Thoughts on “Decolonization” as an Anti-White Discourse

Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard

Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden

Along with ‘Whiteness Studies’ and ‘Black Lives Matter,’ the concept of ‘decolonization’ is currently rampant in Western institutions of higher education. In the most recent example, academics at England’s University of Cambridge are considering how to implement a call from a small group of Black and leftist undergraduates to “decolonize” its English literature syllabus by taking in more Black and ethnic minority writers and bringing ‘post-colonial thought’ (a branch of critical theory) to its existing curriculum. Seen in the context of similar agitation at Yale last year, ongoing “Rhodes Must Fall” agitation in South Africa, the removal of portraits of White founders from King’s College London, and attacks on statues of prominent White historical figures in the United States, the ‘decolonization’ effort is clearly part of an escalating craze for removing White presence and reducing White space throughout the West. This reduction of White space is occurring in demographic, cultural, and even historical areas; the latter involving a ludicrous ‘Blackwashing’ of periods of European history which were overwhelmingly monocultural, with gross exaggerations of non-White presence in places like Roman Britain.

Today, White nations are being demonstrably colonized by non-Whites, White culture is increasingly marginalized (or dismissed as non-existent), and White history is being rewritten to support and advance the agenda of contemporary multiculturalism. Whites are thus abused as colonizers while simultaneously being subjected to an unprecedented and multifaceted colonization. This jarring incongruence between rhetoric and reality requires an interrogation of what is meant by terms like “colonize,” “empire,” and even “genocide,” particularly in regard to the political uses they have come to acquire, and also an interrogation of what we understand by historical processes of colonization. It is argued here that the growing clamor for ‘decolonization,’ like Whiteness studies, exists only to encourage and facilitate an aggressive anti-White discourse.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to attend a conference on ‘genocide studies,’ during which I was introduced to the work of the leading academic in this field, the Australian scholar A. Dirk Moses. Despite his last name (which apparently is also English and Welsh as well as Jewish), Moses evidences no discernible Jewish ancestry, his father John Moses being a notable Anglican priest and his mother Ingrid a full-blooded German from Lower Saxony. Moses has built his career around broad explorations of the themes of colonialism and genocide, and the relationship between the two. Although he wasn’t present at this particular conference, I was very much interested in those presentations concerning his work, which I have since come to regard as being generally of a very high quality and, most importantly, wide-ranging and devoid of the mawkish (not to mention mendacious) moralism that often saturates Jewish academic treatments of these themes. To my mind Moses remains one of the most essential writers on colonialism, conquest and genocide as perennial features of the human existence, and I would have a difficult time engaging in discussion on these subjects with someone unfamiliar with his work. Importantly, Moses argues that terms like “colonization” have fluid rather than fixed definitions, especially in their discursive usage, and stresses that the meaning of such terms as “colonization” and “imperialism” have rather been adapted in recent decades in order to facilitate a political agenda — to condemn European nations and to question Western moral legitimacy.

For example, in his introduction to Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History (2008), Moses contends that conquest and occupation are human universals rather than the preserve of uniquely evil European peoples and their culture. He writes that “‘Empire,’ ‘colony,’ and ‘genocide’ are keywords particularly laden with controversial connotations,” but that “few are the societies that were not once part of empires, whether its core or periphery. Few are the societies that were not the product of a colonization process, whether haphazard or planned.”[1] Despite the universal presence of conquest, displacement, and domination in human history, Moses notes that the usage of the terminology of these themes has come to focus inordinately on the recent European past:

‘Empire’ and ‘colony’ are viewed through exclusively nineteenth- and twentieth-century lenses and have become words of implicit opprobrium because they connote European domination of the non-European world. … ‘Imperialism’ was coined in the middle of the nineteenth century to criticize ambitions for domination and expansion. A century later, to accuse a country of colonialism was to condemn it for enslaving and exploiting another.[2]

When utilizing these keywords then, modern ethnic activists strategically take the European expansionism of the nineteenth century as their starting point, excluding many prior centuries during which non-White participation in conquest, slavery, expansion, and imperialism was at least equally in evidence. Colonialism has thus ceased to be regarded in modern social and academic discourse as a human universal, easily explained by evolutionary impulses, and has instead come to be regarded as a dynamic in which uniquely exploitative Whites disturb the putatively utopian existence of non-Whites (a myth bolstered and promoted by Boasian anthropology), before subjecting them to unimaginably horrific treatment. Because of the lop-sided nature of contemporary discourse on colonialism and empire, Moses notes that nothing less than “the moral legitimacy of Western civilization is at stake” when defining and utilizing these keywords.[3]

One of the most interesting, and frustrating, aspects of this questioning of Western moral legitimacy is that Whites have allowed themselves to be subjected to it, sometimes even encouraging it. On some levels it would be comforting to attribute this self-flagellation exclusively to very recent alien influences, but the truth is more complex. Europeans may have had unprecedented success in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in expanding their spheres of material interest and cultural influence, but they also engaged in an unprecedented level of self-critique because of it. Moses suggests that White participation or co-operation in the questioning of the moral legitimacy of Western civilization is in part a “culmination of a long tradition of European legal and political critique of colonization and empire. … European theologians, philosophers and lawyers have been debating the morality of occupation since the Spanish conquest of the Americas in the sixteenth century.”[4]

This “long tradition of European legal and political critique of colonization and empire” could be read as evidence in support of Kevin MacDonald’s theory of ‘pathological altruism’ in European society, or the idea that Europeans have uniquely constructed their societies to place extreme emphasis on moral conformity and the rights of the individual. Whites (and the legitimacy of their civilization) are thus especially vulnerable in modern discussions of colonization, slavery, and empire, not because their actions in these areas were particularly nefarious, but because they are the only successful ethnic group in these spheres willing to subject itself to such a critique, not only by others within the ethnic group, but also by ethnic outsiders claiming moral superiority. Perhaps best encapsulated in Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden“(1899), written in response to the Philippine-American War, the European experience of expansion and empire has always been double-sided, combining a love of exploration and glory with uneasy introspection prompted, as Kipling put it, by “the judgment of your peers.” It is particularly telling that in the course of hundreds of conversations with figures at all levels of the Alt Right (according to all media hype, a bastion of aggressive ethnic chauvinism), I have yet to come across a single individual advocating an expansionist or colonial policy — the preferred option being a total segregation from non-Whites and a policy of non-interference in their affairs.

