Directly Comparing Colonial Emigration with Globalist Immigration

Let’s be honest about which is worse.

I had the misfortune today to have a Trevor Noah stand up routine pop up on my Facebook feed. I say ‘a’ routine, but he’s only ever had one. Noah built an entire lucrative career on the servicing of black supremacism, white guilt, and contemporary historical ignorance dripping in hypocritical racism towards white people and their countries and ancestors. For over 20 years Noah’s stand up routine basically consisted of telling white people they are shit and, a lifetime after it last existed, hating on a British Empire almost entirely devoid of living defenders.

For some reason Noah’s century old hatreds were considered ‘topical’. And in the same bemusing manner in which deadly serious leftist hatred from the likes of Jimmy Kimmel was erroneously referred to as comedy, Noah’s embittered digs at a political corpse, manifesting a third or fourth generational prejudice, were similarly described as ‘comedy’.

And yet the only laughs either could ever muster were those of achingly progressive, ironically tribal political allegiance. Even leftists have to strain to laugh at this stuff:

How to keep your comedy bang on the cutting edge in the 2020s….doing painfully constructed gags strawmanning Brits who didn’t want to be ruled from abroad (by the EU) as pith helmeted colonial administrators of the 1880s.

Of course this shit had become commonplace, feeding both ethnic resentment and middle and upper class white guilt. White liberals paid money to sit dutifully chortling while ‘comics’ like Noah trash talked their long dead great grandfathers, just as white liberals plastered Black Lives Matter flags on their lawns or, to get more up to the minute than Noah ever did, post in horror that Pete Hegseth asking for soldiers not to be obese and incompetent excludes blacks and women:

One thing that isn’t normally done though is to link this stuff together from the perspective of the Right. The Trump administration has been excellent in dismissing the modern narratives of DEI, critical race theory and constant national self loathing that describes modern liberal ‘thought’, but don’t tend to dwell too much on how a reading of history that is, frankly, retarded and untrue underpins every contemporary injustice (open borders, mass migration, excuses for criminality, anti-white racism, vast networks of anti-national fraud, theft and corruption that forces western citizens to pay for the dismantling of their nation states) inflicted on white people (and integrated, saner minorities) in the modern day.

The Noah attitude to the past (all snarky sneering victimhood) is integral to the Kimmel attitude towards the present (let’s laugh when Charlie Kirk is murdered). Together, they form the standard malice and spite towards most white people held in the attitudes of richer liberal whites and those minorities who rise solely on the basis of that hate towards the majority.

As little as rational response will change these opinions, it’s perhaps still useful to address the Noah attitude and directly compare colonial emigration and present mass immigration. When we do we get a sharp sense of how reality averse the modern progressive liberal perspective is. Historical ignorance and geographical ignorance is as necessary to their belief system as things like ignoring biological reality are.

But when we do directly compare past emigration with modern immigration, what do we see?

Between 1815 and 1914 22.6 million people left the United Kingdom to settle in the rest of the world. This was the height of Empire and of British emigration.

12 million of this number went to the US, which at that point was already an established westernised nation. 1.7 million were Irish fleeing the potato famine, with in many cases a hatred of the Empire. So it’s historically illiterate on several fronts to consider this 12 million as ‘settlers’ or as colonialists advancing the ‘wicked Empire’.

That leaves 10 million in a century. The vast majority were again not going to other nations and assuming positions of authority as colonial rulers. And they were spread over the entire globe. The most common destinations were Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

This left very little permanent British settlement in Africa, India and other ‘non white’ nations. In the vast majority of cases, white settlement never exceeded the numbers of non white natives. In India and Africa, it never came even anywhere close. Through the entire history of colonialism, these native populations were assured of remaining the majority.

What we are talking about is 1 million people every 10 years, spread across the ENTIRE globe.

The landmass of the UK is 93,000 square miles.

The landmass of the US is 3.8 million square miles. Britain fits into the US 40 times.

The landmass of Canada is similar to that of the US. It’s also listed as 3.8 million square miles, but is slightly larger than the US. Britain fits into Canada 41 times.

Australia has a landmass which is a little under 3 million square miles. Britain fits into Australia between 31-37 times, depending on slightly different calculations.

The landmass of India is 1.2 million square miles. Britain fits into India 13 times.

Africa’s landmass is 11.7 million square miles. Britain fits into Africa 120 times.

The landmass that Brits settled over a century is approximately 231 times larger than the British Isles, at a minimum which only includes the areas above.

Almost none of those settlers were stealing anything. There was no welfare to claim. There was no asylum to claim. They were not presented with oppressed native servants on arrival. They came from the only nation on Earth that was vigorously opposing slavery globally. They had to work. Only a tiny fraction of them were assuming posts of authority as colonial administrators and the most popular destination was already outside the Empire.

The entire narrative of the evils of colonialism is, as commonly presented, horseshit. People didn’t steal things that were already there. They built things that had never been there. By enormous effort. And far more their own effort, than that of ‘exploited natives’.

By contrast, over a million people a year are coming from the entire globe to the UK. Colonialism-1 million people every 10 years to the ENTIRE WORLD. Modern mass immigration and Globalism-1 million people from the ENTIRE WORLD to the tiny UK every SINGLE year.

The UK has added the same number of people to its small landmass in 10-20 years that it settled in the entire rest of the world over 100 years at the height of colonialism and colonial settlement.

Globalists have conducted a colonial conquest of the UK at least 10 times more devastating, in terms of numbers alone in a 10 year period, than colonialism at its height, in an area 231 times more concentrated.

Which is to say nothing of the difference between going somewhere and building something better, and going somewhere and simply destroying what was there. By that judgement, too, in most cases colonialism was far more morally justified than modern mass immigration and the betrayal of once peaceful, successful and harmonious nation states with defined borders.

It is said that natives elsewhere were never asked if they wanted to accept settlement and colonialism. But nobody in the native population of the UK was asked if they wanted globalism, multiculturalism, fairly rapid demographic extinction, race based child rape gangs, terrorism, Islam, minority status, and the permanent alteration of their nation while being told they are racist to notice it and facing arrest if they protest against it.

The reality is that European colonialism and The British Empire was far more morally justified than modern mass immigration and created far more of worth than modern mass immigration has. It is objectively the case that an imperialist can point to far more material, objective and real world improvements from 19th century colonial emgration, than a Globalist can point to material, objective and real world improvement from mass migration into the West.

It is also the case that even if both are morally wrong, one is a wrong that no longer exists, and the other is the wrong being committed today. If native non European populations were right to oppose change, settlement and conquest, why aren’t white populations in Europe right to do the same today? Why are white populations the only populations on Earth not entitled to preserve a homeland, a majority population, and the culture, traditions and places that their ancestors owned? If moving to another place and demanding they change is racist and evil, why is it not racist and evil when it is done to white majority nations?

Pictures can of course paint a thousand words. So there are other ways to remind ourselves that the colonial legacy was objectively better than the impacts of modern mass migration are. Let’s for example compare the sort of thing the British left behind in India:

With the sort of impact mass third world migration has had on existing western cities.

The above is an image of one of the (many) buildings the British left behind in India. It might be thought that this was an achievement to be respected.

But that is the legacy Trevor Noah despises. Yet the same man would of course regard it as racist to look honestly at the impact of third world migration on the UK or Europe. For the sake of a proper understanding of the vapidity of the modern attitude Noah represents, let us end with the following…..

Below is footage of how third world immigration has affected the once romantically beautiful city of Paris: