Evaluating Empire: A review of Nigel Biggar’s ‘Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning”

Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning
Nigel Biggar
William Collins, 2023

The controversy over empire is not really a controversy about history at all. It is about the present, not the past. Nigel Biggar

The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. P. Hartley, The Go-Between.

The White population of the USA are wearily used to being beaten with the whip of historical slavery, but in the United Kingdom this weapon is not so effective. Great Britain certainly played a major role in the slave trade, but was most notable in being the first society in history to ban what was a worldwide process. Lacking slavery as a moral scourging-rod, and fortunately for the ethno-masochists who unaccountably direct cultural operations in the UK, they have the British Empire, on which, at one time, the sun famously never set. The Empire has become synonymous with and exemplary of White oppression of non-Whites, and relies on one of the faddish fortune-cookie tropes of cultural Marxism: oppressor and oppressed.

“What I have written is not a history of the British Empire but a moral assessment of it” writes former Professor Nigel Biggar, former  Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford,  in Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, “This stated intent to produce a moral reading of Empire (as the British simply refer to the British Empire) drew me to the book, and I recommend it as a timely redress of today’s skewed use of morality. Professor Biggar is not a historian, as he stresses, but an ethicist, and not one of the modern pop-up versions who insist that the past may be judged by ethical standards which obtain in the present. He states clearly that he is a Christian and, although that is becoming an increasingly risky admission for any British academic, it gives the reader clarity of moral framework regardless of whether they share the author’s beliefs.

He was motivated to write the book as the result of an academic tussle over a university course entitled Ethics and Empire which he taught. It ought to be an unthinkable paradox that a book ultimately praised by leading British historians was almost cancelled before publication, but it is unsurprising in today’s intellectual climate, which is a climate we really ought to be worrying about.

The problem Biggar wishes to unpick is one of moral equivalence extended not culturally but temporally. Retrospective moral standards have two problems of application. Firstly, and simplistically, the validity of applying contemporary moral standards to past events is at best heuristic in the extreme—i.e., a very uncertain way of discovering the truth. Secondly, even if it were unproblematically common practice to apply synchronic standards to diachronic events and epochs, what kind of arbitrational procedure could state unequivocally that the moral standards that today obtain are appropriate to judge anyone at any time? Are the British today better or worse people than their Anglo-Saxon forebears? It is difficult to make sense of the question, let alone attempt to answer it.

This is not the place for more than a cursory overview of morality. After Nietzsche, and his key insight that moral codes are de facto rather than de jure, the idea of moral yardsticks is what the young people call problematic. In Paris, it is still possible to see meter-long lines engraved or painted onto the walls of old market buildings. This was for linen traders to mark off their cloth, and represented an agreed standard. Sadly, no such artisanal nicety exists for morals. Morality (along with metaphysics) was what philosophy was left with when science took the reins, and the phrase “moral philosophy” cannot have the surety of science.

The book contains a treasure trove for the historical layman to unpack, and the effort is more than worth it. Colonialism is shown not as some dark design, but a chess-like response to the imperialistic moves of other powerful European nations:

“The Tudor foundation of colonies in North America was also driven by the desire to secure England against the dominant power of imperial Spain”.

This rather goes against Mr. Biggar’s underlying theme, that there was “no motivation for Empire”, but this is playing with nuance. Empire was not an initiative or project, but a stealthy international game of Risk. Empire is shown not as “sheer acquisitiveness” but the imposition of order where “the brutal alternative would have been rule by irresponsible European adventurers”.

Colonialism also has a very serviceable potted history of the British Empire with just enough detail to inform without a weight of facts and figures in attendance. The Empire came at me piecemeal — as I suspect it did for many British people — as separate events not necessarily available as an overview, and Biggar joins dots that the British have never been taught to see. Empire itself is composed of discrete events gathered under a rubric. Great Britain (primarily England) invested more capital abroad than any other nation on earth, and that it also invested moral values is hardly surprising. Some of the subsequent culture clashes became famous.

The story of Sir Charles Napier and the Indian funeral pyre is undoubtedly known to you, but the paradox of empire is nowhere better portrayed in miniature. Sir Charles considered the Hindu ritual of sati, whereby a widowed woman would join her dead husband on his funeral pyre, quite possibly reluctantly. Build your pyre, said Sir Charles, and I will have my men build adjacent gallows on which we will hang any man involved in this act. Thus, you will observe your customs, and we will observe ours.