Of course, one of the main reasons for our contemporary aversion to colonialism is that the collapse of empire has been catastrophic for us as a people — not in terms of lost resources, but because we immediately became subject to reverse colonization. Although accelerated by hostile alien influences, it remains indisputable that Europeans conducted their empires, particularly in their latter bureaucratic stages, in accordance with the principle that the colonized acquired a status nominally indistinct from each other as well as the conquering national/ethnic group. As Enoch Powell expressed it in relation to the British empire:

From the middle of the eighteenth century onwards, notwithstanding the loss of the American colonies, there occurred a striking expansion outside the United Kingdom of the dominions of the Crown, until those born within a quarter of the land surface of the globe were born within the allegiance, and were subsequently British subjects undistinguishable from one another in the law of the United Kingdom.[5]

In Britain, this led to an initial mass influx of non-Whites from the colonies between the passage of the British Nationality Act (1948), which defined British citizenship in accordance with the principle outlined by Powell, and the Commonwealth Immigration Act (1962), which only moderately slowed the tide. An almost identical scenario played out in France between 1945 and 1974, and in the Netherlands, which took in, between 1945 and 1990, around 730,000 migrants from the former Dutch colonies of Indonesia, Surinam, and the Dutch Antilles. It should be stated that the principles outlined by Powell were almost certainly always intended to remain just that — principles, but the vulnerability was nonetheless made available for exploitation in the form of mass non-White adoption of European citizenships. A similar vulnerability of principle may be observed in the jus soli interpretation of citizenship employed by the United States, which has been equally subjected to countless exploitations.

Another reason why even ethnocentric Whites have developed a strong aversion to colonial ambitions is that our culture has intensively absorbed and internalized the anti-imperialism of leftist intellectuals like Sartre and Fanon, for whom all empires (excluding of course the Communist ones) entailed the exploitation and degradation of indigenous peoples. Even those of us who may not necessarily believe this to be the case, and in fact see many positives for indigenous peoples in their subjugation to European rule, fail to confidently articulate such a position because of the overwhelming social and cultural success of the leftist argument. This is despite often incongruous pockets of support for European imperialism, notably that of Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish coiner of the term ‘genocide,’ who asserted that empire enabled the diffusion of culture, enabling weaker societies “to adopt the institutions of more efficient ones or become absorbed by them because they better fulfil basic needs.”[6]

Scholarly titles offering a full-blooded apologetic for European imperialism, such as The Triumph of the West (1985) by J.M. Roberts, would struggle to get published in today’s academic climate, but Roberts’s honest comments on the dualistic nature of European colonialism, and ultimate rejection of perpetual guilt, bear repeating:

 If we wish to reassure ourselves about our own moral sensibility, we need only to recognize that the bearers of western civilisation have often behaved with deliberate cruelty and ruthlessness towards other peoples, that some of them plundered their victims of wealth and their environment of resources, and that still others, even when more scrupulous or well-meaning, casually released shattering side-effects on societies and cultures they neither understood nor tried to understand. For centuries, many Europeans and many European peoples outside Europe showed astonishing cultural arrogance towards the rest of humanity. In doing so, they behaved much as men of power have always behaved in any vigorous civilization. What was different was just that they had so much more power than any earlier conquerors, and even more convincing grounds for feeling they were entitled to use it. All that said, if we are seriously concerned about our own sensitivity to ethical nuance, we ought also to recognize that administrators, missionaries, teachers were often right in thinking that they brought valuable gifts to non-Europeans. Those gifts included gentler standards of behavior towards the weak, the ideal of a more objective justice, the intellectual rigor of science, its fruits in better health and technology, and many other good things.[7]

It goes without saying that the “good things” mentioned by Roberts are excluded entirely from current discussions of colonialism, which forfeit honest confrontation with the past in favor of pursuing the promotion of ‘White guilt,’ excusing the failures of predominantly African populations (non-African former colonies like Singapore appear to have succeeded greatly both during and after their experience of European empire), and facilitating ethnic revenge. These ambitions have of course been nurtured in the West’s non-White populations for some time by the same cliques in academia, the media, and the wider culture. In just one particularly egregious example, in The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam Douglas Murray cites the Jewish academic, novelist, and journalist Will Self as telling one television audience that British identity was nothing more than “going overseas and subjugating black and brown people and taking their stuff and the fruits of their labours. That was a core part of the British identity, was the British Empire.”[8]

There is of course a substantial overlap not only in the self-comforting content of Jewish and African revenge fantasies, but also in their narrative structure. Just as narratives of Jewish victimhood rely on strict definitions of anti-Semitism (perpetrated by irrational Whites against innocent Jews), and a cropped timeline of events (often starting ‘spontaneously’ in 1933, Tsarist Russia, or the Crusades), the colonial grievance industry relies on strict definitions of colonialism (perpetrated by Whites and universally exploitative and abusive) and a cropped history of imperialism that begins only with the European age of expansion. The similarity may be regarded as due to the fact that Jews have been dominant in the production of ‘White guilt’ academic literature on empire and slavery (an excellent example being Peter Kolchin’s American Slavery, 1619–1877), as well as popular cultural products of the same timbre (e.g. Steven Spielberg’s Amistad). Also, just as Jews are often portrayed as uniquely innocent, Blacks are today said to be incapable of ‘racism.’

