This brings us, then, to the modern movement which we have just inaugurated - a movement which has caused such an hysterical outburst from the anti-expansionists who did not understand its true significance. It is new because it is taking us to the tropics where we cannot survive, as we will subsequently explain, all prior expansions having been true migrations for permanent colonization - murdering earlier arrivals - and the Aryans have been practicing it to our certain knowledge for 3,000 years or more. No arguments from New England can root out the desire for self-preservation, inherited from Pilgrim fathers who were crowded out of England and expanded into lands occupied by American Indians. The descendants of the first settlers are now crowded out and desire to expand into lands occupied by Malays, who, by the way, are blood relatives of the American Indians.
* See "The Pan-Germanic Doctrine," Harper & Brothers.
This movement, falsely called imperialism, is not colonization in any sense of the word. In Popular Science Monthly, 1898-1900, there is a description of true colonization in a series of papers by J. Collier, of Australia. He shows that it is a biological process - a budding forth of a piece of the old organism - and the piece reproduces the type of the old. The details do not concern us here - we need to note merely that it is migration for a home and food. We have depended on colonization since the beginning of our history, only we make a pretense of buying the land first and then call it settling our territories. In 1492 there were 300,000 filthy, savage Indians overpopulating a land which now supports 85,000,000 or 90,000,000, and the savage had to step aside, for colonization generally demands the extinction of natives. The rights are with the strong, and our grandiloquent talk about the rights of the Indians is unscientific. Unless it renders a return benefit, nothing can exist where something stronger can replace it. In accordance with the tendency to attribute natural acts to a divine origin, the Hebrews even believed that God commanded them to drive out the Canaanites. Perhaps the Pilgrims thought the same, down deep in their narrow hearts. If we need the Philippines for colonization, the Malay will have to move on just as he made the pre-Malay move, and just as they in turn had forced out the Negritto, and just as the latter, probably, forced out an earlier race. The Tagal is a recent intruding expansionist who arrived only a few centuries before the Spaniard, and he has no more right there than any other nation which could get more out of it.
We must not confuse natural law with our moral ideas, as the two are absurdly inconsistent. Our altruistic standard is the result of a constant evolution, and what was moral 3,000 years ago may be highly immoral now. The family is younger and its standard is, therefore, less complex, and we see families doing what not one of its individuals would dare to do. So clans or associations have a still younger code, and even Christian churches as corporations are soulless, and will do things as a body for which each member would be expelled in disgrace if he did for himself. Nations, the youngest of all, are still positively brutal, fighting each other like prehistoric savages. Hence, it follows that our moral standard is not only always in advance of what we are, but it is so far in advance of what nations are, that it is unscientific to expect colonies to conform to such a high standard.
But this expansion is based on mutual aid, demanding preservation of the Filipinos - not their extinction in the brutal way of our colonists. It is something higher, better, more advanced than colonization. We can get no good from the Philippines unless we render services to them, and those Filipinos who expect everything from the United States but do not desire to return the benefits are as foolish as the Spanish nation which wanted everything, yet gave nothing to its colonies. Benevolence alone is as foolish as exploitation alone. Left alone, the poor Filipino will become in time a commensal organism to some conquering European power.
One of the curious phases of our present politics is the amusing attitude of the descendants of the stay-at-home New Engenders. This people, themselves the descendants of expansionists, have greatly multiplied, and for 250 years have been pushing the surplus to the West by expansion. The surplus has been kept "moving on" and "moving on" until it bumped up against the Pacific barrier and piled up. Still the pressure from New England and the East kept up, and the flood of people went on across the Pacific. What a curious illustration of heredity! The people who would not "move on" have transmitted their characters to descendants - the present anti-expansionists - who now raise a great outcry against the "moving on" of the very relatives they forced out of the home nest. They drove out their surplus children and now criticise them for being driven out. The stay-at-homes are, therefore, naturally and normally anti-expansionists. If they had been expansionists they would not have remained in New England. The same has happened in Great Britain, where villification has always been heaped upon the men who have built up her greatness, from Clive and Warren Hastings down, and it was all done by the anti-expansionist stay-at-homes.
The only weak nations ever permitted to live are the few like Switzerland and the Netherlands, whose separate existence is necessary to the big ones - a species of commensalism to more than one organism. Such weak nations, kept alive by other influences than their own exertions, are like those of tropical America which have no excuse for existence except to protect us through the Monroe Doctrine. They were necessary for us and survived as fittest for their commensal existence, for if they had perished from attacks of our enemies we would have been subject to attack also. They are buffers between us and harm, just as the dependent Balkan states are buffers between the Turk and Christianity, and just as Turkey itself is kept alive to prevent bigger nations flying at each other's throats. For this reason the Armenian murders could not be stopped. Alsace-Lorraine is an unfortunate shuttlecock - if granted independence the price of European bonds would shoot upwards at once. This policy of ours - letting poor degraded savages of tropical America imagine they are fit for Aryan self-government, and murder each other by constant civil war - is a cynically brutal one according to moral standards, as brutal as putting wild animals into an arena and letting them tear each other to pieces, but it was natural, for it was necessary for our existence. The time has now come when their decay is a source of danger, and we must help them survive if we are to survive. That is, expansion has become mutual preservation.