominance, racial health, and vitality. Nobody centrally planned or thought it through beforehand, or while it was happening. It transpired over centuries, encompassing many generations of people who lived and died—well beyond the collective time horizon of whites for deliberate planning purposes. In retrospect, and from a broad perspective, it represented the instinctual behavior of a people.
By the same token, the ignominious, virtually instantaneous collapse of colonialism following WWII coincided with loss of racial confidence, vitality, and self-governance. By then, whites no longer controlled their own destiny. As with the opening of the immigration floodgates, the hasty retreat from empire preceded white population collapse, which did not begin until after 1965.
In addition to racial dominance, population size must be taken into account whenever migration and the exercise of political power are concerned.
This is as true of Jews, by the way, as it is of everybody else, despite the unique ecological niche they occupy. There is no objective evidence, no replicable procedure to verify that Jews constitute as small a population as is claimed. It is true that they operate secretly, with a degree of conscious, coordinated, conspiratorial behavior unmatched by any other race—indeed, it is vastly underestimated by everyone, and a cornerstone of their supremacy. But the more miniscule you accept their population to be, the more intrigue you must allow in order to account for their inordinate power. In politics, demographics applies to everyone—unless, of course, you believe (as many atheists and anti-Christians do) that Jews are divine.
Though the Portuguese began systematically exploring the Atlantic coast of Africa as early as 1419 under the patronage of Prince Henry the Navigator, the third son of John I, King of Portugal, and explorer Bartolomeu Dias rounded the Cape of Good Hope (the southern tip of Africa) in 1488, Columbus’s first voyage to the New World in 1492 on behalf of Spain is often taken as the cutoff point to mark the beginning of the modern age of discovery, exploration, and European colonization.
At the outset of the period, in 1483, the three largest population groups in the world were East Asians with 138 million people (China 120 million, Japan 15 million, and Korea 3 million), Asian Indians with 110 million, and white Europeans with 73 million. Between Europe and India the Near East held 25 million people, 2.5 million of whom were nomadic herdsmen. (These and subsequent 1483 population figures are from Colin McEvedy, The Penguin Atlas of Modern History (to 1815), 1972, pp. 8-9)
These people were virtually all farmers, not hunter gatherers or city dwellers. Prior to the 1800s, industry and towns had only marginal demographic significance.
Populations elsewhere were smaller. Northern Africa (the populated southern shore of the Mediterranean north of the Sahara Desert) contained 8 million people, and sub-Saharan (black) Africa 25-35 million.
The Western Hemisphere counted 11 million Amerindian inhabitants: 5 million in Mexico and Central America, 5 million in South America, and a million hunter gatherers in North America.
Over the next 500 years, the white race grew at a rapid pace, enabling large-scale emigration from Europe and above replacement fertility at home and abroad simultaneously. Colonization was thus a sign of demographic strength.
White European expansion as the manifestation of a single race: territories which have been, at any point in time, under the political control of a European entity (dark blue) or under the European sphere of influence (light blue). Oregon Territory, which experienced joint occupancy under the US and Britain, is marked with alternating gray and blue. Continental Europe is purple. At no single point in time was all the political territory shown under European control.
Maximum expansion of the Europeans by individual empire, regardless of time.
Map key: Click here
On this map, which shows ten European empires at their maximum extent, the large territorial expansion of Russians into Siberia can clearly be seen. The history of the expansion is little known to whites.
From 1500-1800, after the power of the Mongols and Turks had been broken, intermittent movements eastward by European Russians swelled to a steady flow. By 1697 Siberia had 150,000 Russians and 125,000 natives.
Settlements were founded on the Pacific coast by 1763, and the first Russian colony in North America was established in 1784 on Kodiak Island off the southern coast of Alaska. Russian fur traders, who plied their trade as far south as Canada and California, built Fort Ross near San Francisco Bay in 1812. Still, the penetration of North America did not involve large numbers of people. When the US bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, only 400 Russians resided permanently in the entire territory, and the maximum number ever was 700.
