‘Imperialism’ means having an empire. Specifically, it’s having influence on somewhere besides your place of origin (through for example politics or military pressure). Colonialism, on the other hand, is a subset of this involving actual settlement in different regions (sometimes through force).

 

Pretty much every major territory has at some point engaged in aggressive imperialist expansionism. The Japanese Empire, particularly during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, engaged in militaristic expansion in Asia, notably during the invasion of Korea, Manchuria, and parts of China. This period included oppressive policies and forced labour, as well as the establishment of "comfort women" systems that forced young women and girls into being sex slaves for the Japanese army in occupied territories. The Islamic empires, such as the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates, and later the Ottoman Empire, also expanded their territories significantly through military conquest. These empires imposed heavy taxations on the indigenous, and at times engaged in brutal suppression of revolts and resistance, notably against non-Muslim populations. But for some reason, the empire that gets the most flack for its historic imperialist dealings- by a country mile- is that of the British.

 

The British Empire was a vast colonial empire that, at its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, included territories across North America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. It was characterised by the expansion of British influence and control, often through colonisation, exploitation of resources (including slavery), and the establishment of British governance. Following the two World Wars, the empire began to dissolve as many colonies gained independence. This transition was driven by a combination of factors, including rising nationalist movements within the colonies and shifts in global attitudes towards imperialism. In the aftermath of decolonisation, many former colonies chose- voluntarily- to maintain ties with Britain, leading to the formation of the Commonwealth of Nations in 1949. The Commonwealth is a political association of member states, most of which were former territories of the British Empire, promoting cooperation, cultural exchange, and mutual support among its members while still respecting their sovereignty.

 

Some of the strategies Britain used historically to expand and manage its empire were indeed barbaric. Along with the Islamics and the Americas, Britain gained an economic edge on the World stage through its mass use of African slaves well into the 19th century who saw horrendously inhumane treatment under its rule. There’s no amount of money you could ever give that could adequately compensate slavery. (Nor is there an amount you could give to compensate the ancestors of World war I or II victims, those of the Armenian, Rwandan, Bosnian, Iraqi genocides, or generally any grievance committed by any major territory’s forebears…)

 

---

If we’re going to insist on forever talking slavery… why isn’t anyone talking about the Arabs?

 

The predominantly Islamic Arab slave trade, which spanned from the 7th century to the early 20th century, involved the forcible capture and enslavement of an estimated 10 to 17 million Africans, as well as people from Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East, transported across the Sahara Desert, through the Indian Ocean, and via the Mediterranean Sea. It seems an oddly contentious topic compared to its Western counterpart…

 

Two things immediately spring to mind following even cursory online research. One is how relatively deep into the web you have to go for any of the trade’s more frank and grim details to really surface. You’re often reduced to scrawling forums to be pointed in the direction of the more honest historical accounts of the Islamic trade, which saw more taken into forced servitude than the West’s ever did. My second observation is that none of the mainstream media outlets seem as ready and willing to condemn it, in comparison to how they will the Transatlantic. Many seem more determined to rush to its defence. “There were more regulations!” “Arab slaves were treated better!” “They were seen as people first, and slaves second!”

 

Just the word ‘slavery’ should give you a clue as to how disingenuous anyone defending the trade, of any shape or form, is being. Slavery is kidnapping someone from their home (often violently), ripping them away from their families, and forcing them into a life of perpetual labour, disease and pain for nothing. That is fundamentally wrong. And Arab slavery was every bit as vile as Western. Even beyond life-long female sex enslavement, the male slaves would routinely have their genitals cut off without anaesthetic following their capture, an ordeal many of them wouldn’t even survive. And that’s just what we know about the trade. Primary sources regarding what else actually went down aren’t things we’re as privy to in the West, compared to the wealth of documentation we have regarding Western slavery. So we’re not even getting the full story, and what we know is already plenty.

