The Necessity of Anti-ColonialismEugène Montsalvat
French translation here
Anti-colonialism must be a component of any ideology that attempts to defend rooted identities. It is necessary to oppose the uprooting of peoples in the pursuit of power and wealth. In both its historical imperial form and in its modern financial guise, colonialism has warped both the colonist and colonizer, mixing, diluting, and even annihilating entire cultures and peoples. We know about the negative impact of colonialism on the colonized. However, its consequences for the people of colonial nations are rarely discussed, in order to reinforce a narrative that demonizes European history.
Unfortunately, many patriotic, average whites feel some sort of pride in their imperial history. They do not realize that they are its victims as well. Hidden from the historical record are the poor and working class whites who served as cannon fodder for the agenda of plutocrats intent on extending their empire of wealth. They were forced to compete against foreign labor, occasionally even against slave labor. Consider how the suffering of thousands of Irish, Scottish, and English people forced to serve as indentured servants–that is, frankly, white slaves–by the British Empire in America has been conveniently erased from public knowledge. How many people know of the struggle of white Australian laborers who stood up to the English colonial power that wanted to undercut their wages with Indian and Chinese immigrants? These facts are hidden from our consciousness by our leaders, the end result being a suicidal support for an exploitative system or a guilt complex that feeds modern neocolonialism in the guise of “human rights” and “progress.”
If there is any nostalgia for the empires of the past among patriotic whites, it should be wiped away when they realize what those empires have transmogrified into. When vast empires no longer maximized profit, their controllers saw the borders between them dissolved to ensure a truly global financial oligarchy. Today the agenda behind colonialism is laid bare: it was never about bravery and exploration but about the economic exploitation of all the peoples of the world. It is not Faustian courage, but mercantile greed that drives the will to consume the entire earth.
While colonialism is not a distinctly European phenomenon, for our purposes we’ll look at how European colonialism evolved into the global neo-colonialism that plagues us today. Before what is called the “Age of Exploration” that saw the rise of European colonial empires overseas, there was a significant shift in the values of Europe. Before the Renaissance, Western Europe was dominated by feudal values, which were essentially religious in nature. Here we see superpolitical ideas dominate the political discourse. To quote Julius Evola on the feudal regime:
In this type of regime the principle of plurality and of relative political autonomy of the individual parts is emphasized, as is the proper context of the universal element, that unum quod non est pars [one that is not part of, i.e. God] that alone can really organize and unify these parts, not by contrasting but by presiding over each of them through the transcendent, superpolitical, and regulating functions that the universal embodies.
In this quote we see that the foundation of the polity is religious, its parts unified by divine power. As the feudal system declined, what was seen as the holy vocation of statecraft became replaced by simple, humanistic diplomacy. In place of spiritual unity, the emergence of the nation state and its absolutism provided the bonding forces of politics. From this great upheaval we see the rise of the mercantile classes, especially in Italy, as the feudal Holy Roman Empire receded from the peninsula. This lead to the Renaissance. While some may think of the Renaissance as the revival of Classical virtues lost under the domination of Christian despotism, it was superficial, exalting a decadent humanism and individualism not found in healthy pagan societies. Sparta it was not.
Evola recounts the consequences:
In the domain of culture this potential produced the tumultuous outburst of multiple forms of creativity almost entirely deprived of any traditional or even symbolic element, and also, on an external plane, the almost explosive scattering of European populations all over the world during the age of discoveries, explorations, and colonial conquests that occurred during the Renaissance and age of humanism. These were the effects of a scattering of forces resembling the scattering of forces that follows the disintegration of an organism.
European colonialism began when the soul of Europe died. In place of God, stood greed and human self-adulation. The domination of materialist values we see today is a direct consequence of the inversion of values that resulted from the death of feudalism.
Like all systems where money is the highest good, the new colonial regime was dominated by mercantile forces. The financial power behind the Spanish empire was the Fugger banking dynasty, which was later replaced by Genoese merchants after Spain went bankrupt several times during the reign of Phillip II. In a manner similar to America’s foreign adventurism, Spain’s imperial dreams drove the state to ruin and left them at the mercy of avaricious creditors. This would certainly not be the last time that the benefits of colonialism have gone into the pockets of bankers at grievous expense to the people of the nation. The financial troubles of Spain lead one its erstwhile territories to declare independence and pursue its own colonial ambitions.