Such simplified narratives of both colonialism and anti-Semitism imply that Blacks and Jews are incapable of ambition, greed, cruelty or hostility toward outgroups — an intellectual position worthy of ridicule were it not for the fact it enjoys substantial, if logically inexplicable, status and influence in modern culture and academia.

Equally understated in contemporary discussions of colonial scenarios is the role of native elites, an area that I am particularly interested in. I’ve long regarded the Jewish presence in Europe and European societies as a unique form of colonialism (though without the “good things” mentioned by Roberts), and this presence has been demonstrably reliant from its very early beginnings on co-operation with native European elites, as well as being very tenuous during times of political instability. Similarly, A. Dirk Moses warns against the adoption of narratives of colonialism which “regard the encounter between European and Indigene as grossly asymmetric, thereby playing down both indigenous agency and the often-tenuous European grip on power, particularly in the early stages of colonization. In German Southwest Africa, for instance, the German governor was initially reliant on local chiefs.”[9] Moses has stated elsewhere that Germans during the Weimar Republic “regarded themselves as an indigenous people who were being slowly colonized by foreigners, namely Jews.”[10] Even Raphael Lemkin himself once stated that colonialism involved a situation whereby the subjugated group was “a majority controlled by a powerful minority,” perhaps missing entirely the profundity of such a statement when applied to the activities of his own people.[11] The power of the minority often intermingled with the power of self-interested native elites. Thus, just as European understandings of the Jewish Question would be woefully incomplete without a confrontation of the issue of venal and treasonous European elites, so the attempts by post-colonial ethnic groups to place exclusive blame for their grievances on Europeans are equally inadequate.

Similarities between the European experience under Jewish influence, and the African experience under European empire are of course limited. As stated above, European influence in Africa was a net benefit, bringing manifold cultural, social, and technological benefits to African societies. No similar claim could be made about Jewish influence at any point in European history. Nor should Europeans get into the contemporary African habit of engaging in a morality-based ‘blame game’ as a means of trying to ‘decolonize’ our own nations — either of Jewish influence, or the presence of millions of newcomers from all corners of the earth. Unlike Africans, our people are remarkably successful, often against all odds and despite the negative machinations of outsiders and the corruption of their own elites. If we accept Moses’s assertion that colonization and imperialism represent a kind of pinnacle in the universal human participation in competition, then we should be wary of imbuing that competition with too much redundant moralism.

The avoidance of moralism is perhaps even more necessary for a people such as ourselves, for whom moral concerns are primary; a kind of racial Achilles heel. Simply put, we are unlikely to find success in wielding a weapon to which we are uniquely vulnerable. Our struggle against invaders, both old and new, should be based on the obvious truth that it is quite simply in our interests to defend the homogenous nature of our territory as a means of promoting a safe and successful future for our children. This is where our ‘moral’ code should begin and end.

Finally, it is worth remarking upon the rhetorical bankruptcy and transparent agenda of slogans calling for the ‘decolonization’ of academia, English literature, and our public spaces. Decolonization, by almost any definition, implies that a ‘thing’ existed in some state prior to colonization. Looked at bluntly, a complete decolonization of African society would entail a total return to the pre-imperial state of the African tribes, stripped of the positive cultural ‘diffusions’ described by Lemkin, affirmed by Moses, and praised by Roberts. There is almost certainly not a single African alive today, either in Africa or living among other peoples, who would willingly engage in such a total ‘decolonization.’ For one thing, it would imply an enormous loss in population given that the recent dramatic upsurge in African population has been fueled by Western technology and medicine.

Applied within White societies or to academic subjects of White origin such as English literature,  ‘decolonization’ is technically impossible, at least from the Black perspective, because both the prior and existing state of the ‘thing’ is White, technologically and culturally advanced, etc. What Blacks truly mean, whether they understand the dialectical tricks devised by those inciting them or not, is that they want a colonization. They want to colonize White nations, White spaces, White literature with a Black or multi-ethnic presence that was never there at any prior time. Efforts to invent or exaggerate, for example, a sub-Saharan presence in Roman Britain are intended to construct a mythical multicultural ‘prior state’ that ‘decolonization’ will return us to. But these are malicious fictions. The discourse of ‘decolonization’ is simply a mask for the ongoing colonization of the West.

[1] A.D. Moses (ed), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History (New York: Berghahn, 2008), p.3.

[2] Ibid, p.4.

[3] Ibid, p.5.

[4] Ibid, p.9.

[5] Quoted in M. Cross and M. Keith (eds), Racism, the City and the State (London: Routledge, 1993), p.181.

[6] Moses (ed), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, p.11.

[7] J.M. Roberts, The Triumph of the West (London: Guild Publishing, 1985), p.430.

[8] D. Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), p.33.

[9] Moses (ed), Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History, p.16.

[10] A. D. Moses, ‘Colonialism,’ in P. Hayes & J.K. Roth, The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p.72.

[11] Ibid, p.9.

57 replies
  1. Guillaume Durocher
    Guillaume Durocher says:

    A very fine article. At university, I came across the well-spoken Stuart Hall arguing that non-White immigration had created an “internal empire” within Britain. Even as a liberal, I found this quite jarring: What, you’ve guilted me for conquering and enslaving you, fair enough, but now you’re *also* guilting me for having let you into the country? When will I not be guilted? Never, really. Or rather, it will stop when Toussaint L’Ouverture or the FLN have hanged you. “Race relations” means not much more than the systematic emotional abuse of Europeans, exploiting our native piety and sense of fairness, in the name of the selfish interest and wounded ethnic pride of other groups. There has been quite enough of that.