And that is the paradox both of empire and of morality. Morality is just fine in the household, but it is not easy to take it elsewhere. This moral response by Napier is seen by many contemporary academics as an example of “othering”, a strange epistemological sleight-of-hand intended to expose a natural cross-cultural event as classic racism.

Given the current war on Christianity, cultural in Europe and actual in some Muslim-majority countries, those seeking to dethrone what is still referred to as Britain’s national religion might note that it was Christian movements that contributed much to slavery’s abolition. I suppose we shouldn’t feel gleeful when we read ideas that would make Leftists today liable to some kind of cardio-vascular event, but it is difficult not to. Biggar has a supporting cast of historians who have not obeyed orders, and therefore put forward ideas that would appall a certain type of commentator. David Ritchie was a late nineteenth-century moral philosopher quoted by Biggar as saying quite plainly that slavery was: “…a necessary step in the progress of humanity… [since it] mitigated the horrors of primitive warfare”. And:

Empire is seen as a gradual evolution rather than a political program, and its beneficial effects are the first casualties of contemporary, anti-White critical theory. In one of many famous scenes from the film Monty Python’s Life of Brian, Reg, the leader of the Judean People’s Front, a resistance movement fighting the Romans, asks his followers, “What have the Romans have ever done for us?” The implication is that the imperialists have done nothing, but his comrades enumerate a great inventory of benefits brought by the Roman Imperium. Reg repeats the extensive list and admits its validity before ending the debate by asking what the Romans have done for the locals apart from law and order, sanitation, medicine, aqueducts, improved diet, etc. Nothing! This mirrors the attitude of the global Left to the British Empire, which did absolutely nothing for backward peoples apart from all the things it did do.

Look at the power of empires, which can be read off in their various legacies. An example is the power of language. Discounting Brazil and anomalous provinces such as Quebec, almost everyone between Alert, Nunavut (the northernmost inhabited point in Canada) and Cape Froward (the southernmost point in Chile) speaks languages which are not native and not even named for the countries where they are spoken. No one speaks a language called “American” or “Bolivian”. They speak English or Spanish. That said, I am sure readers towards the southern border (if it can still be called that) have heard the instruction “Press 1 for Spanish, 2 for English”. This order is the same across Latin America, and Britain would do well to learn how languages disappear by erosion, and empires arrive by other means.

The notion that empire was one-way traffic between colonizer and colonized is also debunked. We hear a lot about the Maoris today, the aboriginal tribal people of New Zealand (still a part of the British Commonwealth) whose traditions have been partly made famous by the Haka dance performed by the NZ Rugby Union team before international matches. The dance is aggressive and confrontational, particularly when playing British teams, but Maoris were not always as pushy to their colonizers: “Maori chiefs twice sent letters to King William IV, asking the British Crown to protect them from interference by settlers”.

This is a plea with a firm moral base, and the reaction of the British to requests and requirements from other nations and international events shows a tough moral stance in demanding circumstances.

Biggar certainly paints a picture that shames current political morality, if such a thing can be said to exist, as he finds that, under British rule: “[G]overnance was not so decrepit, bribery not so rampant, favouritism not so common, corruption and plunder of public funds not so pervasive, injustice not so blatant, and bureaucracy not so partisan as it is today”.

Progress is deceptive if it is seen purely in technocratic terms.

As Professor Biggar says in conversation, no one, either historian or activist, seems particularly exercised by history’s non-White Empires, be they Arabic or Zulu. So why should the White man be singled out, particularly when his empires were demonstrably superior to other attempts by the less-abled? Essentially, the British were victims of success, and now that the sun has set on Empire, the jackals of Critical Race Theory are moving in. The British Empire is synonymous with racism for the “woke” Left, and cannot be admitted to have a single redeeming feature. Britain’s punishment for this great and unforgiven gift is flowing across its borders on a daily basis. The Empire really is striking back.

Professor Biggar takes on his opponents, recognizing the main weapon of the post-modern academic is to attempt to debase the White global legacy. Anti-White argument is invariably ex cathedra, arriving at a conclusion without the preliminary steps of proof. Dan Hicks is a Professor of contemporary archeology at Oxford University. Professor Biggar shows up the modern academic “technique” of creating a lexicon which, although it appears to be profound and progressive, is really just anti-White name-calling:

Hicks’ thinking is structured by a number of abstractions: ‘corporate extractive capitalism’, ‘militarism’, ‘racism’, and ‘proto-fascism’. All of these are used to characterize ‘colonialism’ and are morally laden in a pejorative manner. None are explained or justified. They are taken as axiomatic.