That would be the Netherlands, which created a mercantile empire through international banking. Much like how modern creditors hold entire nations, such as Greece, in their thrall, the Dutch merchants lent to foreign governments and then demanded concessions when they couldn’t pay. In addition, the Dutch created what is often considered the first multinational corporation to pursue their colonial profiteering, the Dutch East India Company. This corporation was imbued with great power, even the power to declare war. Thus common Dutch men would go off to die for their corporate masters. No, George Bush was not the first man to slaughter his countrymen for corporate greed. However, not to be outdone by the Dutch. The British created their own East India Company. Intense rivalry in the spice trade and over the territories of the crumbling Spanish Empire fueled violence. In 1623 agents of the Dutch East India Company massacred ten British in the employ of the British East India Company in Indonesia during the Amboyna Massacre. Eventually, their economic tensions would grow into full blown warfare, culminating in Three Anglo-Dutch wars in the 1600s. In 1688, the James II of England was overthrown by the Dutch backed William of Orange and his English wife Mary.
This so called Glorious Revolution was a coup for Dutch finance. William of Orange, who became William III upon assuming the English throne, was heavily indebted to Dutch bankers. Under his regime, the Bank of England was established to lend the throne money at interest. Thus England’s colonial empire was now the agent of capital. The Bank of England was modeled after the Dutch Wisselbank, which backed the Province of Holland, the City of Amsterdam, and the Dutch East India Company. Therefore, the public debt of the people became the private profit of the banks. If an expensive colonial war was fought, the bank always won, for either way its loans are repaid with the spoils or forcibly extracted from the indebted through foreclosures and credit restrictions. While we may think of these struggles as glorious feats of courage and daring, ultimately it was the blood sacrifice of honest men that fattened the Golden Calf of usury. One of the families profiting from this global web of sovereign debt was the infamous Rothschild family.
Originating in Frankfurt, in what is now Germany and establishing the branches in the imperial capitals of Paris, Naples, Vienna, and London. Nathan Rothschild became involved in financing the British war against Napoleon, using his international connections to funnel information on the continent to London. We should note that Napoleon’s economic policies sought to achieve autarky and limit usury through low interest rate loans given through the Bank of France. However, Napoleon was defeated and the forces of international finance reigned over Europe. Nathan’s grandson, Natty, saw the British Empire as a vehicle for his commercial interests. He became a friend of British imperialist, Cecil Rhodes. However, he was a fair weather friend, even floating loans to the Boer government, playing both sides in the colonial game.
It is clear that to the Rothschilds, the British Empire was merely the best mechanism for protecting their profits; they had no loyalty to it. Yet, it was not just the Rothschilds who were willing to use the empire as grist for their mills. In Australia, British colonial interests sought to displace white gold miners with cheap labor from China and India. Against the greed of their rulers, the Australian workers rose up, organizing and agitating against immigration from other parts of the Empire. William Lane, a founder of the Australian Labor Party said:
Here we face the hordes of the east as our kinsmen faced them in the dim distant centuries, and here we must beat them back if we would keep intact all that can make our lives worth living. It does not matter that today it is an insidious invasion of peaceful aliens instead of warlike downpour of weaponed men. Monopolistic capitalism has no colour and no country.
In the sheep shearing industry W. G. Spence fought against free trade policies of Joseph Chamberlain, who sought to allow waves of Asian labor to lower the wages of white laborers. The rising of the Australian workers led to the formulation of a White Australia Policy to prevent the Empire from using foreign labor to challenge white workers. As the 19th century drew to a close, the imperialism of kings, flags, and exploration was becoming passé. The capitalists were no longer content with vast empires. They wanted the entire world. The rise of American power would give them that opportunity.
The financial powers saw the old model of a world divided into regional powers as a barrier to their goal of a global economy. In the Fourteen Points Woodrow Wilson advocated free trade and the self determination of the former colonial territories. While self-determination may sound vaguely nationalistic, in reality its goal was to dissolve the old empires and assimilate them in bite sized pieces into the new American led global economy, replacing “Great Power” colonialism with international neocolonialism. The Atlantic Charter devised after the Second World War reiterated these points. In the wake of the Second World War, America’s seemingly anti-colonial foreign policy is exposed as merely a fig leaf for financial imperialism. In Africa, the US sought to break down the old colonial empires and impose American lackeys as their new leadership. I quote from a previous essay of mine:
In 1953 the Africa-America Institute was created to train a pro-American leader class for the post-colonial African nations. The AAI has received funding from the US government’s USAID and as of 2008 it counts Citibank, Coca-Cola, De Beers, Exxon Mobil, and Goldman Sachs among its sponsors. The AAI’s East Africa Refugee Program, which ran from 1962-1971, and the Southern African Training Program supported the training of FNLA terrorists against the Portuguese, ostensibly to prevent the Soviet backed MPLA from gaining power. The resulting civil war killed 500,000 over 27 years. With the Portuguese, whose Catholic social policies limited involvement in the global economy, removed from the picture, global corporations were free to strike deals with the newly installed government of Mozambique. Anglo-American Corporation negotiated a sale of chrome loading equipment the day Mozambique’s Samora Machel proclaimed the beginning of nationalization.
As we see, the hidden hand behind these allegedly anti-colonial movements in Africa was American cash. These newly “independent” nations were merely puppets for Western financial interests.
However, true nationalist alternatives existed. Consider Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who articulated a nationalist and eventually pan-Africanist vision of self-determination. Gaddafi nationalized Libya’s oil industry, taking it out of the hands of foreign corporations, using the money to provide health-care and education for his people. First promoting Pan-Arabism and then Pan-Africanism, he sought to form a geopolitical bloc against foreign domination, as each nation by itself was too weak to challenge the full might of the United States.
Gaddafi’s vision was inspired by another Arab revolutionary, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, who promoted a pan-Arab socialism. What he sought to do was assert the sovereignty of the people against both British and French colonialism and American neocolonialism. He saw the chaos they produced, especially through their support of Israel and their puppets in Saudi Arabia, who had been installed by the English for aiding them against the Ottomans in the First World War. Nasser was quite keen in recognizing this Saudi-Israeli alliance of American puppets, which wreaks all havoc in the Middle East to this day, stating, “To liberate all Jerusalem, the Arab peoples must first liberate Riyadh.”
Among Nasser’s supporters was Francis Parker Yockey, the author of Imperium, who wrote anti-Zionist propaganda in Egypt. A man of vision who saw the old powers fading away into an American Jewish dominated global empire, he sought allies who resisted America’s Zionist New World Order. He saw Western Europe devolving into an American colony after the Second World War and called for it to assert itself in his Proclamation of London. With Nasser, he saw the Arabs asserting themselves in a similar manner.
Across the Atlantic, Juan Domingo Perón of Argentina, pursued a geopolitical agenda intended to foil American backed neocolonialism, seeking to unite South America as a bloc for the independent development of its peoples. During his exile, he sought contacts with European nationalists who sought to resist American domination following the Second World War, including Jean Thiriart and Oswald Mosley. Perón saw South American anti-colonialists and European nationalists as natural allies, stating in a letter to Thiriart, “A united Europe would count a population of nearly 500 million, The South American continent already has more than 250 million. Such blocs would be respected and effectively oppose the enslavement to imperialism which is the lot of a weak and divided country.” During his final term in office, Perón, also pursued alignment with Gaddafi’s Libya.
By the 1960s, the complete dissolution of the European empires, combined with the rise of the US backed Zionist power in the Middle East, required European patriots to realign with third world anti-imperialists. The previously mentioned Jean Thiriart stated, “European revolutionary patriots support the formation of special fighters for the future struggle against Israel; technical training of the future action aimed to a struggle against the Americans in Europe; building of an anti-American and anti-Zionist information service for a simultaneous utilization in the Arabian countries and in Europe.”1 Ultimately, Thiriart’s goal of creating European Brigades to aid in the liberation of Palestine went unrealized. However, Thiriart’s goal to transform Palestine into Israel’s Vietnam may yet still be possible, as the Israeli war machine’s utter brutality towards the Palestinians gains increasingly negative exposure. As their excuses for brazen cruelty begin to lose power, we will once again see heroes rally to their standard to free Jerusalem.