In Siberia it was different. By 1965 the population had reached 30 million, or 15 percent of the USSR’s total. (No telling how many were political prisoners in concentration camps!) Non-white natives were as scarce as Amerindians and Eskimos in the US and Canada. (Carleton Coon, The Living Races of Man, 1965, p. 300)
Despite the loss of large territories such as those belonging to Spain and Portugal in Latin America (where European race-mixing was completely out of control), the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as one mainstream writer expressed it, “witnessed an unprecedented extension of European power over non-Europeans.”
The British Empire: all territories ever held.
The largest empire of all was Great Britain’s. In the last quarter of the 19th century it attained a position more nearly approaching world mastery than perhaps has ever been achieved by any other power in history. It was not merely that Britain had amassed what was historically the largest empire ever known. Britain maintained its long lead over competitors in industrial innovation and production until almost the end of the century. (Rand McNally Atlas of World History, 1981, p. 124)
In the 19th century Britain had more foreign trade than any two other countries combined, produced one-third of the world’s industrial output and more coal than all other countries, led in the production of iron, was the world’s largest foreign investor, dominated the globe’s transportation and communications systems, supplied the capital and technology to construct railways on five continents, and owned most of the world’s undersea cables. The pound sterling formed the basis of the international payments system. The British merchant fleet had more tonnage than all other countries put together, and the Royal Navy was the most powerful seaborne force in the world.
A glance at the map suggests what a staggering task it must have been to efficiently administer such a far-flung global empire during the period in question. It would seem that a fair amount of delegation of power and autonomy on behalf of the governors must have been allowed.
Europe’s globe-girdling colonial empire has been briefly outlined here from a non-apologetic perspective. I have eschewed contemporary ideological judgments and ultra-fine moral distinctions that our enemies one-sidedly ignore for themselves anyway, and looked at matters from a strictly natural history, biological-historical rather than moral-philosophical standpoint. But the amazing story of Europeans’ exploration and conquest of the planet contains a forward-looking lesson as well.
Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, South West Africa (Namibia), Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Siberia (Russia-in-Asia) should all be fully reclaimed by, and reserved exclusively for, whites as part of a Greater Europe or White Imperium, with the exception of set-asides for native inhabitants such as Amerindians in North America and Aborigines in Australia.
This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Anti-white, Left-wing elements already entertain comparably ambitious dreams. There is no reason why whites should not develop similar plans of their own.
The strategic location of these neo-Europes in every corner of the globe, blessed with moderate climates and rich stores of natural resources, colonized by whites in the modern era and still ours until recently, provide the solid foundation for a major, well-populated, worldwide race-based federation or confederation capable of securing the existence of our people and a future for white children on this planet for centuries to come.
22 Comments
I do like this, however, I have one bone to pick. That second map bothers me. The war between the French and the English on the Plains of Abraham is tacked on the brains of every school-aged child in Canada with the English Canadians still proclaiming ‘WE WON’. Some days it is like that war will never end. Quebec was at one time French. They still speak a kind of French there.
You have a valid point, but I had to work with the maps that were available. My objective was to avoid the picture of colonial fragmentation we are generally presented with. After all, colonialism and individual colonial powers are attacked because they were white European. The attack is a racial one.
Ideally maps would show the kind of detail you describe, though that is difficult to achieve when striving to see the big picture by ignoring the dimension of time. In many places more than one colonial power held the same territory at different points in time. Florida, for example, belonged to both Spain and Britain.
The first map can be viewed at high resolution by clicking on it, but anyone who wants to see more detail on the others will have to look at higher resolution images.
The blue map (slightly higher resolution): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/European_empires.png
The 10-empire, multi-colored map (much higher resolution): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/European_Empires.svg/2000px-European_Empires.svg.png
The British Empire map (much higher resolution): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/British_Empire_Mercator.svg/2000px-British_Empire_Mercator.svg.png
Thank you. I just could not ignore it.
“I have one bone to pick. That second map bothers me.”
The first map bothers me too: they put Brittany as part of France.
“European colonialism can be viewed as an expression of demographic growth, dominance, racial health, and vitality.”