    • Uncle Joe
      Uncle Joe says:

      If you try to take on the left point by point and refute all their arguments and reveal all their hypocrisies you will be like a man trying to kill fleas one by one. Better to realize that the whole kit and caboodle is mostly a product of Jewish power and confront that power forthrightly. I oppose violence or persecution or blanket condemnation of Jews or any other group, but we need a little frank talk about Jewish power and its centrality to political and cultural developments we oppose. The Rainbow Coalition strategy and the Jewish role in sustaining it should be dissected forthrightly. Whenever I see a conservative arguing with a black about race issues I feel contempt for the conservative. He should have the guts to confront the power behind the throne. Jewish donors fund the black movement and support legislation ostensibly intended to benefit blacks in order to keep them voting Democrat. Once elected, Democrats push a leftist social agenda and pro-Israel foreign policy that most Jews favor but blacks are at best indifferent to. Meanwhile, Jewish donors see to it that the GOP promises socially conservative legislation to get the red-state vote but always finds a way to break those promises. The obvious antidote to this strategy is populism, meaning social conservatism and economic liberalism. Win the culture and there will be plenty of time for tax-cutting and fat-trimming.

      • Irish Savant
        Irish Savant says:

        Absolutely true. The problem of course is that there is no significant platform upon which this exposure of the Jewish role could be debated. My own belief is that should we – somehow – manage to acquire such a platform the problem would shrivel like a malignant cancer (appropriate metaphor) before a dose of X-rays. As the experience of Germany in the 1930’s illustrates, the Jewish agenda can be jarringly halted once it gets understood by a critical mass of Whites.

        • Uncle Joe
          Uncle Joe says:

          One way to move forward is, without mentioning Jews, to force social conservatives to acknowledge that my picture of the electoral dynamic is correct and implies they should withdraw support from economic conservatives. The picture is:
          1. Democrats cannot win elections without black and Latino bloc votes.
          2. Democrats get these block votes because they are economically liberal and Republicans are economically conservative.
          3. Blacks and Latinos are opposed or indifferent to abortion rights, gay marriage, secularism, gun control, net censorship, aid to Israel, etc.
          4. Democratic politicians are enthusiastic promoters of abortion rights, gay marriage, secularism, gun control, aid to Israel, net censorship, etc.
          5. Republican politicians are beholden to donors such as Adelson, Singer, and the Kochs, who describe themselves as ‘liberal on social issues.’
          6. Historically, Republicans consistently break their promises to social conservatives and generally take their support for granted, while advancing the interests of these socially liberal donors.
          7. Therefore, it is in the interest of social conservatives to support politicians who, as economic liberals, can appeal to poor people and minorities, while sincerely supporting socially conservative positions that the poor and minorities either support or are indifferent to. Simultaneously, crowd-funding should be promoted as a way to break the stranglehold of the billionaires.
          If such a strategy were widely promoted it would successfully counter the current “Heads we win, tails you lose” mechanism by which Jewish liberals exert control.

  2. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    Thank you for this brilliant, incisive article, Dr Joyce. I particularly value your having proposed, by way of comparison, the self-serving Jewish colonisation of Europe that is devoid of the good contributions of White colonisation to the New and Third Worlds.

    Among the worst depredations of the Jewish colonisation of Europe and the White-populated New World is the destruction of the intellectual standards of even the top universities there. This was achieved so easily, and so quickly, by politico-economic approaches known as Thatcherism. Simply, two things were decided: First, universities were to cease being financed by the state, and are to be financed by the private sector. Second, universities were no longer to be the reserves of the intellectually gifted, but instead, they are to be open to pretty much anyone. And so goodbye to the regulation of universities by councils of the intellectually elevated!

    The above two decisions brought on the competition among universities for students (popularly known in the 1980s as the ‘rush to get bums on seats’), the consequent dumbing down of university courses, and the introduction of inane subjects such as ‘feminism’, ‘media studies’, ‘inter-ethnic relationships’, ‘ownership of indigenous knowledge’, etc. This had one staggering consequence: Universities now overflow with, and in far too many cases are exclusively populated by, students better suited to flipping burgers than to intellectual endeavour. So ‘decolonisation’ is guaranteed audience and uptake (with banners and yelling) at most universities. And, of course, intellectual gnomes are welcomed with open arms as university teachers, and are free to spread snake oil in our ‘progressive’ universities.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      It’s an illusion that universities had a golden past. A cold look shows they had standards delimited in the ways they now are. The main difference is that Jews have won, so far, and their fuller control of money has expanded – and moreover whites have made so many discoveries that, for the moment, these are taken for granted. If universities had been of any value, the entire Jew takeover would not have happened.

  3. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    The ultimate aim of the globalist is now coming into view; to completely negro-ize the planet along the lines of Ward Kendall’s novel ‘Hold Back This Day’.
    China and India should be very worried.

    • JM
      JM says:


      “China and India should be very worried.”

      Why? They aren’t afflicted by at least four of the important drivers: Jewish owned propaganda channels, political correctness as a state legislated imperative, almost hopelessly NWO conformist populations and any basis (for e.g. capitalists, bankers and their stooges) to claim the existence of deficits in population to meet economic and social needs.
      The most that could happen would be UN pressure and (much) later, pressure from the former European majority nations, now greatly influenced by new political constituencies, which will be by this time greatly weakened.

      • Rerevisionist
        Rerevisionist says:

        Because [1] the (((British))) Empire largely consisted of the East India Company, which must have had Jewish financial control, even though much of the engineering, building, medical etc progress hid the economic taproot. And [2] The Far East wars – China, Japan, Korea (and Russia) all incurred Jewish intervention and exploitation and killing notably in the Second World War and after. I doubt very much these influences have gone away, and if whites are deleted, they will move into pole position as targets for Jewish genocide maximisation.

