Andrew HamiltonEssays

European Colonialism: A Different Perspective

europe-in-the-14th-century

by Andrew Hamilton

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. (ILLUSTRATION: Before departure: Europe on the eve of expansion (14th century).)

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 minuscule 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.
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.
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 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.

* * *

Source: Author and Counter-Currents

For Further Reading

Previous post

Katrina and the Black Tsunami

Next post

Blood Money and Arms Industry Whores

1 Comment

  1. Andrew Hamilton
    3 October, 2016 at 10:05 pm — Reply

    The late Samuel Francis, too, viewed White colonialism unapologetically. In an essay entitled The Roots of the White Man, originally published in two parts in American Renaissance in November and December 1996 under the pseudonym “Edwin Clark,” he wrote:

    “The dynamism of the Aryans is clear enough in their earliest and most obvious habit of invading other peoples’ territories and conquering them. All of these early Aryans were intensely warlike, and their gods, myths, and heroes reflect their devotion to the martial virtues of courage, discipline, honor, the goodness of conquest, and skill in arms and sports. Virtually everywhere they moved, they conquered . . .

    “The dynamism of the early Aryans is also clear in their interest in travel, maritime exploration, colonization, and discovery. The Semitic Phoenicians also displayed great skill in this regard, but the Greeks equaled or excelled them in establishing colonies throughout the Mediterranean, exploring the Atlantic and African coasts, and penetrating as far as the Indian Ocean and the Far East, perhaps even circumnavigating Africa. . . . [It is my understanding that circumnavigation of Africa by the Greeks as described by Herodotus is now accepted as fact. -A.H.]

    “Alexander of Macedon was a living incarnation of Aryan dynamism, conquering wherever he led his army and penetrating where no Greek had ever gone before. The racial cousins of the Greeks in late Medieval Europe and the Viking adventurers of the early middle ages surpassed the Greeks, discovering the Americas and, in the case of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, and British, conquering new empires in Africa, Asia, and North and South America. The conquistadors of South America and the pioneers and settlers of North America reveal the same dynamic restlessness as the Germanic tribes that descended upon the Roman Empire.”

    What I like about Frances Trollope’s quote in Domestic Manners of the Americans about White behavior in 1830 America is that it captures so perfectly this instinctual racial behavior from a higher-level perspective, which we ordinarily fail to discern: ” . . . a vast continent, by far the greater part of which is still in the state in which nature left it, and a busy, bustling, industrious population, hacking and hewing their way through it.”

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.