This recent, emotive style of academic discourse is equivalent to the old philosophical “Boo/Hooray theory”, by which language is reducible to simple approval or disapproval of the subject under discussion.

How will the ethicists of the future assess our sorry epoch? It is devoutly to be wished that they apply the same approach as Mr. Biggar. Modern myths are springing up with increasing frequency as anti-White academia strengthens its grip on the narrative of history, one in which the roles of saints and sinners have been cast. Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning has as its central support something unpalatable to the new breed; that Empire was not an invasion.

In essence, Empire was the natural response of an island nation surrounded by physical and economic aggressors:

“The desire of self-defence and therefore advantage in international competition or war was often the leading imperial motive of those who ruled Britain, whether from the throne or from Parliament”.

It is not straightforward to recognize who currently rules Britain, but they would do well to understand the true course and legacy of the British Empire. This book should be on the shelves of Westminster, the Mother of all Parliaments, as well as in the office of anyone who teaches the history of the British Empire.

26 replies
    • Mark Engholm
      Mark Engholm says:

      A Briton and an Australian sit in dignified surroundings in high-quality leather armchairs, patting each other on the back to reassure each other that they have done more good than harm for the world. The only genociders, according to Biggar, came from Berlin. This small matter of the disappeared Tasmanians, says Biggar, is the subject of debate. That would in no way be genocide. That would clear up the issue and wipe it off the table. They claim to have done everything out of altruism. Their vest is spotless and untainted.

      But you can also look at it quite differently: Their empire plundered the whole world and helped Britain (the “Crown”) to untold wealth, leaving behind a single swath of devastation. Not a word about the Irish famine they provoked, the (multiple) Bengal famine, the vile, devious bombing terror against hundreds of thousands of German civilians, or about the millions of dying Germans after the war from hunger, cold and mistreatment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgv8VoyJ3wA

      As far as I know, it was Germans, not the British, who founded and promoted abolitionism in America. The British, in their boundless arrogance and self-satisfaction, are still floating carefree in their bubble of illusion, even though they are already wiping out and replacing their own population with millions of third-world invaders. Pride comes before a fall. But Biggar, like his interlocutor, is primarily concerned with cementing the Allied post-war narrative. After all, their own fathers always fought on the right side of history.

      As always, this is a discourse about terminology. How much blood is on their own hands would be the more correct question. Because the victims couldn’t care less whether they died systematically and deliberately (or) out of sheer cold calculation, indifference or ignorance. And then always this drivel about “free markets, liberal democracy” and similar nonsense. Who benefits most from the dependent low-cost producing countries?

      Hypocrisy has a long tradition at Albion: “We only murder in the name of good and humanism!” What about all the unnecessary wars in the Middle East over the last few decades, where the British are always at the forefront? There, too, it’s all about “collateral damage”. In the Ukraine war, several hundred thousand people are said to have lost their lives because Boris Johnson ensured that peace negotiations were prevented.

      The British “Rule of Law” would be the envy of the world. As far as I know, in its pitiful homeland people are already being thrown into prison for years for the most trivial “thought crimes”, something that doesn’t even exist in the Third World. Truly: a real reason to be proud! Biggar, as sympathetic as he may seem, emphasizes again self-righteously at the end that the most important goal was not to have “cleansed” the world of communism (100 million victims), but of Nazism. I can only reply in my Christian moral ethic: “Amen! Your word (hopefully not!) in God’s ears.”

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        I’m of British descent. I believe we can obliterate the Holocaust myth now due to Israel’s recent actions. You can hate Brits all you like, but we likely sink or swim together.

        I never realised how vulnerable the Holocaust was before Paul Craig Roberts’s recent article. The real numbers apparently weren’t even a million; incredible if true.

        All we need is to translate Irving into Arabic.

        • Mark Engholm
          Mark Engholm says:

          Tyvm, my dear Weaver. But “hate” is a much too strong a word for my anti-British sentiments, which also never touched on British (pro-European/pro-White oriented) patriotism – only their corrupt ruling class (riddled with Jews & Freemasons). The Germans love the British more than vice versa, which unfortunately worked to their disadvantage. You therefore do not have to and must not feel personally affected in any way.