 

The Arabs enslaved approximately 6 million more than the West did. This isn’t to pit the two against each other in a sort of ‘immorality’ top trumps. They were both evil practices, and should be laid bare for all to see. It’s just to level the playing field. I only found out about the extent of Arab slavery through my research for Absolute Justice Revolution, the book. European slavery, however, seems to be hammered into our heads on an almost daily basis, as if it’s the only one that ever existed (not to mention, slavery still exists TODAY… shouldn’t that be what we’re talking about the most?).

 

Present-day Britain doesn’t ‘owe’ any other countries anything. The colonisers and slave drivers are all dead. Colonialism happened, laws have been put in place to ensure fairer practices in future. Britain actually spent more on eradicating slavery globally than it ever made from it (all with the likes of the Barbary pirates simultaneously abducting British fishermen from their home shores for conversion into slavery, under Islamic Caliphates). Claiming there is still some ongoing resource debt between generations that had nothing to do with colonialism is absurd. It’s like hunting down the wife and daughter of a convicted criminal, trespassing, staking claim to their home and worldly possessions, then murdering them in cold blood because of what the criminal did. It doesn’t make sense, and results in innocent people suffering and dying needlessly- just as unfettered illegal immigration has, with the increases in violent crime, segregation and chaos it’s brought with it.

 

And so, regardless of history, we have to know the point at which banging on about it without any sense of balance turns into undeserved victimhood, and narcissism. The Western world (including Britain) stands- today- as a beacon of hope for equal rights, free speech, science, technology, justice, and I pray one day World peace. The absolute focus right now in Britain, and much of the West, needs to be asserting control over its borders, and its damn-near lawless high streets, avenues and alleyways. In a country where the terrorism threat level has been stuck at ‘substantial’ for as long as I can remember, machetes are wielded like mobile phones, gunfights are commonplace, victims are blamed for their poor ‘crime prevention’ skills, the police and military are seen as punching bags to the media and public alike, and rapes, stabbings, murders and riots are broadcast practically every other news headline, we quite simply need to adopt a phase of recovery and border lockdown until some semblance of law, order, national pride and quality of life has returned.

 

It’s our families, and the future, at stake.

 

---

Asylum.

 

The first thing to recognise on the subject of asylum is that frankly, no one ‘has’ to leave their home country. I, for example, am standing and fighting for what’s right in Britain, despite the clear risk of the state devolving into a woke, censorship-driven dark age, and being persecuted myself for speaking out against the establishment. The fighting age men claiming asylum in Britain (*honestly, or otherwise) could too apply this mindset of standing and fighting to improve their own territories, instead of fleeing to other countries that potentially aren’t in a state of sufficient economic stability to accommodate them. (Defensor would have different stances on asylum-seeking women and children- this isn’t sexism for the sake of sexism, it’s a frank observation of the fact that men commit 80% of the world’s violent crimes, from someone who is also a man.)

 

Yes- poverty, war, displacement, unnecessary suffering are all extremely sad. But something we all know deep down as adults, is that there has to, at some point, be a reasonable line drawn between charity and self-preservation. If our obligations to those in need had no limits, we would just send literally all of our earnings to war-torn countries. Hand over our houses to the homeless. Chop ourselves up into neat portions, lightly roast ourselves, leaving a suicide note which simply reads “please feed me to the hungry”. An uncomfortable truth about not just genuine morality, but life in general, is that no matter how hard you try, you cannot save everyone. Right now- although many of us in the West are working extremely hard to try and uproot the global paradigms that are perpetuating this- life is inherently dangerous, competitive and unfair, and some people just draw the short straw. They just get unlucky. We can’t blame ourselves for this. You can’t blame yourself for lacking the will to just throw yourself onto the fire in some vein hope of saving a few more unlucky individuals whose time was just quite simply up. That level of self-sabotaging hyper-altruism seems more pathological than sensible. Past a point, it even gets counter-productive, and puts more people at risk than were suffering in the first place.