        • Yeoman Archer
          Yeoman Archer says:

          1. Comment, Rerevisionist, November 14, 2017 – 2:31 am |
          ” … Because [1] the (((British))) Empire largely consisted of the East India Company …”
          2. Comment, Charles Frey, November 14, 2017 – 11:01 am |
          “Excellent AspieSavant link, for anyone even peripherally interested in relevant facts. Allow me to add my two cents’ worth:
          “01 At the apex, as expected, we find N.M. Rothschild of London; the employer of Cecil Rhodes and on down his line”
          3. Comment, Rehmat, November 11, 2017 – 7:00 am |
          “Rudyard Kipling was born in Bombay, British India, … ”
          4. The Opioid Crisis: Media Complicity and Political Inaction

          November 13, 2017 – Zachary Sessions
          4a. Comment, Alan Donelson, November 13, 2017 – 3:05 pm |
          “Seems a limited hang-out to me. “We” have troops guarding poppy plots in Afghanistan, correct? Been there for years! Guess what? You can make heroin and codeine and oxycodone from certain chemicals produced in abundance by these no doubt optimized Asian poppies!”
          5. Opiates: “Death on the Prescription Plan”

          May 17, 2017 — Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.
          6. Profit From Pain: Who’s Behind America’s Opiate Epidemic?

          MARCH 30, 2017 By Eric Striker

          Yeoman Archer Comment
          The article Profit From Pain: Who’s Behind America’s Opiate Epidemic?, item 6. above, was originally printed in the Spring 2016 edition of Action!, the party newsletter of the Traditionalist Worker Part. and is itself referenced in TOO, item 5.
          This article compares the 1850’s David Sassoon opium gangsterism to the Sackler family cartel, which in 2015 was estimated by Forbes to have amassed a fortune of $14 billion.
          I became interested in the opium wars when I started research into the slaughter of my great grandparents in British India in 1857 during the Sepoy Mutiny. I obtained copies of Opium Traders and Their Worlds , volumes 1 and 2, M. Kienholz, iUniverse, Inc. Bloomington, IN 47403, , © 2008 Mary L. Kienholz. This body of work is mandatory for a comprehensive understanding of the role of the Talmudist in the poisoning of humanity in its war against the “other.” Research suggests the use of the opium poppy in excess of 5,000 years, while the Talmudist brags of a successful war against the other for over 5,778 years.
          In Opium Traders and Their Worlds , I found that the East India Company was established during QEI’s reign and that she got part of the action. That the David Sassoon opium gangsters become infinitely rich from the India / Afghanistan / China opium business, and that my own father worked for the British Opium Agency for a short time before WWI.
          Ms Kienholz shows the family relationships between virtually every Talmudic family and its connections to dope and criminality, including examples such as
          “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who adopted “Dembitz” for his middle name in honor of his uncle Lewis Dembitz. The unidentified Rothschild agent traveled in the United States with Adolf Brandeis, whose mother was the sister of Lewis Naphtali Dembitz. The Dembitz, Goldmark, and Frankfurter families were prominent kabbalist families of Poland and Austria.18 Under indictment for murdering Defense Minister Latour, Dr. Josef Goldmark fled to Switzerland after the 1848 revolution in Austria. Although a dermatologist by profession, Goldmark learned how to make bullets in Switzerland, came to the United States, and became wealthy producing most of the bullets used by the Union Army during the Civil War. President Lincoln supplied armed guards to protect his factory. Josef did not return to his native country until after a change in political climate there and the disappearance of evidence. ”
          “Louis Brandeis’ nephew, John Goldmark, and John’s wife Sally (Irma Ringe), after John lost a race to retain his Washington state political office in the 1960s, were plaintiffs in an unsuccessful libel suit against Albert F. Canwell. Canwell was former chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee Investigating Un-American Activities in Washington State and a one-term state representative. Canwell had revealed Sally Goldmark’s (Irma Ringe’s) connection with the top-level Perlo-Kramer communist cell in Washington, D.C., and unsuccessfully invited her to recant. He had never named Sally’s husband, John, as a Communist Party member, although he did not doubt that this nephew of an indicted murderer was in the Party.”
          A Kindle preview is available at:

          I posed the question: “historic references to poppy”, to a Google search and received 41,000,000 Results. While many were not in relation to the “opium poppy” most were. And what showed up?
          A page paid for by the Sacklers and their front Purdue masquerading as legitimate scientific study. “Sponsor Content: What’s this? purdue-logo,
          “From history’s earliest civilizations to today, societies have been faced with balancing the medicinal properties of opioids in treating pain with the euphoric effects that have induced its misuse—and abuse.”

          I regret the length of this comment, but has been shown TOO is masterly doing what it can with available resources.

  4. m
    m says:

    Until Africans start showing up to class in loincloths, or naked, I wouldn’t pay much attention to their absurd demands about cultural appropriation and colonialization. If it’s so bad for them they should go to their own institutions of higher cultural learning, back in Mother Africa. Then, they can start learning Chinese, in order to serve their new Colonial overlords. Or join a CIA army over there, and fight for the thrill of it.

      • Uncle Joe
        Uncle Joe says:

        But don’t forget Farrakhan and the “Secret Relationship” books. I have often thought you could save all the confederate statues by credibly threatening to distribute 10,000 free copies to blacks for every statue taken down. I’m sure Farrakhan would give us a bulk discount!