        • Mark Engholm
          Mark Engholm says:

          Admittedly: Personally, I am not a “friend” of the British. Although I find them extremely interesting as an object of study. The Americans were able to save a fraction of British honor, but only with the help of the Germans and Irish. So I’m more pro-American than pro-British.

          So there can be no talk of “love” on my part. My mother experienced the burning sky over Dresden as a two-year-old girl in a baby carriage on the run from East Prussia 30 kilometers away, one of her most primal memories ever. All of this is deeply engrained in our collective memory.

          I personally don’t know what Germans have to “thank” Brits for. Their Military were far more cruel than the American. But the Americans were cowards and handed over thousands of people to the Communists for execution. Naturally, Germans have a closer connection to America.

        • Mark Engholm
          Mark Engholm says:

          You ask yourself: “Is this my brother? He demonstratively throws his food away when he has no appetite instead of giving it to me. I know practically nothing about him. I’m a disruptive factor that he excludes.” As an adult, this brother doesn’t even want to get to know your children. He doesn’t care about you at all.

          In the same way, the Brit, who apparently “looks like us”, is an eternal enigma. If you’re relying on his good nature, you’ve miscalculated. There’s something wrong with him, something fundamentally defective. Perhaps he comes from an alien universe, but he certainly wasn’t born in the same cradle as us.
          Imagine you are the younger brother of an older one, and your brother’s worn-out pants (that’s how it was with us back then) are refused to you by him. He doesn’t want you to wear the pants he wore himself. He keeps everything a secret from you, you’re not even allowed to read his magazines or inherit his rock star poster on the wall. This is something like the attitude of the British towards their ancestors. Your father says: “Your brother is deviant, I sometimes doubt that I am his father at all.”

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Paul Craig Roberts is a fine man, but the “vulnerability” of the so-called Holocaust was definitively established more than sixty years ago by the American Harry Elmer Barnes and especially by the Frenchman Pierre Rassinier, who showed that the total number of European Jewish deaths during World War II came to around half a million, a figure proportional with that suffered by every other national and racial group that had the misfortune of being on scene.

          Since Rassinier’s health was severely compromised and his life shortened in consequence of his having been imprisoned for two years at Buchenwald, his thoroughly researched attack upon the Jewish lie that the Germans planned to exterminate the Jews of Europe speaks eloquently to his integrity.

          This website is one of a great many resources still available to those who prefer facts to the rants of robocommenters.

    • eric smith
      eric smith says:

      Well said. But their grip is slipping now and opportunity for a new future can perhaps be faintly glimpsed. What do you think it might look like?

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        Biotech is advancing. Cameras and microphones are everywhere and connected online with the world.

        The future might be nice for those working remotely, who can avoid the progress. If a group could live on the fringe while thriving and picking up high paying jobs while affording lobbyists to block discrimination, maybe that group would enjoy a pleasant life. Control of food, water, and energy are key. Having many kids will also be key.

        Since we’re exposed to carcinogens and since we lack natural selection, biotech will be a popular danger.

  1. GirlinTexas
    GirlinTexas says:

    “but it is unsurprising in today’s intellectual climate,”

    Today’s intellectual climate = indigenous ways of knowing. It’s all so very ridiculous. “They” regress to the mean, always. They know not what they do, which is why “they” are being unmeritoriously elevated in western society. Beyond the political and cultural implications of inept rulers/leaders, we should bear in mind that indigenous ways of knowing can not build bridges, construct/fly planes, operate electricity grids, operate plumbing systems, construct highways and design the vehicles used to travel thereon…..on it goes. Although, I think it’s absolutely necessary that modern people learn to navigate by the stars and look for natural medicines/herbs and foods for health and sustenance. Whites/Europeans once had indigenous ways, as well; not everything once known is useless today.

    Although the Brits did end the slave trade, that doesn’t seem to matter in Britain these days. In point of fact, everywhere the Brits (and Europeans) landed, they generally left things better than when they arrived. Look at Singapore, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Rhodesia, South Africa, New York City….I wonder why the Asian cities/nations still prosper, but the other former European colonies Do Not? What could it be….?