Our current situation offers several outlets to continue to struggle. Firstly, we must realize that the creed of greed, which has infected our own people, is the enemy. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the right in America, it must be intransigently anti-liberal. The decline of our people did not begin in 1960. Simple opposition to the New Left is not going to solve our problems. It is foolish to praise the 19th century, one of industrial exploitation of our own working class, petty nationalism tearing ancient kingdoms asunder, and scientific rationalism de-sacralizing the world. The Enlightenment and its fruits must be rejected outright, for they brought an end to the domination of religious institutions and replaced them with the rule of gold. Ultimately, we must affirm spiritual values over materialistic ones. We must first win the spiritual battle before the political battle can begin. To defeat the global rule of the merchants, we must destroy the merchant in our souls. We must affirm Tradition, in the sense of Julius Evola, before we can become politically radical.
Once we have overcome the parasite in our own spirit, we must meet its external manifestations. That is the US/EU/NATO/Israel axis. This is the heartland of liberal capitalism, the new Carthage, that seeks to turn the peoples of the world into their raw material. It is in the interest of big business to destroy the traditions of a people and replace them with consumerism, to eliminate the borders that prevent the flow of cheap labor. The capitalist seeks little more than to turn the world into their private plantation. This mercantile virus, which first implanted itself through the colonial empires of old will become truly fatal if capitalist neocolonialism is allowed to pursue full globalization. Thus we must recognize our allies. Indeed, our enemies have already pointed them out, calling any nation that seeks to retain its sovereignty against the dictates of American imperialism a rogue state that hate’s freedom and democracy. The old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true.
One leader fighting the global system today is Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. He is facing down US and Saudi backed Wahhabists who seek to topple an Arab nationalist regime that has stood since the days of Thiriart. He is backed by two other organizations that have undergone American demonization, Hezbollah and Iran. Just recently we have witnessed the audacity of Israel’s imperialist regime, killing an Iranian general and Hezbollah fighters on Syrian soil on January 19th. While it may seem that radical Islam and Zionism are at odds, in the case of Syria they are two heads to the same coin, minted in the US I may add. Both the Israelis and the Wahhabists seek to destroy the Arab nationalists like Assad, while taking millions of dollars from the United States. If we wish to combat radical Islam, we must combat liberalism and Zionism as well. We must stand with Arab socialists and nationalists who wish to provide a nation that puts people before profits, we must stand against Israeli and Saudi backed warmongering that drives people from their ancestral homes, and we must stand against the capitalists who seek to use foreign labor to undercut their native working class. Nationalists and socialists of all nations must recognize that they are locked in a common struggle.
One nationalist and socialist figure, similarly hated by the American establishment, was Hugo Chávez. Inspired by both Perón and leftists such as Castro, he sought to unite South America against neo-liberalism, that is the financial colonialism of the United States. Thus he created the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of our America (ALBA), which consists of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela. These organization seeks to aid the nations of South America to improve themselves through social welfare and mutual aid. Moreover, Chávez was also a resolute anti-Zionist, even going so far as to claim that “the descendants of those who crucified Christ . . . have taken ownership of the riches of the world, a minority has taken ownership of the gold of the world, the silver, the minerals, water, the good lands, petrol, well, the riches, and they have concentrated the riches in a small number of hands.” Chávez died of cancer in 2013, but his movement lives on.
Among the leaders who carry the torch of Bolivarian Revolution is Bolivia’s Evo Morales, a socialist who has pursued a redistribution of his nation’s wealth from the hands of multinational corporations to his own people. In 2008, Morales successfully fought off a coup engineered with the support of US Ambassador Philip Goldberg. While many of the American right still harbor their Cold War fears of Latin American nationalism, this only serves to line the pockets of men like Goldberg. Nationalists must stand in solidarity with one another.