  5. JM
    JM says:

    “Of course, one of the main reasons for our contemporary aversion to colonialism is that the collapse of empire has been catastrophic for us as a people — not in terms of lost resources, but because we immediately became subject to reverse colonization.”
    It’s ironic that Enoch Powell was one of the first to use his ministerial power to impose this on Britain on a large scale: “Powell returned to the Parliament in 1960 as a Minister of Health (until 1963), and at this position he controlled the employment of a large number of Commonwealth immigrants in the understaffed National Health Service. Before that non-white immigrants had had to put up with badly paid inferior jobs such as street cleaning, night -shift assembly production lines etc. Powell was eager to secure as many overseas nurses and doctors as possible to support an expansion of the health service…”
    Interesting source:

  6. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Reading the comments following articles and youtube videos pertaining to Chinas current colonization of Africa, most Blacks cling to the belief that there were no benefits to the past European influence in Africa, that Europeans after plundering the continents wealth left, setting the natives back hundreds of years in their development. Most also believe that the Chinese, not being devil Whites, are there only to help them, building their infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, as brother non- devil Whites. Possibly their blind hatred for Whites has contibuted to their gullibility or they are simply very stupid, thus explaining their inability to construct any sort of infrastructure on their own. I doubt that in ten years their will be a rhinoceros, tiger, or elephant left on the Dark Continent but the Chinese may develop a taste for dark meat, thus sparing dogs and cats.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      There is some truth in the idea that Africa was plundered: Jews set out with the aid of British braindead soldiery to take gold and gems and other things. What % went to white would be common knowledge if there were any competent and honest British academics. But of course there aren’t.

        • Rerevisionist
          Rerevisionist says:

          Yes, apologies, fair point. I think I was trying to suggest that the reason blacks think poorly of whites, is because Jews tell them. Jews pretend blacks made lots of inventions – it’s a lesson in mass lying which needs to be understood. Jews seem to have not the slightest idea that telling lies may have damaging effects in the future.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Excellent AspieSavant link, for anyone even peripherally interested in relevant facts. Allow me to add my two cents’ worth:

          01 At the apex, as expected, we find N.M. Rothschild of London; the employer of Cecil Rhodes and on down his line.

          02 The two Beit brothers [ to whom I referred elsewhere ] were Alfred and Otto, who had immigrated to London from Hamburg; home of that fateful Warburg clan. [ Fed.; Lenin’s sealed train;, ” Most Secret Advisor ” [ Hoher Geheimrat ] to the Kaiser, etc. ] They were conscripted by Rhodes at tremendous personal gain. I’m willing to bet the ” back forty “, that this wealthy Hamburg merchant family sat just behind these Warburgs at their mutual synagogue.

          03 Who in Hell had the legal jurisdiction to grant an area equal to that of Belgium, in Rhodesia. to the Oppenheimers ?

          04 NYC’s 47th [ Diamond ] Street has made it into the papers more than once: Rabbis as money-launderers for both that Street and other proceeds of crime; carrying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Israel and Antwerp and smuggling back tariff-evading diamonds by the bagful, never checked by ICE, since they are purportedly traveling to and from ‘religious’ conferences.

          05 Rerevisionist, in his Nov. 11th comment, ” Jews set out with the aid of British braindead soldiery to take gold and gems and other things “, deserves the Pulitzer Prize for the briefest yet complete rendition of English Imperialism and Colonialism; INDEED OF ALL SUBSEQUENT WARS.

          06 Who already possessed this gold and gems, there to be ” taken ” ? The Dutch and German Boers !

          07 I missed in this essay, the differentiation between official British Colonial Office policies and those pursued by these Jewish freebooters and common pirates. Exclusively financially motivated and using organized, ravenous guerilla banditry against all local political opposition and commercial competitors.

          08 Missionaries, as well, preferred the more ” ethical ” [ as they termed it ] approach of their Colonial Office, run by their Foreign Office.

          09 In addition to looting the continent, in return for nothing, except for self-serving, in large part British taxpayer-funded infrastructure, these Jewish freebooters had no qualms about their internecine Boer War, with its hired ” British braindead ” LORD Kitchener and his scorched earth policy and concentration camps, costing the lives of thousands of Boer gulag inmates and their children: in addition to the loss of their existence.

          In other words SNAFU. With apologies in advance for the frail of ear, that stands for Situation Normal All Fucked Up !

  7. Rehmat
    Rehmat says:

    Rudyard Kipling was born in Bombay, British India, on December 30, 1865. He had a very sadistic childhood at the hands of his foster parents in Southsea, England where he attended a school at age 6.

    BLM is Afro-American version of White Alt-Right and Antifa.

    As far the power in British universities like the country’s government, baking institutions and press are not Blacks or Muslim minorities by Jews and their White Christian lackeys.

    For example, in March 2015, UK’s powerful Jewish Lobby was able to cancel an event at the Southampton University which was happened to by sponsored by university’s Jewish professor and was scheduled to be address by American Jew professor and UNHRC special envoy for Palestinian territories Dr. Richard Walk.

    The event was to debate, “International Law and State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism.”

    In February 2015, Israeli ambassador Matthew Gould held a meeting with heads of UK universities to outline the limits of freedom of speech at campus.

    I was right. On March 31, 2015, the scared Campus management informed the organizer of the event, Israeli-born professor Oren Ben-Dor that it has decided to cancel the conference based on its lack of resources to protect the participants from Zionist hooligans.

    • Liosnagcat
      Liosnagcat says:

      You are illiterate. Get a translator to type your comments or stop commenting, but spare us your babbling.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        I understood him fine. He was commenting on several different comments in the same comment. Why didn’t you understand that?

        • Liosnagcat
          Liosnagcat says:

          Please explain this sentence to me:

          “As far the power in British universities like the country’s government, baking institutions and press are not Blacks or Muslim minorities by Jews and their White Christian lackeys.”

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        Why does he have to have a point? Many comments just add information to flesh out ideas that are presented. You’re supposed to use this to draw your own conclusions.

        • Liosnagcat
          Liosnagcat says:

          My, aren’t you the pedant?

          It was difficult to understand what information he was trying to convey.

          Maybe you had better luck with his illiterate mish-mash.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Good for you, Liosnagcat! Stick to your guns. As often as not, apologists for the pointless comments of others speak in coded self-defense; that is, they tacitly admit that they themselves regularly say little or nothing worth the saying.