  2. Mark Engholm
    Mark Engholm says:

    Anti-Nazi and colonialism defender Dr. Buce Gilley:

    Perry Atkinson: “So is that kind of what the complaint is in the Middle East War right now Israel is implementing its system over Gaza or at least over the Hamas and Palestinians?”

    Gilley: “That’s right. Israel is a successor state to the British colonial mandate in Palestine that the British took over after the Ottoman Empire collapsed in World War I.

    The British colonial mandate in Palestine created the state of Israel. Israel is a settler colonial state in the sense, and I mean that in a good sense not in a bad sense, it’s it’s a colonial legacy state that was settled by Jews returning to and in many cases coming for the first time to Israel.

    And because it’s a British colonial settler state it is well-governed: it has the rule of law, it has democracy, it has development, it has human rights, has accountable government, it has room for dissent, and it’s open to new ideas and to self-criticism. That’s the great legacy of colonialism.

    The complaint about Gaza is that the Israelis are trying to protect their settler colonial state and allow the Palestinians to have their own system of government, which the Palestinians are serially unable to do, which keeps drawing the Israelis into these areas, much like a settler colonial state or a colonial state might have done in the past and the best thing for Palestine would be for Israel to take over the entire area.”


    I’m currently watching the “colonial satire” “Black and White in Color” from 1976, co-produced by multiple Jewish Oscar winner Arthur Cohn. Reminds strongly of “Shout To The Devil” from the same year, produced by Jew Michael Klinger (screenplay by half-Jew Stanley Price), at least it’s not so extremely Germanophobic.


    “Annaud credited the idea for his film Black and White in Color on a passage in the manuscript L’Histoire Gènérale du Cameroun which it reads: ” a Major von Rabben [sic!] who was immortalized by his heroic resistance against Allied forces in the glorious Battle of Mora during World War I”.


    Cohn, his tribe’s bro “German” Brauner and a partly Jewish Italian named Hecht Lucari also produced a film adaptation called “The Garden of the Finzi-Continis” based on the story of the Jew Giorgio Bassani. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_of_the_Finzi-Continis_(film)


    However, even the partly Jewish “senior circuit judge” Calabresi admits that this is supposed to be a fictitious mixture of Jewish phantasmagoria.



  3. Alan
    Alan says:

    Ageism. Omni. Havana effect. Sati.Transmogrification.
    Emplacement of the insubstantial over the substantial. The substitution of flat minded jewish scientific materialism,pseudoscience,..
    lyshenkoistic scientism,..dolly the sheep frankinsteen science for morality is the road to serfdom. The New technofacist feudalism the new idiocracy the new dark ages of never ending jewish kleptocracy…some appropriately call this the kikeistocracy,the New Jew Order cyborg Dystopia. This sorry state of affairs ..fascism micromanaged by jewish luciferian leftwingnuts,can only be achieved by eviscerating
    any moral conscience..by felonizing,as jews have already done,any pure moral awareness by lawfare and bizarre mandates. Can mike Lee or rand Paul do anything to counter what the Synagogue of Satan talmudic theofacists ,the bolshevist cyborg jews have gentrified? Americans in cities have to get used to seeing illegal aliens with locked black and red light ankle bracelets…more word salads from kamala harris…more zionistic psychosis from rfk..from trump from vivek..
    The former moral compass now obliterated by the relentless pernicious influences of Jews, is explicated beautifully,if dolefully , ruefully, angrily, in this excellent article.
    Highlighting the sordid declension of our era versus what was England and Europe prior to the establishment of the zionist colonialialist entity ..the universally hated isreali apartheid supercrime state…leaves a trillion perceptions of what was and ,perhaps not so astonishingly ..what is.
    We instantly and deeply appreciated 1984…orwell.We never accepted , we reviled,the zirconic idea s..that..”yours is not to question why ..yours is but to do..or die” and its imperial corolary..”the sun shall never set on the British empire.”Like “holocaustianity”..what obliquely absurd brazen nonsense.Some will pine for the.
    unshackeled disciplined idealism of some great men and women of the past as we in the postmodern era face the rise of transgender shooters. soon to be transhumanist shooters… we hear muffled horrified allegations of american doctors surreptitiously ,with zero informed consent,implanting microchips…metallic
    tracking chips in surgery patients..all for New Jew Order super security state..the super police state jewish super surveillance dystopia. Coercion has no moral compass. The absolute deletion of morality is the final herald of the end of empire.By contrast perhaps we can see some apocalyptic way out…..its not over till the fat lady sings..some piece of work those jewdevils are…talking one day about moses and living for satan all week long….Great article..Great comments. Links.. HIAS. .Charlie Lieber..Harvey Weinstein..
    Sanofi. Sputnik .. sino vac.. pfizer J and J. Modrna…D.U.M.B…
    suitcase nukes in all cities …
    Jew tunnels in every city… Bill gates(jew) has 2 million new internet censors . Buddhists ,Daoists want Jew Biden Out. Janet yellin s (jew) new low…americans can pay more”.