For example, the French conquered Algeria and launched into the activity of breeding Arabs. Is that a sign of racial health? I think it was a crazy policy. It would have made more sense to continue the Spanish policy of reconquista.
“a million hunter gatherers in North America”
Maybe they were a little more than a million, but they had not succeeded in really occupying the territory before the Europeans arrived. And that territory had not been created by them. So the Europeans simply came and settled down. I don’t think the Indians were usually massacred, but the arrival of the Europeans meant that they would never grow into a nation of 300 million people. But the anti-White “liberals” think that it was God’s will that the Indians would one day become 300 millions. The Whites didn’t destroy the Indians but destroyed their chance of occupying the whole continent one day.
Actually, there must be thousands of nations and tribes who lived in the ancient world, had a national or racial conscience, a distinct language, a distinct history, distinct mores, and who disappeared because of the competition. Conversely, a few new nations emerged into history when they had lots of children and were able to feed them and give them a place in the world. So, it isn’t really like Europeans went against God’s will by colonizing America. The one million people who lived in North America before 1492 were no more important than the 1 million people who live today in Djibouti or in Mauritius. With European help, or with a few oil fields, it is possible to create a new people out of practically nothing. Conversely, with anti-White policies enforced by anti-White governments, it is possible to destroy the White nations in a few generations.
And with pro-White policies, it will be possible to get all the Jews back to Judea, to resettle other immigrants in their home countries, and to rebuild formerly White countries.
Where is the German Colonial Empire?
Good catch. It looks as though it was largely omitted.
The big one you expect to see, South West Africa, is only shown as British, although it was a German colony for a while. (This is the same issue Rhonda raised about Canada. Of course, South Africa was held by the Dutch as well as the British.) Hermann Göring’s father, Heinrich Göring, was the first Governor-General of the German protectorate of South West Africa (Namibia).
If you click on the link to the large multi-colored map I provided, you’ll see the German checkerboard pattern of “German Influence” on the coast of East Asia. But the other colonies are missing.
Instead, check the two maps on the right-hand side of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire The first one shows Germany’s colonial holdings in 1914, the second its holdings throughout history. Remember to click on each map, and when you do you can often click on different resolutions in the form of hyperlinks underneath the image, sometimes, but not always, enlarging them greatly. At any rate, the maps show the German colonial holdings.
While researching the article I studied maps not included here of the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and even Danish empires. So anyone can search for maps of any empire and probably find some decent ones.
The British Empire was the Rothschild Empire , the mining magnate Cecil Rhodes that believed in the Anglo-Saxon race to be the best in the World was just a puppet in the hands of the jewish London bankers.
The only White Nation that fought the jewish double headed Beast of Capitalism and Communism was Germany.
The Anglopshere dominance represents the Death of the White Race.
This is a simplistic and inaccurate way to look at it, but does raise a point that I wondered if anyone would mention.
Jews have such a distorting effect on white culture, and have always been inordinately powerful within it, that the question of their role in European imperialism naturally arises. Certainly it was not de minimis.
Jews were very numerous and powerful in the Netherlands. (Think of Rembrandt’s paintings.) When the Sephardim were expelled from Spain and Portugal, many wound up in Holland, and others in the Iberian settlements in Latin America. Their role in the Negro slave trade and the plantation system was enormous. When a contingent of them tried to land in New Amsterdam (New York City), and were refused entry by Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant, they appealed to their tribesmen in the colonial capital. Jews exercised enough power over the Dutch West India Company that they easily compelled Stuyvesant to reverse his decision and permit the Jews’ presence in North America.
I have described elsewhere an incredible, though unknown, episode from the American Revolution about the demands of a Jewish banker in the Netherlands in return for supplying financing to the revolutionaries against Great Britain. John Adams irresponsibly opened that can or worms, and Benjamin Franklin firmly stopped it from going forward—entirely conscious of the fact that he was dealing with a Jew. https://counter-currents.com/2012/07/benjamin-franklin-and-the-jews/
Jews likewise played a huge role in the British Empire. The Rothschilds are one example. The Sassoon and Kadoorie (India, Hong Kong, Shanghai) families in Asia are two more. The Sassoons, the “Rothschilds of Asia,” were largely responsible for the “British” opium trade (and addiction) in the Far East. Jewish influence was enormous in South Africa and Rhodesia from the beginning of the British period. And, of course, there was no greater “British” imperialist than the 19th century racist Chancellor of the Exchequer (the equivalent of our Treasury Secretary) and Prime Minister of Great Britain (Prime Minister, for Christ’s Sake!) Benjamin Disraeli, a Sephardic Jew.
