White Supremacy finally admitted: Brown people should pay whites to colonise their countries again

ComeBackWhitey

The Third World Quarterly recently published “A Case for Colonialism” by Professor Bruce Gilley. Following a hostile reaction from the usual suspects, the article was withdrawn. But you can still read it on the web here.

Its essential argument is that colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to brown people.

The notion that colonialism is always and everywhere a bad thing needs to be rethought in light of the grave human toll of a century of anti-colonial regimes and policies. The case for Western colonialism is about rethinking the past as well as improving the future. It involves reaffirming the primacy of human lives, universal values, and shared responsibilities – the civilising mission without scare quotes – that led to improvements in living conditions for most Third World peoples during most episodes of Western colonialism. It also involves learning how to unlock those benefits again. Western and non-Western countries should reclaim the colonial toolkit and language as part of their commitment to effective governance and international order.

Brown people increasingly realise that life was better with Whitey in charge.

Sèbe has documented how the founding figures of Western colonialism in Africa (such as Livingstone in Zambia, Lugard in Nigeria and de Brazza in Congo) are enjoying a resurgence of official and social respect in those countries now that romanticised pre-colonial and disappointing postcolonial approaches to governance have lost their sheen. As one young man on the streets of Kinshasa asked Van Reybrouck (as described in his seminal 2010 book on the Congo): ‘How long is this independence of ours going to last anyway? When are the Belgians coming back?

Even back in the day, brown people actually preferred living under Whitey’s control. The whole White Invasion/Brown Resistance narrative is a modern fabrication.

Anti-colonial critics simply assert that colonialism was, in Hopkins’s words, ‘a foreign imposition lacking popular legitimacy’. Yet until very late, European colonialism appears to have been highly legitimate and for good reasons. Millions of people moved closer to areas of more intensive colonial rule, sent their children to colonial schools and hospitals, went beyond the call of duty in positions in colonial governments, reported crimes to colonial police, migrated from non-colonised to colonised areas, fought for colonial armies and participated in colonial political processes – all relatively voluntary acts. Indeed, the rapid spread and persistence of Western colonialism with very little force relative to the populations and areas concerned is prima facie evidence of its acceptance by subject populations compared to the feasible alternatives. The ‘preservers’, ‘facilitators’ and ‘collaborators’ of colonialism, as Abernethy shows, far outnumbered the ‘resisters’ at least until very late: ‘Imperial expansion was frequently the result not just of European push but also of indigenous pull’.

Anti-colonialism is just another aspect of  the Blame Whitey hate narrative whose pernicious effects are now being felt in our own countries. But in the Third World, it has already cost millions of lives.

It is hard to overstate the pernicious effects of global anti-colonialism on domestic and international affairs since the end of World War II. Anti-colonialism ravaged countries as nationalist elites mobilised illiterate populations with appeals to destroy the market economies, pluralistic and constitutional polities, and rational policy processes of European colonisers. In our ‘age of apology’ for atrocities, one of the many conspicuous silences has been an apology for the many atrocities visited upon Third World peoples by anti-colonial advocates.

…A sobering World Bank report of 1996 noted: ‘Almost every African country has witnessed a systematic regression of capacity in the last 30 years; the majority had better capacity at independence than they now possess’. This loss of state capacity was no trifle; it meant the loss of tens of millions of lives.

The only successful ex-colonies are the ones that copied Whitey’s ways.

As Burton and Jennings note, ‘In the first decade or so after independence … East African governments often adopted or adapted both administrative structures and ideological concepts from their colonial predecessors in order to create quite successful forms of governance – certainly by regional standards’. In many cases, colonial bureaucrats and police were rehired by the newly independent governments.

The author argues that the best hope for brown countries is to be recolonised by De White Devil. But why would we want to do this since, as the author acknowledges, even back in the good old days,  brown people cost more than they were worth?

Despite cries of ‘exploitation’, colonialism was probably a money loser for imperial powers. The Stanford economist Richard Hammond coined the term ‘uneconomic imperialism’ to describe the ways that European powers embarked on ruinously costly and ultimately money-losing colonialism for largely non-economic reasons. That is why they gave up their colonies so easily, as Wu also showed with regard to the Dutch surrender of Taiwan.69 The benefits of empire were widely diffused while the costs were narrowly borne by the colonial power. As Kaplan wrote: ‘The real problem with imperialism is not that it is evil, but rather that it is too expensive and therefore a problematic grand strategy for a country like the United States’.

His answer is that brown people should pay us to colonise them again.

To solve the incentives problem, Hechter has called for a ‘market in transnational governance’ which we might call less euphemistically ‘colonialism for hire’. Colonial states would be paid for their services, an important motivator to be successful. The contractual motivation would also strengthen consent through periodic renegotiation of the terms.

His suggestion is that white people should be granted long leases on virgin soil territory in the Third World, where we can set up new colonies on the model of Hong Kong. Because of their superior governance, these colonies would act as magnets for brownskins in the rest of the country, acting as drivers of economic and cultural development.

White nationalists might say: Who cares if brown people are successful or not, happy or sad, alive or dead? I can see two practical advantages to this from our perspective:

  1. Creating enclaves of civility in the Third World might stop brown people coming to our countries. They’d go there instead of here.
  2. Once we had control of territories in the Third World again, we could use them as repositories for “asylum seekers” and encourage or force our domestic brown populations to go and live there.

Imperialism 2.0, yes or no?

Here is an interesting Chinese perspective on the phenomenon.

3 thoughts on “White Supremacy finally admitted: Brown people should pay whites to colonise their countries again

  1. As if we really need to expend the lifeblood of our men, and even some of our women, our monies, our technical knowledge, education, misdirected Christian altruism and the enthusiasm of our youth, to yet again try and save these peoples who, after millenia, have not saved themselves, and meanwhile our countries worsen. My charity and sympathy is spent out and I have noted how many people at online newspaper sites hold that same view.

    As my old mammy used to say, “Wantin’ ain’t gettin”

    I vote NO to Imperialism 2.0. Nationalism, Patriotism, Home Is Best: YES!

    Like

  2. A 2012 Daily Telegraph blog by David Blair—entitled ‘Zambian miners crush a Chinese manager to death. Remember that when Beijing boasts about its “win-win” African partnerships’—contained this nugget:

    While opposition leader in 2007, [Zambian president Michael] Sata said: ‘We want the Chinese to leave and the old colonial rulers to return. They exploited our natural resources too, but at least they took good care of us. They built schools, taught us their language and brought us the British civilisation. At least Western capitalism has a human face; the Chinese are only out to exploit us.’

    No hyperlink, the Telegraph has expunged its blogs, thus saving Dr Tim Stanley many a red face.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Fantastic article. While I completely understand the strategy and possible advantages of paid colonialism, after the disastrous results of mixed societies from American slavery onward, not to mention the insurmountable genetic differences between the races, I feel it best to just leave the blacks and browns to themselves. They cursed and murdered us for the blessings we brought them, I would prefer to just leave them to their own fates. Give them exactly what they wished for. Mixed societies aren’t natural anyway and always lead to miscegenation.

    I read a book some time ago titled, Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred & Self-Deceit. Although it’s by a jew who lived in various countries in Africa for years, it provides a fascinating look into the minds of blacks who have not been corrupted by jewish race baiting. He says that blacks in Africa realize that Whites are superior to blacks and don’t walk on egg shells when discussing it. It’s a commonly held fact, just as the sky is blue. He also states that blacks are fully aware of how they treat other blacks and do NOT want to be ruled by them, preferring to be ruled by Whites instead. Of course, this coincides with all the polls taken over the last 10 years or so that show a majority of black and colored South Africans admit life was better under apartheid. It’s a good book, if you let his “holocaust” nonsense go in one ear and out the other.

    Lastly, with regard to African colonization, South Africa and especially Rhodesia didn’t just give up voluntarily to the black communists. Rhodesia in particular fought well and hard. In the end, the relationship between blacks, browns, and Whites, whatever that may be, will NEVER be normalized while the jew is in the mix.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s