    • Helen12
      Helen12 says:

      Are there Jewish tunnels in Australia? Please tell me. You mentioned morality. There has been some good things. When there was a toilet roll shortage some young people gave theirs to old people. Although if we did not have COVID and the lockdowns there would probably have never been a toilet roll shortage! You mean TPTB want to destroy morality. The ordinary people still have morality.

  4. Dr. Doom
    Dr. Doom says:

    Facts matter little to the underman. Emotional blackmail is just a cover for parasitism and predation. The non White colored barbarians have outlived their world. They are now doomed to extinction in one way or another. The violent crime and theft are the only way that these outmoded throwbacks know to survive. The stone age has passed and the space age is here now. However, these living fossils are perpetuated by misguided charity and malignant globalism slavery fantasies. The idea that you can make a world of feudalism with primitive stone age morons is the best lie that Satan ever told. The plantation system of the colonial era was backed by industrial age technology and advanced agricultural methods. The ridiculous idea that you can get the same result without the Western World and its advantages is the Big Lie that pushes the AntiWhite pogroms of the stupid braindead meat puppets of Satan. In truth, globalism is a suicide cult based on lies and magical thinking. Only the dullest minds are able to fall for this nonsense. The fake jew is a parasite itself and has no ability to understand what works in the real world. It also has a monstrous ego that falsely believes in their ability to overcome facts with false beliefs. The stupid belief that you can change reality by changing the meaning of words is the magical thinking of an idiot. You can’t cheat an honest man or fool a worker with false theories, but a pathetic con man that never worked his whole life is the world’s biggest sucker.
    The brown hordes are not capable of living in the space age. They can only leech or loot a living off of their betters. These stone age living fossils have never learned basic agriculture much less industry based on science. One group of idiots is leading another group of idiots to the magical land of extinction. There is no love lost for Satan as far as mankind is concerned. He never liked Adam, found Lilith to be too stubborn for her own good and Eve was quite the little passive aggressive bitch. You can see mankind’s weakness in the first specimens of the species. But I digress. This Big Lie is what has fueled the entire AntiChrist movement and leads the global suicide cult to its own destruction. Don’t expect any of these idiots to ever wise up to the charade. Satan is a super genius and He picks his marks carefully to get what He wants. If the “leaders” seem to lack brains and wisdom, it is not an accident. They were “chosen” to be useful idiots not leaders. The way to approach this problem is to understand that you can not reach the solution through reasoning or facts. Facts just annoy idiots and they just Hate anyone who brings facts to the table. That Hate they will project on you if you try to reason with them. Both the Kosher Mafia and the brown hordes are not able to exist in the space age of today. The Star Trek of fantasy is absurd, and the truth is Lost in Space. White Men built the space age all by themselves. It’s the reason that the underman Hates you. You have created a whole world that these idiots can’t live in. They have to believe in ridiculous fantasies and use magical thinking. Science and Math are racist and they don’t have the ability to do it. How can you expect idiots to accept that they must go extinct to make the world the future of mankind? Self sacrifice is not in the nature of your enemies. They hope that you will sacrifice your life for their hopeless cause of having their fantasy world. Some of the White people have been brainwashed by the enemy media to believe that women and retarded people are the glorious future. You must sacrifice these idiots for you and your family. It is pointless to argue facts with idiots that are too stupid to care. The harsh reality is that they are doomed to extinction by the world. Many profess the idea of evolution but ignore the fact that the incapable must needs to die off. It is a pointless thing to argue about. The space age is here and trying to go back to the feudal past would require the same ingredients for the system to survive. However, the idiots of globalism have lost all sight of reality and operate solely on fantasy. Whether the stupid talmudic heresy of a “chosen few” being treated like false gawds by a compliant slave population or the equally ludicrous fantasy of Wakanda, a rich space age society built entirely by magic. Both from the same source. The useful idiots of Satan. You can either see this as an existential problem or a war for survival. Either way, it’s not a good strategy to try and reason with a ruthless enemy that wants you dead. The fact that the enemy will die off anyway due to their own stupidity may be funny, but it doesn’t matter to your enemies. Globalism is a recipe for an extinction event similar to the extinction of the dinosaurs. But this time it is not a natural disaster that will be the cause. You should focus on survival and prepare for your own future. Expect to be attacked and prepare to have to defend yourself. It’s not just accidental that White Men are mostly Christian. And make no mistake, abandoning the Faith will not save you. The Seed of Mankind is sown in the firm soil of White Western Civilization. The White Western Men are the only ones capable of leaving the Earth and joining the intergalactic community. The Oriental Asians can copy but don’t ever innovate. Their culture of ancestor worship and traditional heritage has made them stand still as the West has become the space age. This is shown by the time lag between the Western Space Exploration and the recent development of it by the Oriental Asians. If they are leftover, the world will regress rather than progress. However I don’t think that the globalists will allow them to survive. The Oriental Asians are just as discriminated against as White Men by that system. The fake jew heresy of the talmudic doctrine insists that only dull brown slaves are needed. Satan chose the idiots well. They are determined by their own religion and egoism to believe in the formula for mass extinction. They will fanatically follow these steps until they are just as dead as they want White Men to be…