 

And yet this pathological hyper-altruism is how so many people are; or at least, how they paint themselves out to be. Why, I will never quite understand. Is it stupidity? Procrastination, deflection, a sort of repentance, from or for something? Some unshakeable, perhaps inexplicable, hatred towards authorities that can’t work miracles? Is it some nefarious sort of virtue-signalling, that drives millions of people to protest out on the streets of Britain with ‘immigrants welcome’, ‘Free Palestine’ and ‘ACAB’ signs held proudly in the air, without the foggiest idea what terms like net migration, integration, national debt, national security, ‘from the river to the sea’, ‘quality of life’, even mean? That drives them to (claim) to care more about the welfare and safety of people from distant countries, whom they don’t know from Adam, than that of their immediate family, friends, and neighbours?

 

It’s as though these people simply do not understand, or just don’t care, about the difference between short-term, and long-term change. How letting hundreds of thousands of fighting age men into developed countries without the ability to background check fully, or sending billions of pounds abroad in foreign aid while the donor is already billions of pounds in debt and struggling to protect its own citizens, might sound noble (?), there is also a very clear risk that it will spiral the entire nation into a dangerous, chaotic cluster-phuck of poverty, crime, anti-Western hatred and terror that benefits no one in the long-term (least of all the war-torn countries these gestures are supposedly aimed at helping). Spoiler alert: we’re practically already there…

​

*All of the above is without even touching on the obvious probability that the vast majority of small-boats ‘asylum seekers’ are in fact not genuine asylum seekers at all, but opportunist criminals looking to leech off the British welfare state. For example, as an Islamic asylum seeker not seeking to integrate in any way with majority-British secularism, why not instead travel to known Islamic refuges like Turkey, or the Islamic Republic of Iran? Why pay upwards of £20,000 to first travel to France, then risk your life on the crossing to Dover, if literally all you were looking for was a roof over your head? Why not bring your family with you?

 

Our Project Defensor framework below makes clear exceptions for women and children, but our sympathy quite frankly wanes in the case of fighting age men- even in some of the more genuine-sounding asylum cases. This is why countries fall, and otherwise promising civilisations break down. They get a taste of conflict and instead of standing and fighting for what’s right, fighting for justice, going down with their ship even, the men with the de facto power to turn it all around just run away. (Or worse, as we’ve just explained, exploit the situation to lie and leech off of far more tolerant and peaceful regions.)

 

We’ve quite simply had enough. The basic solutions for this dangerous nonsense under Project Defensor would be robust, but just…

 

[Note: As a reminder, although we are a grassroots political movement pushing for revolutionary changes in Europe, Absolute Justice has no affiliation with the government, military or any related agency. This plan has not been approved or endorsed by any government body and is at this stage completely speculative.)

 

Preparatory stages.

• The European Convention of Human Rights would, necessarily, be exited.

• We would pass a survival-based utilitarian constitution. This would make the United Kingdom a fully sovereign state, and explicitly prohibit all activities which deliberately cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings (e.g. oppression and subjugation of women, marriages with children, religious slaughter methods, spreading dogmatic and intolerant religious rhetoric, etc.).

 

Immigration/ border control.

• The first and most significant execution of these new laws would occur at the participating countries’ borders. Lax border control is why terrorists and dangerous ideologies are getting in, and killing, at the rate they are. They must be stopped immediately.

• Essentially, a turn-back policy on illegal immigration is needed, with round-the-clock armed border patrols authorised as a deterrent (much like Poland is doing, currently, and the United States under Trump is planning to invocate). The following criteria would constitute ‘legal’ immigration, with no other reasons available:

1. Work Visa: Have a job offer from a UK employer who is a licensed sponsor.

2. Skills and Experience: Meet the specific skill and salary criteria for skilled work.

3. Language Proficiency: Demonstrate English language proficiency.

4. Study Visa: Be accepted into an educational institution in the UK.

5. Investment: Have sufficient funds to invest in the UK economy (Investor visa).

6. Start-up or Innovator Visa: Have an innovative, viable, and scalable business idea supported by an endorsing body in the UK.