If I recall correctly, even Columbus’s first voyage was financed, largely or in part, by Sephardic and Marrano Jewish bankers.
So, while your statement is a caricature of the facts, a thorough analysis of colonialism would require close study of this issue. The roles of the two races would have to be meticulously disentangled. Possibly, as turned out to be the case with Negro slavery and the plantation system, the Jewish role in colonialism was much greater than the conventional narrative indicates.
I can partly agree with you. However, a neo-colonial reconquista of areas with a majority non-white population such as Rhodesia, SW Africa and South Africa will forever remain an illusion.
As for the past, I have no moral objection to the historical settlement of Europeans in areas on the globe that were only sparsely populated by primitive hunting-gathering tribes, such as in North America, the area East of the Andes in South America, Siberia and Australia, provided those primitive peoples were resettled in own reservations in as humane a manner as possible (but that was not always the case ). For the rest, the colonization of areas already densely populated by other races ultimately proved to be of no advantage for Europeans and perhaps for the local peoples as well. We can brag that we “brought civilization” to those areas, but we should keep in mind that for example a country like Thailand never was a European colony and yet is more developed than Birma which was a colony. Most other ex-colonies became more developed after decolonization, see for example India and Indonesia.
Europeans also made several blunders in their colonizations. In Latin America they miscegenated with the local population on a grand scale, creating a majority Mestizo population. To complicate matters, they imported millions of African slaves into the New World creating a demographic problem insoluble to the present day. In South Africa and Rhodesia their beneficient rule caused the local black population to grow exponently, thus endangering that very rule.
All in all, European world colonization was too unsystematic, too much inspired by greed, short sightedness and sometimes naivete to be ultimately beneficient.
Unfortunately we cannot do it over again in a better way.
It was perceptive of you to pick up on the main difference between southern Africa (the three countries named) and the others I mentioned. I was conscious of this fact. However, my aim would be to expel the blacks northward. They were not present in southern Africa until about 500 AD. The Bushmen were the native inhabitants (hunter gatherers, so not a dense population), but they were supplanted by the southern migration of the blacks (Bantus).
I watched (closely followed) the deliberate destruction of South Africa while it happened, because by that time I understood the underlying racial dynamics. It is absolutely unforgivable, as is the treatment of the white inhabitants since. The southern African countries were First World nations—South Africa even possessed nuclear weapons.
My heart is absolutely hard on that score. I’d take it back—all back. The blacks can move northward. My idea is not to “repeat India” there. Whites would not rule over a large black population as before.
In terms of race-mixing and other mistakes, the point is to learn from the past, not to repeat it.
As I stated in the article, European colonialism represented the instinctual behavior of a people over a 500-year time span. One shouldn’t think of it as a planned, thought-out sort of thing, because that’s not what it was.
The southern cone of South America is quite White (and contains arguably the best soils and climate in the world for agriculture and cattle) and most probably will stay so for a long time after Western Europe, the Anglosphere, the Francosphere, and the rest of the Portuguese-Spanishsphere have become flooded with non-europeans.
I believe that, together with Eastern and Central Europe (starting approx. east of the Rhine), is the region of the world that will stay majority White.
Dark Henry: “I believe that, together with Eastern and Central Europe (starting approx. east of the Rhine), is the region of the world that will stay majority White.”
Where I live, which is in Western Europe, the non-Whites are less than 5% of the population and are all recent arrivals, but we are supposed to believe that we can never expel them, because it would be too traumatic. And we can not prevent them from becoming the majority in a few decades, because we can not go against the march of history, and the capitalists need more and more illiterate, unemployable, violent, low IQ third-worlders. So, we are told that we can never undo what has not even been done yet.