    • Helen12
      Helen12 says:

      The African-Americans have been destroyed by the single mother’s pension. The single mother’s pension has been bad in other countries but it was much worse in the Black American community. The SMP ruined the Black family. Young girls try to go on it deliberately. Young men have no intention of staying with their pregnant girlfriend. I wonder what the parents of the young Black people are doing? The parents do not seem to care if their daughter goes on the SMP or their son abandons his pregnant girlfriend. There used to be shame attached to single motherhood. Now it is just normal. It is the welfare state that destroyed the Black American community. It is the lack of shame that destroys society. We need moral values more than ever.

  5. Peter London
    Peter London says:

    The chief legacy of the British Empire, indeed of all the European empires, was an enormous population increase of the non-whites. That increase has carried on accelerating since independence and now looks set to overwhelm us.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      If you ask Brits what it means to be British… they’ll say “Empire!” They’ll explain how enormous their empire was. It’s everything to them. They remember nothing else. It’s as if they sold the Devil their hearts.

      • What’s up Skip
        What’s up Skip says:

        For at least the last two hundred years Britons, wherever in the globe they might be, have been encouraged to think of themselves as integral to and benefiting from Empire. Small wonder that they have forgotten how to live without it and the attendant John Bull propaganda.

  6. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    Off topic: Paul Craig Robert’s just posted an article on David Irving. Within he mentions Irving’s comments on the Holocaust. Also, Irving needs a publisher.

    It’s such a fascinating comment on the Holocaust that this site might want to repost it here. Maybe an Arab would publish Irving or expand upon the Holocaust?


    That would destroy Israel were Arabs to publish such ideas. Imagine if someone gave Assad or an Iranian leader that book… Israel would disappear.

    • What’s up Skip
      What’s up Skip says:

      They already know! I suspect this is one reason why Muslims hate Zionists so much and why the controlled opposition right is so anti-Islam. But who in the West, other than us, would believe them if they started trying to publicise the facts? They would just be ignored or smeared as ‘Nazis’ and ‘anti-Semites’.

      • Weaver
        Weaver says:

        Muslims will deny the Holocaust, but they rarely have a basis for their denial, in my limited experience.

        Irving is the best citation a person could use.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 Mark Weber, at his IHR Tuesdays weekly conversations with Frodi Mitjord, streamed after 3 pm EST, mentioned, that David Irving has dad medical problems since October, and has been recently bedridden.
      02 This courageous, multipli persecuted and prosecuted front-line-soldier in our front ranks, now finds out, that his touted National Health Care, does not suffice to cover his condition.
      03 My imminently scheduled contributions to the Ukraine will be rescheduled to his caring daughter.

  7. WCH
    WCH says:

    I just purchased this book and it is mostly a waste of my money. The author is neither a philosopher or a historian. He demonizes Hitler’s Germany as an evil, racist endeavor while making excuses for British and by default Jewish atrocities. His moral judgment is lacking in facts and logic.

Comments are closed.