And finally, target number one of globalism, Russia. America is clearly waging economic warfare on Russia through its sanctions, through the IMF support for the Kiev junta, through attempts by Western credit agencies to downgrade Russia. Russia’s refusal to bow to Western liberal standards in regards to sexuality, religion, and culture has earned America’s enmity. Putin’s refusal to become the glorified serving boy at the international table has drawn the ire of NATO. Putin has realized that the attempts at rapprochement with the Western led global economy had led to disastrous consequences for the Russian people. Growing from his role of cleaning up the utter ruin left by Yeltsin he has reasserted a Russian identity as the basis of his superpower. In his speech to Valdai Club, Putin defends Russia’s traditions, and the traditions of all peoples, against Western liberalism:
Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilization. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.
What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.
At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.2
In this speech, Putin demonstrates the influence of geopolitical theorist Alexander Dugin, who is stridently opposed to the homogenized, unipolar world that Western globalist capitalism seeks to impose through financial neo-colonialism. In his Fourth Political Theory he asserts the identities of various civilizations as models for their respective geopolitical blocs in an alignment against the decadence of the modern world.
We know our allies, those who wish to preserve a rooted identity for their own people, and we know our enemies, those who wish to destroy all traditions in favor of a global consumer society. For hundreds of years we have seen our sons been shipped off to die for the profit of those who feel no love for their nation, we have seen our culture warped by greed. Deceived by promises of glory and disingenuous patriotism, we have marched off far too many times to count so that the gold lust of traitors could be satisfied. This is what colonialism has wrought, a global sweatshop where people from all the races of the earth can compete for the lowest wages, while our leaders count their 30 pieces of silver. Now, we must be the vanguard of a global conflict, the rebels in the heart of the empire. We must join our brothers in the fight for global liberation. The North American New Right must be resolutely anti-colonial. For the freedom of our people, and all the peoples of the world.
Východ a Západ – gordický uzel: kniha Ernsta Jüngera Der gordische Knoten
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 525 On Capitalism, Socialism, & the Ethnostate
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
By the Twisted Word, Slain; By the Good Word, Saved . . . & Other Stories Part III
Twelve Months Later: Anthony Burgess’ 1985
An Open Letter to Scott Adams
New Video! Why Do White Nationalists Sabotage Their Own Movement?
Great essay, although a bit weak in the second part I think. I have too long believed that anti-colonialism should be part of any nationalist movement. As Eugene says, the purpose of colonialism was the acquisition of wealth, not the advancement of the White race. Indeed one of the key myths of the anti-White doctrine seems to be that all pre-democratic/colonial elites were implicitly White nationalist in orientation, when nothing could be further from the truth. You could expand a lot on this topic. In fact, I’m surprised you didn’t mention how colonial regimes promoted miscegenation in Latin America. One fact that is often overlooked is that the casta system was actually designed promote race-mixing, by giving black and native women an incentive to marry single white men, of whom there were always more than white women in the colonies. Clearly, when it was possible to create a rootless worker, with no identity but one intimately related to the colony itself, this was preferable over White men belonging to more established communities. Indeed, the Dutch East India Company attempted to limit settler colonialism in South Africa, because they felt that bushmen workers would be easier to exploit.
As for North America, the opposition to miscegenation stemmed I think more from the common-law Anglo settlers fearing that such mixing would lead to the loss of their rights as Englishmen, combined with low population density of the continent necessitating the importation of White women anyway. Thus anti-miscegenation laws, like the anti-immigration movements, were the manifestation of working and middle class Whites resisting exploitation from their colonial elites. Another thing that needs to remembered is that the elite social circles who promote anti-White policies and decry the horrors of colonialism today, are also those which benefited most from the colonial project, i.e. Jewish bankers, freemasons, rich whites, both of the aristocratic and bourgeois varieties. The Council of European Canadians has an interesting article on the Fabian society, one of the leading institutions of neo-liberalism in the UK (http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2014/06/the-socialist-capitalist-alliance.html ). Apparently many of its founders where freemasons who held important positions in the British East India Company. That they consorted with Jews is not surprising either, as the elites of Europe had always considered themselves above the petty distinctions of ‘nationhood’, marrying into various houses across ethnic lines, and later a great deal with Jews. Indeed, the British colonization of Africa, and the disgraceful interventions in China, were largely motivated and funded by Jewish banking families, such as the Rothschilds, the Openheimers, the Sassoons, among others.