            Several of this site’s Moderators have stressed that TOO comment threads are not to be treated as virtual community billboards. Ergo, to treat them as such is to insult KM and his hospitality. What’s more, doing so has the potential to make the site’s articles and blog posts easier prey for cherry-picked derision from the Establishment (both with and without the triple parentheses). That the Mods are sometimes less than strict in enforcing the “stay on topic” standard ought to be deeply appreciated by those who occasionally yield to the temptation to ramble on a bit.* Some, however, take the offered leeway as carte blanche to behave like a performing seal or a provocateur—in which latter category I include Rehmat.

            Apropos Rehmat, here follows, in standard English, what your aptly quoted gobbledygook meant to communicate:

            As far as the power in British universities is concerned, what is true for the country’s government is also true for its banking institutions and its press: the power does not serve the ends of the Black or Muslim minorities but rather those of the Jews and their White Christian lackeys.

            As you can surely see, rectifying Rehmat’s spelling, grammar, usage, and mechanics may make his meaning clearer, but it hardly makes what he has written any the more appetizing or worth reading. Perhaps the sole advantage in thus teasing out his meaning lies in how the process reveals his reflexive deceitfulness and, worse still, his deep hatred for the white Christian societies he and his fellow Mohammedans are invading and exploiting—as the shock troops and with the stalwart assistance of the very same Jewish power structure he affects to despise.
            *Guilty as charged, Your Honor. Mea culpa.

        • Yeoman Archer
          Yeoman Archer says:

          @Sam J.
          Thank you. Well said!
          I find the comments most instructive, whether I agree or not, nor as sometimes occurs, fully understand at first reading.
          Without comments; good, bad or indifferent, TOO would pale from the valuable forum that it now occupies!


          (Mod. Note: “Archer” … this mod. totally agrees that w/o TOO’s excellent commentariat, it wouldn’t be quite the same.)

          • Liosnagcat
            Liosnagcat says:

            Thanks, Pierre. Not only did I have no problem reading and understanding your quite lucid post; I agreed with every word of it.

            You, Sir, are a pleasure.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      I suspect the claim that they couldn’t defend them is simply a lie and an exclude. Of course they could get police aid, have arrests made, sack students and so on. But Jews control their money at present. The ‘scared Campus management’ was scared they would lose their jew money.

  8. Rehmat
    Rehmat says:

    Andrew Royce is wrong to suggest that Jews had nothing to do with European colonialism and imperialism.

    Historically, Jews have funded Europe’s every colonial war in Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and Middle East. In recent history, Jews along with their Christian Zionist sheep played a major role in WWI, WWII, colonization of Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Syria.

    Hannah Arendt’s seminal work “The Origins of Totalitarianism” confirm such historical collaboration between the White colonialists and Jew elites.

    On July 20, 2013, Gen. James Mattis admitted on CNN that “world hates US for backing Israel.”

    • Andrew Joyce
      Andrew Joyce says:

      Can you point out where in my article I’ve suggested that? If you can’t, here’s a real suggestion – improve your reading and comprehension skills before attempting to critique my work.

      • Robert Bloch
        Robert Bloch says:

        Dr. Joyce; thank you for an insightful and well written article. My field is Finance and I find pro-European articles by scholars in the Humanities and social sciences to be illuminating and inspiring.

        That said, sincerely and appreciatively, I am taken aback by the uncivil tone of discourse in the comments section. Apart from the odd troll, I find the contributors to be intelligent men of goodwill. I agree that the contributor to whom you replied did not, in my view, accurately characterize your argument. Was it necessary to impugn his literacy? I have, at times, erred in textual analysis. I wonder if a bit more patience from the holder of a doctorate would be constructive. A mere MBA might be intimidated.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Were you to spend even an hour reading Rehmat’s comments on many threads, Mr. Bloch, you would come to see that your concern is needless, if not indeed malapropos. As dubious literacy is low on the list of Rehmat’s offenses—slander, deceit, and hatred of whites and Christians being his more egregious qualities—Andrew Joyce may truly be said to have let Rehmat off very lightly.

        • Karen T
          Karen T says:

          Insightful and well written articles are appreciated, unfortunately unlike the direct action taken back in the 70’s and early 80’s they seem to be ineffectual in halting the Jewish Agenda.

          • Karen T
            Karen T says:

            P.P.S…..Anyone who so obviously tries to sound like a gentleman most certainly isn’t. It often veers into smarminess. The only person who can pull this off is Pierre de Craon because he isn’t trying and is a gentleman.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Thank you very much, Karen. If my mother were alive, your compliment would make her feel that she’d had more success with me than she feared!

      • JM
        JM says:

        When he can be comprehended, this spokesman for mass Muslim migration engages in seat-of-the-pants anti-Western babbling and rarely adds anything original to the discussion at TOO.

  9. Yeoman Archer
    Yeoman Archer says:

    On 10Nov17, the eve of Veterans Day, the local TV (Talmudic en Vision) station shared the news that the University of California Davis campus was, ONCE AGAIN, under attack.
    The recently appointed chancellor, a mulatto from Duke, stated that It’s okay to be white posters were:
    “attempted to subtly convey a message that white people are under attack in the United States”
    “Put up by midnight vandals”
    “seeking only to goad us”
    “part of a national campaign of provocations intended to divide our country.”
    “Their aim was to provoke a reaction”
    “portray it as evidence of growing anti-white discrimination on college campuses.”