In actual fact, no technical or moral obstacles prevent us from expelling the invaders. The only obstacle is political. What is unfolding today in Western countries is much more traumatic to us than it would be for the non-whites to be expelled. In fact, what is happening now is proof that we can easily expel the invaders when we take back political power. If it is possible for third-world people who have nothing to do with us, don’t like us, and have never lived in Europe or the USA, to come en masse and destroy our nations by the means of racial replacement, then it will be all the more easy to send them back home. It will be morally easier because by doing so, we won’t commit any genocide, but we will prevent our own genocide. It is our moral duty to ourselves, our children, and our ancestors. And it won’t be too hard on the people we expel because they will find themselves back in their home nation among other people like themselves.
If Europe and the USA only had a few thousand non-whites here and there, it would be possible to ignore the subject. We would prevent any new immigration but we would make an exception for the few non-Whites who are already living among us. But there are now so many of them that the only choice is between our destruction and their expulsion. And once we start expelling them, there is no longer any reason to make exceptions.
Easier to say than to do.
Countryside areas of Western Europe are still ok, e.g. I was in Western Ireland some time ago and it was a great place to be with great Irish people. Same of other countries.
But the big cities of Western Europe are already a nightmare. And then I read this:
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6389-winchester-churchill-quotation-gets-liberty-gb-leader-paul-weston-arrested
I said there are few immigrants where I live, and we are asked to accept our replacement as an accomplished fact before it has even been accomplished. But the situation is similar even in places that have more immigrants. In the USA, the life of White people has suffered a lot. The White birth rate has been hit, half the births are non-white already, and it could be said that the genocide is well under way. But actually, the genocide has barely begun, and most of the suffering is still to come. There are still 200 million Whites, and they are told to accept their destruction while the non-white population already in the country will be multiplied by three or four, and a hundred million new immigrants will arrive. My conclusion is that it has not happened yet. It isn’t an accomplished fact.
And in fifty years, if the situation of the Whites has become desperate, it will be all the more reason to try to expel the non-whites. After all, if it was so easy to replace White people with non-whites, there is no reason to think that we cannot do the opposite.
“Easier to say than to do.”
It is easy to say, and it is also important to say: it is us or them. And also, we have to state our principles before we think of the political difficulties.
White people have been occupying Europe for thousands of years, and it isn’t considered as an accomplished fact. But if the son of an immigrant is born in a White country, it becomes an accomplished fact, something irreversible. That is an absurd point of view. Even if the Whites become less than 10% of the population, they should still try to take their country back.
The promoters of mass immigration usually say that we are all the same: it makes no difference whether we are white, black, yellow. It is a phony argument, but it works both ways. The idea is that there is no point in resisting our replacement or in resisting Jewish power, since our skin color makes no difference. But for the same reason, it could just as well be argued that there is no reason to replace the Whites, no reason to accept the Jewish domination, and no reason why White countries should not become White again. Since nothing makes any difference.
The real reason why we should not be afraid of defending our collective existence is that the non-Whites already have a nation and a country of their own, somewhere in the third-world. And it will still be true in a hundred years. And if they didn’t have a country of their own, we would still need to get racial separation. Of course, they don’t want racial separation either. They are after our money. They want to stay with us until we are no more!
May I ask who is moderating this thread? Do authors moderate their own threads, or does Dr. Johnson? Or both?
In this case, both.
And thank you Mr Johnson for moderating your excellent site’s comments section. It is a refreshing change, not having to wade through innumerable Oriental trolls to find the white peoples’ comments, as I had to do for years while reading at The Occidental Observer, until Dr MacDonald finally removed commenting entirely. I believe he was correct in doing so, if moderation was not feasible.
I don’t know if others have expressed their appreciation of your efforts to keep the comments free of troll clutter, but I certainly do.
Andrew Hamilton: “a Greater Europe or White Imperium”
The idea of recreating an empire for the White race is inspiring, but at the same time, it sounds a little aggressive and tends to confirm the Jewish claim that we are oppressors, even though we are the ones being invaded. The word “empire” suggests the idea of ruling over other people, when in fact we only want to reclaim our home countries.
I like the idea of mass expulsions but it sounds aggressive too. I think what we should support more than anything else is racial separation and ethnic regrouping. Every race needs to have a safe territory (which is another way of saying that we are going to expel the non-whites).
Anyway, the non-whites do not really want our territory. They are here for the money. When we expel them, they will regret the financial loss, but they won’t feel that they have lost territory to the Whites. As immigrants living in a foreign country, they are individualists. They don’t have territorial interests.
They don’t want our territory? According to them they do. Read some La Raza or Muslim literature. They have whole sites in English for their people born here. They call it respectively the Reconquista and the Jihad. You may be thinking of early immigration when a group has few people who usually work hard and keep their heads down. Add a few million and they start feeling and acting differently. Numbers are a philosophical principle, a lever that can move the world.
Jaego: “Add a few million and they start feeling and acting differently.”
But when the immigrants are of different races, it is difficult for them to have territorial claims as an ethnic group. Anyway, the Mexicans are in the USA for the money, not to expand the Mexican empire. If California was given to Mexico, they would have to move east, to keep getting subsidies.
By the way, I’ve heard that Mexico has a mostly White government, and I don’t think the mestizos in Mexico have the same anti-White tendencies they have in the US. Who is encouraging their hostility? The same people who let the immigrants into the country and who give them public money. The invasion was not decided by the National Council of La Raza.
“Read some La Raza or Muslim literature”
Islam and La Raza are used as scarecrows and lightning rods by the Jewish media.
Since 9/11, I’ve read a lot of literature by Jewish “counter-jihadists” who try to control the French nationalist circles. They don’t call themselves counter-jihadists, but they walk in the steps of Pamela Geller: they see islam as a great problem, while race-replacement doesn’t bother them. In the US, the idea that democracy is under threat from islam and the shariah is particularly absurd, given the low number of Muslims. But it doesn’t make much more sense in Europe. Actually, our problem is Jewish, not Muslim.
Islam is a great invention. It protects us against race mixing. The main obstacle to race mixing is the violence of the Blacks and Arabs, their uncouthness, their low IQ. But islam is an additional brake. It is excellent news that not all the Arabs born in France want to give up their religion. The burqa is good too.
In the last few months, I saw a few videos of Black people swarming over the border fence in Melilla and Ceuta, two Spanish towns on the coast of Morocco. It was supposed to illustrate the demographic pressure from Africa. In fact, it would be easy to stop them. But the European authorities in charge of stopping them are giving them free transport instead. They patrol the sea to make sure that any non-white on a boat will be sent to safety to Europe. So, it is difficult to see that as a planned Muslim invasion. It is a Muslim invasion that was not planned by Muslims.
Well of course Muslims and Mexicans will take advantage of weakness and the duplicity of our Elite. Are they being used? Of course and they are using them. If the European Union think they can tame Islam they are kidding themselves. Some propose a grand theory, that Islam is being built up so it can bring neutralize Western Culture. If so, the Elite have grabbed onto the tiger’s tail and once the Muslims have access to Europe’s nuclear weapons, all bets and predictions are off. Of course they could convert to Islam I suppose and keep their wealth. But I doubt if that’s really their first option or much to their taste.
Islam is a great race mixer but you are right: it’s not as viciously hostile to us as the current Order. They wouldn’t insist on the death of the White Race the way the Jews do. The Bosnians are respectable Muslims and still more or less White.
The Mexican groups are intent on driving Whites out and say so in so many words. This is not unique to Mexico and is part of a general Indian revolt against Whites in several parts of Latin America. And yes, they know it would be suicide to revolt directly against the Whites who rule Mexico – though some say the drug wars are really part of the Indian revolt. And sure Marxists are involved too but again, who is using who? I mean is Robert Mugabe a great Marxist or a ruthless African War Chief? Both. Marxism has become very broad – anything that is against Whites can “be a Marxism”.