Thus we see the true nature of European colonialism was far from White nationalist. And of course, I’m haven’t touched upon slavery, its Jewish connections, and its effects on the White working class in America (i.e. the creation of a Poor White class reminiscent of the medieval serfs). At the same time though, I don’t think that it is wrong for Whites to take pride in the great achievements Europeans have made during the Age of Exploration and thereafter. While it is true that the higher-ups were only motivated by greed (isn’t that always the case?) that does not in anyway lessen the hardships and the challenges faced by European pioneers and explorers throughout history, nor does it mean that it was not Europeans’ courage and ingenuity that allowed our colonial masters to dominate an entire planet, spreading our civilization to the far corners of the Earth. But that age has passed, and as the old empires have merged into a nebulous global oligarchy, it’s time for pro-Whites and anti-Whites to understand that these were not fundamentally White nationalist projects. This is important because consistency and fairness are so important to our people. It also means we can reclaim some of our race’s best authors, such as Joseph Conrad, who warned us of the dangers of thrusting ourselves into lives of alien races, although it does admittedly put dear old Kipling in a bit of a worse light. There’s nothing wrong with sentimentality and romanticism of the old imperial days, provided that it is counter-balanced with a sober view of reality. I’m pretty sure no Mongols today seriously condone the mass killing and raping of entire civilizations, yet they still take pride in their ancestors’ accomplishments.
Another thing I’d like to add. I’m not so convinced that the humanism and absolutism of the post-feudal West were really all that antithetical to religion. Indeed religion and universalism seemed to have gone hand in hand, and whenever Europeans set foot on alien soil, the missionaries were always right there with them, tending to the natives, mobilizing resources for them, indoctrinating them into the ideology of universal love, calling upon them to renounce their folkways and accept the Western civilization as a model for their societies, a key pillar of colonialism in many regions of the world. Indeed the White Man’s Burden of civilizing (which for many meant Christianizing) the rest of the world was meant to appeal to Whites as a calling which would go hand in hand with political and economic colonization. This same attitudes persists in an outwardly secularized form today in the cult of Third-World humanitarianism which draws so many idealistic young Whites (both liberal-marxist and Christian) to spend their youths, their energies and their attentions on non-Whites. The articles here on Counter-Currents about the Kony 2012 fad are quite illustrative of the connection I think.
To put forth Christian fedualism as a preferable to early modern centralization strikes me as terribly misguided. Indeed, there is a reason why nationalism started out as a leftist movement in that period. It’s because nationalism and socialism, which were born out of an increasingly urbanized and educated populace becoming aware of its place in the world, put the focus of society on the broader community, including the common people, rather than on the imperialist aspirations of an entrenched elite who couldn’t give a fig about what colour or ethnic identity their peasant underlings belonged to. Indeed, empires had a tendency to favour large multi-ethnic domains, the better rule over the divided and disorganized serfs. White nationalists should really re-interpret the early leftists, anti-colonialists and anti-monarchists in that light. This whole ‘Dark Enlightenment’ fad of “restoring the monarchy” strikes me as childish and stupid. Can you really demonstrate historically that monarchies were less prone to cultural and ethnic destructiveness that republics or democracies? Are the United Kingdom and Sweden better off than Switzerland or Hungary? As far as I know, monarchies have always been hostile to nationalist movements, and despotism tends to see Tradition as an inhibition to its power to manipulate the people. I’m all for no taxation without representation and accountability, and all that stuff. Just so long as it’s within an all-White context.
Well put, John. I’d like to add that, however “petty” (as per Monsalvat) national minorities’ waging war against White (and often nominally nationalist) empires on the part of may be (e.g. Czechs, Hungarians against Austria; or, more to the point, Ukraine against Russia and Donbass against Ukraine), it’s usually the rulers who are the more lucre-motivated, and ultimately it strikes me as quite irresponsible to deny the nationalist aspirations of those willing to die for their country’s identity, especially when so doing just engenders unnecessary hatreds that the Gold Worshippers are all too happy to exploit. Of course, in the case of a mixed society like east Ukraine, untangling the relative proportions of people in favor of and opposed to secession is tricky, which seems like an argument for a population transfer to me….
Great piece! There is much to work with here, more avenues of thought to pursue, and I hope the above resonates with CC readers.