    The complete article from the campus paper follows:

    “Chancellor Responds to Provocative Fliers ‘California Aggie’ Runs His Op -Ed: ‘Come As You Are’
    “By Chancellor Gary S. May on November 9, 2017 in University News
    “In guest column for the student newspaper, Chancellor Gary S. May writes: “UC Davis has been and should continue to be a forum for wide-open dialogue on an unlimited range of ideas, including those that many find disturbing.” (Karin Higgins/UC Davis photo)
    “A seemingly benign flier that appeared around UC Davis over the weekend (Nov. 4-5) serves as a reminder that our campus, for all its charm, is hardly insulated from the issues facing our society at large.
    “The anonymous single-sentence message read, “It’s okay to be white.”
    “Multiple postings, made under cover of darkness Saturday night (Nov. 4), were duplicated at many other college campuses across the country. They were spotted in Harvard Yard, Tulane University in New Orleans, Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota, the University of Alberta in Canada and a high school in Silver Spring, Maryland. The fliers attempted to subtly convey a message that white people are under attack in the United States.
    “Well, of course, it’s OK to be white, or brown, or black, or gay, or straight, or rich, or poor, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Catholic, or Protestant or disabled. All are welcome at UC Davis.
    “But why UC Davis? If you were looking to persuade people to accept the concept of “white victimhood,” would you hit a jackpot here, at one of the nation’s top-10 public research universities that prides itself on diversity, inclusion and civil discourse?
    “Of course not. The midnight vandals who posted these fliers are seeking only to goad us. Several of the signs were taped to a banner advertising the annual Empowerment Conference hosted by the UC Davis Women’s Resources and Research Center. Others appeared on sandwich boards outside the Student Community Center, home of our Cross Cultural Center, which seeks to empower students from underrepresented ethnic groups.
    “The posters were part of a national campaign of provocations intended to divide our country. Their aim was to provoke a reaction and portray it as evidence of growing anti-white discrimination on college campuses.
    “We removed the signs on Sunday (Nov. 5) wherever we found them. All were in violation of our campus posting policy, which generally prohibits postings on buildings, walls, windows and trees — whether it’s for a political cause or a blood drive.
    “UC Davis has been and should continue to be a forum for wide-open dialogue on an unlimited range of ideas, including those that many find disturbing. Anonymous fliers, however, are not dialogue. Support for social diversity and equity is not a put-down. This is not a zero-sum game. All can be valued. All can be supported. All can be successful.
    “Yes, it’s OK to be white, or anything else at UC Davis. But, it’s not OK to vandalize or intimidate. Like the signs at the ARC say: “Come as you are.” Just come to learn and contribute constructively to the UC Davis community. “

    • Rehmat
      Rehmat says:

      The Campus Watch, a Philadelphia-based, Israel Hasbara (propaganda in Hebrew) website, has long been campaigning against Dr. David Klein for his criticisim of Israel’s Zionazi policies. The website is run by the Middle East Forum, to monitor US college campuses for academic pro-Palestinian bias and happenings. It publishes dossiers on professors, as well as some examples of their writings.

      The Campus Watch encourages students to snitch on their professors. It has a whole section dedicated to student reports. The Campus Watch is essentially forming a paramilitary thought police, a private TIPS program for pro-Israeli advocates.

  10. Al Ross
    Al Ross says:

    A most insightful article and thank you for it, Dr Joyce.

    I believe a distinction ought to be made between Colonialism and Imperial Presence.

    The White – settled “Old Commonwealth” countries like Canada , Australia and New Zealand are , I think, accurately covered by the descriptor , Colonialism, while the “New Commonwealth” may perhaps be better designated as beneficiaries of Imperial Presence.

    Interestingly, the British are said to have “colonized” Singapore but any disinterested observer would note that the 76% of that successful island’s population are descended from Chinese immigrants who arrived while Imperial Presence was at its height.
    If you were to ask a Singaporean Malay who were the real colonists of his island home he would, I’m sure, point East not West.

    • Rehmat
      Rehmat says:

      Ironically, the former British colonies of United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all controlled by Jewish Lobby. Australia’s current prime minister is Jewish while New Zealand’s former prime minister was Jewish. We all know who rules United states and Canada.

      On September 16, 1963 – The British colonies of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah (North Borneo) joined the Federation of Malay to form Malaysia. Later on August 9, 1965 – Singapore got a divorce from Malaysia.

    • JM
      JM says:

      @Al Ross
      “If you were to ask a Singaporean Malay who were the real colonists of his island home he would, I’m sure, point East not West.”
      True. And particularly today where the founder inhabitants have been ethnically flooded from China. There used to be discussion forums on this matter in which native Singaporean Chinese aired their anger at what their elites were doing to them.

  11. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    An eloquent and informed article. Those who bemoan European colonialism should, but of course will not, reflect on where they would be today without it: sitting in their own squalor going nowhere fast (the status quo, only more so).

    By the way, Vietnam was under the tyrannical thumb of China for a thousand years – long before the French showed up.

  12. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    I wonder if it’s not time to state to those saying formally White colleges should be decolonized that the ones complaining are free to go to their own colleges in Africa or wherever. You probably couldn’t get away with doing that in England without being arrested but you might be be able to in the US.

    What really disheartens me is those that say,”It can’t get any worse” are probably wrong.

  13. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    I’ve just found that A Dirk Moses has some shortish online pieces and reviews here
    (scroll to the bottom).
    . . . I don’t see why Andrew Joyce was impressed. Moses’ articles say nothing about financing of armies, weaponry, propaganda and politicians– which are absolutely crucial to understanding. Moses has the usual superficial cheery lightweightness some of us have come to loathe.

  14. Brownhawk
    Brownhawk says:

    Does anyone out there have any info regarding the changed format on the darkmoon website. One guess I have is that they’ve run out of monitors laboring on the comment threads.

  15. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    It’s a downright blessing that the above DOZEN OR SO FOODFIGHTS are virtual rather than actual. Otherwise, being this close, I fear it would take days to clean up.

    To oppose opinions is productive: throwing spaghetti across the table is merely annoying.

    Time, effort and space better spent on an in-depth study of Israeli cyber superiority and what it will do to us when the genuine spaghetti hits the fan and kills even Paul Revere’s horse during our time of greatest need and last chance!

Comments are closed.