7. Global Talent Visa: Be a leader or potential leader in fields like science, humanities, engineering, the arts, or technology.

8. Minimal Asylum seekers: A limited amount of asylum claims from low-risk seekers could be investigated and authorised (women and young children (<= 15 years old) genuinely fleeing from persecution). They would need to pass full, compulsory territorial integration exams, cut all connections with individuals from non-Project Defensor sanctioned territories and pass full criminal/ terrorist intelligence checks to gain the right to remain. There would be no ‘backlogs’ authorisable- no new claims could be made until the previous ones had been processed, unless unprocessed claimants wanted to live for extended periods in detention centres. No random men over the age of 15 could enter Project Defensor territories claiming asylum, nor for any other reason outside of the above criteria.

• Turn-back policy. Clear message communicated internationally that we are not accepting fighting-age male asylum seekers, and only limited numbers from any other demographic category. Boats ignoring this and approaching anyway would have to turn around and go back to where they came from. It would be best to just not consider Britain a preferable asylum location, under Defensor. Communicate this to key sources. Engaging with media, social platforms, and diplomatic channels will be essential to ensure the message is understood globally. Limited number of armed return vessels made available to escort incoming boats, if their fuel is genuinely insufficient by the point of arrival.

• Armed border patrols. We then come to the issue of what would need to happen if illegal boats migrants refuse to comply with orders to turn back. We do not know who any of these men are, what they might be carrying on them, and what their genuine intentions are for arriving. We have hundreds of acts of terrorism from precisely this category of individual (illegal immigrants) as grounds for viewing them as a potential threat. They simply have to be treated as such, when the prioritisation of innocent native lives is put first (as it should be) and the terror threat level is already at ‘substantial’. Borders would be patrolled by the military, who would be authorised to use live ammunition. However, this last-resort, non-compliance policy must be clearly defined, with strict rules of engagement and oversight mechanisms to ensure the use of force is justifiable and boats are given ample opportunities to comply.

• A transfer scheme would be instantiated and encouraged for natives who disagree with the Defensor border policies; making the option available to them to put their money where their mouth is, and migrate to the conflict-stricken countries of origin these immigrants purport to be fleeing from. Once there, they can deliver the aid/ human labour the territories actually need in order to reduce the quantity of genuinely fleeing individuals in the first place.

 

Internal operations.

• All non-critical overseas military operations would cease, with military preparedness now centralised within the participating country’s own borders until the satisfactory completion of Project Defensor.

• All housed illegal male immigrants over the age of 15 would be deported, with illegal immigrants not fitting that category subject to expedited, thorough claim assessments.

• Large-scale deportation operations would be supported by the military where necessary. The military would be on hand to manage unrest following the reforms, as is currently the plan for the United States.

• Same-day safe havens would be made available for women and children to take refuge, provide full disclosure of any abuse being carried out at the hands of male, dangerous ideology-practicing members of the family. The women and children could stay at these high-security refuges until new accommodation became available under Witness Protection schemes.

• If the disclosure involved terrorism, the culprits would be arrested and detained for the full length of their investigation.

• All foreign aid that doesn’t directly benefit the territory would cease until such a time that national security and quality-of-life parameters had reached agreed thresholds. (This would include the national terrorism threat level finally achieving ‘low’ status, for the first time in living memory…)

• No religious events could interfere with daily societal functioning. None would be publicly funded.

• The Department for optimisation (similar to the USA’s new ‘Department of Government Efficiency’, under the Trump administration) should be instantiated immediately, to minimise unnecessary economic output, further aiding the Defensor transition.

 

You’re welcome.​​​

​

​