Many of us are still unaware of the real nuts and bolts of colonialism and cling to the (natural but misplaced) nostalgia for empire as simply a state of White global hegemony, in which our interests were seemingly paramount. But this fondness is nothing more than slavish devotion to symbols created and/or manipulated centuries ago to do just that–create a sense of false unity and arouse feelings of patriotism in order to mask the wanton exploitation of working class Whites as well as the obscene oppression of various native populations. The same powers that control us now were honing their craft in India, Burma, Indonesia, etc. Even the “hate speech” laws which, as we all know, imprison or otherwise punish Whites for speaking out for our own racial interests were beta-tested in the colonies. White Nationalists need to start thinking in terms of being a colonized people (that is, shed any and all residual notions of true sovereignty and recognize our position as a subaltern people within the global system), derive strength and unity through the internalization of that notion and tailor our discourse accordingly. We should adopt the language of the anti-colonialists: the use of ‘collaborator’ instead of ‘liberal,’ for example.
There is a lot to be said here.
As I understand the argument: the real enemy of white peoples is in the hostile elite class which has usurped control of Western countries. The economic exploitation abroad has been mirrored in economic exploitation at home. Today, via globalization, the elites are creating a trans-national polity in which the white middle and working classes are to be dispossessed/ruled as if they were a colonial population. The final goal is for the elites to consolidate world power (with ideological justification via formulae such as “One World under Law” or “New World Order” or the “World Is Flat,” or whatever).
The article is a fair enough assessment, though it does verge on various conspiracy theories such as Gary Allen’s “Insiders” or the Occupy Movement’s “One Percent” (which is not to dismiss the argument per se since there are conspiracies). Regardless, we see this playing out in the growing power of supranational agencies, transnational corporations and elite funded NGOs–while white people are being dispossessed in their own lands, and are being subjected to increasingly repressive regimes (e.g., hatespeech laws).
But there are other things to consider. One is that many white countries were created as a result of colonialism: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and arguably the United States, Argentina and Uruguay. There were also white colonial states such as South Africa and Algeria until they were “liberated” (i.e., surrendered) and thus became a net loss to white civilization. As for Russia, regardless of what one thinks of Vladimir Putin, it controls the Eurasian heartland and perhaps can muster sufficient military-economic power to challenge the emerging globalist world order.
We’d also have to look at non-white colonization of traditional white territories in centuries past: most notably, the Islamic-Arab-Turkish conquests of the Roman Levant, North Africa, Anatolia and, at times, much of Iberia, Sicily and the Balkans–and let’s not forget Aryan Iran. A case can be made that the French colonization of the Maghreb in the 19th century, and the Italian of Libya in the early 20th, were attempts to reestablish white control of the Mediterranean littoral. The various Russian imperial offensives against the Ottoman Empire in the 18th-19th century were in part justified as reclaiming the ancient Christian city of Constantinople. Would such projects have to be abandoned? If nothing else, European dominance of the Med’s littoral was a rampart against non-white migration from southern climes.
Today we are seeing the mass migration of non-whites into European and other white heartlands. Are the invaders to be deterred by informing Africans and Arabs that they are engaged in “colonialism” and thus should turn around and go home? We’d have to get them to play by the rules of respecting borders, measures which might lead to war. I do not say that lightly–consider the various African and Asian “wars of national liberation” which took place in the Cold War era against European colonial rule. Is it now time for white peoples to engage in similar struggles? Presumably, before the external invaders can be defeated there would have to be a reckoning with the West’s own treasonable ruling elites.
As for the Palestinians…I have to ask why many white nationalists make the struggle against Israel their issue while white people are being dispossessed in their own countries. Ethnic cleansing of whites is taking place openly in South Africa (farm murders, attacks on Boer culture). And it’s happening more quietly in the USA (euphemistically termed as “white flight”) and Europe (reports of No Go Zones and anti-white violence). I’d much rather see the creation of an international white brigade to defend Afrikaaners against the ANC. Come to think of it, I’d like to see an international white brigade defend cities like London, Paris and Malmo against pillaging third worlder hordes–and perhaps even reconquer and rebuild Detroit!
To wrap this up, I’d say that white nationalists will need to work together globally since the front is worldwide. Fortunately, there is the Internet and other forms of globalized communications which make this possible. It’s a matter of using the system against itself.
The word ‘colonialism’ has at least two distinct meanings: one is the actual colonization of a region by a community of people (i.e. ‘settler colonialism’), the other is the political domination of one country by another (i.e. New Colonialism), which is principally what is under scrutiny here. Granted the colonization of North America and Australia happened at the expense of the indigenous peoples there, but that is a historical reality, as is the fact that most regions of the world were forcefully settled by one people at the expense of another. What’s important is that White people created these countries, and that for centuries, millions of Whites have, and still do, called them home. The question is not irredentism, which makes you argument about Europeans ‘re-colonizing’ the Middle East absurd. Irredentism is the stupidest form of nationalism, which is why liberals so often support it (i.e., this land belongs to ‘Native Americans’). Ultimately few people can say that they are honestly the first people in all of human history to dwell on their current piece of land. Should we clone Neanderthals and give them back Europe, then? No, because that’s not what nationalism is about. Nationalism is about preserving a community, its identity and its heritage, by giving them a homeland they can belong to. A region which hundreds or thousands of years ago was inhabited by people like you is not your homeland. It’s just an interesting fact of history. There’s no reason to deprive other peoples of their territories, when we can hardly even maintain control over our own. White minority states like South Africa could not have lasted (although the West ensured their collapse to be as disastrous as possible). You had a tiny White minority not only ruling over a resentful racially alien populace, but also providing them with food, healthcare, and education, while spending a great proportion of their resources just policing them. Does that sound like a healthy situation to you? I sympathize with the Afrikaners, but the solution to their problem would have been racial separation. The combined mass of utopian liberals, and short-sighted irredentist conservatives in the country prevented a separatist movement from taking off in time.
You’re presenting a false dilemma. No one here is advocating any kind of World Government, so obviously ‘we’ won’t be arranging ethno-states for every ethnic group. But there’s no reason not to set ethnic self-determination as an ideal policy to be pursued whenever possible for our mutual benefit. Czechs and Slovaks separated because it seemed preferable to them, not because of some belief in each others’ right to be independent. Colonialism on the other hand, has bound up the destinies of White peoples with non-White peoples in a multitude of undesirable ways. Separation is preferable, even if it rubs some ‘Faustians’ the wrong way. Only then can we stop worrying about the daily problems of non-Whites, and set our focus back on the stars.
“Anti-colonialism must be a component of any ideology that attempts to defend rooted identities. It is necessary to oppose the uprooting of peoples in the pursuit of power and wealth.”
^ Since you said “must” instead of “should” (which I would accept for purposes of political expediency, i.e. pragmatism), and “necessary” instead of “helpful” or even “wise”, it should be pointed out that that is closer to sounding like an arbitrary and universalist statement of morality, rather than a useful tip. It would be more convincing and appealing as a piece of simple advice. The moralizing part of it is just annoying.
I spent some time in South Africa when it was still white ruled. A common comment I heard from whites–especially younger whites–was: “You Americans had the right idea when it came to dealing with the native peoples (Indians). You put them on reservations and then settled the land with white people. We made the error of providing the blacks with modern healthcare, food and education, and their populations took off to the point where we whites are now overwhelmed.”
One other comment is worth mentioning: “After World War II we should have opened up South Africa to European immigration. This would have given whites the numbers to maintain control.”
Imagine, if you will, how South Africa might have developed 1946-94 had there been several million Germans or anti-communist East Europeans added to the white population! Of course, they didn’t open up the country to whites.
One reason for keeping white immigration down was because it would have meant paying higher wages to white workers, instead of using the cheap and abundant black labor. And there were too many hardcore Boers who didn’t want to see their land overrun with foreigners. And let’s also not forget the nice white housewife who simply could not live without her black servants. (A lesson to be learned–thought it will be mostly ignored–by the advocates of cheap third world labor in Europe and North America.)
Anyway, they tried to hold on to the system but it proved unsustainable and collapsed–granted, given the betrayal of South African whites by Europe and the USA. Partitioning the country into white and black homelands might have stood some chance of working, had it been done before the black population exploded. Arthur Kemp has an essay about this on his website.
Nonetheless, South African whites are still whites, and we need to support them. All white peoples need to work together.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment