Imperialism is an interesting topic. For a lot of reactionaries imperialism may be viewed in a negative light due to the imperialistic nature of the Cathedral. Between American Imperialism in places such as the Middle East, and the leftist Imperialism of the EU over Europe, it is understandable why many on the right dislike Imperialism. However, is it really imperialism itself that is a problem? I would have to say no, it is not.
Among other things, imperialism is something that isn’t bad in a specific framework. The issue really boils down to who the imperialists are. In the modern world the main imperialist nation is the United States. Although it is still a concept dominated by Occidental man, the ideology behind it has shifted drastically. Modern imperialism differs greatly from classical examples of it due to the manner it is employed. This modern form of imperialism revolves around the leftist narrative of democracy. Spreading the democratic ideal no matter the cost. We see examples of this with Americas wars in the Middle East, and prior to that we see it take place throughout modern and post-modern history. WW1, WW2, and the Cold War all show us American Imperialism. The westernization of nations such as Japan, South Korea, and the attempts on Iraq and now Syria are all American Imperialism. So what makes it so different from that of classical imperialism we saw under the Roman Empire, Heiliges Römisches Reich, Russian Imperium and to a further extent the period of colonization by France, Britain and other European powers? Simply put we see a change in both ideological disposition and end goals. Pre-American Imperialism did seek ideological goals to some extend. We see this most glaringly in the example of the Holy Roman Empire. Its ideological goal was the unification of a Christen Empire under a similar model to that of the classical Roman Empire. Similarly the American style imperialism is fueled by the ideological goal of spreading the liberal-democratic principles on a global scale. However, one of the biggest differences isn’t so much the ideological mechanisms that propel imperialist motives but the end means of achieving this. Classic examples of imperialism didn’t just sit back and subvert other nations in a vague attempt to bend them to their will, but conquered them. In the example of the Heiliges Römisches Reich (Holy Roman Empire for those of you who don’t know how to use google) various nations and peoples of Europe were conquered and defeated in battles that eventually gave rise to the collective Imperium (by far the most simplistic and roughest summary I can give). This form of imperialism was able to create a large Empire while at the same time allowing for individual kingdoms to maintain, to some degree, their own culture. This allowed for Christendom to unite itself under the golden banner, yet at the same time preserve the identity of all the different peoples. These different peoples for the most part maintained their own King or Sovereign, who in turn bent his knee to the Emperor. It was able to maintain a multi-cultural empire within the framework of a single common bond, that of Christianity. If you care to read about the structure of the proper imperial system I refer you to the Hapsburg Restorationist’s page.
Later in the early modern period we see the rise of the imperialist Europe that set its sights on areas outside that of the Occident. Countries such as France and Britain began to colonize and control large swaths of land in the continents of Africa and Asia. This is more similar to the modern/postmodern imperialism we see today, except with one notable difference, control. During the era of imperialism these countries would fully assume control of their target nation. Due to this they were able to maintain order much easier then the kind we see today. Ultimately it failed when the enlightenment ideology began to spread its revolutionary ideals, however, during the era of imperialism in places such as Africa the infrastructure and economies of such countries skyrocketed. This was due to the fact that the Occidental man excelled at statecraft and brought his understanding of civilization to these more undeveloped regions. Even more then that he stayed around and actually ruled. Which is what separates this form from that of todays imperialism. We see a lot of failure in todays imperialism due the the fact that instead of invading, conquering and controlling foreign lands, we seek to subvert. We play a much more deceptive game by arming opposing factions in attempts to destabilize countries all while spreading democratic propaganda, which all falls in line with the current idea of Democratic Peace Theory. Every now and then we actually send our own military to do the job, like we saw in Iraq, but in the end we don’t follow through with the job. We leave the country in shambles, creating a power vacuum that gives rise to groups such as ISIS. You can’t just go into a foreign country, topple its government, set up elections and then say “good luck”. Most of the people in these countries have no concept governance, let alone the ability to govern themselves (Occidental man struggles to govern himself and its his brainchild, so who thought it would be a good thing to export?!?).
The main points I’m trying to get across here is the fundamental change in the nature that imperialism is carried out and its underlying ideology. Imperialism in itself is not an issue, but who controls it can be an issue, and how it is ultimately utilized. Currently, however we are seeing a revitalization of nationalism and a withdrawal from the imperialist mindset. Brexit is an example of this along with groups such as Front National, and Golden Dawn. One could point to the cyclical nature of civilizations to try and explain this. The empires of the Occident peaked and now decline. In an attempt to stop the current leftist imperialistic ideology, countries are beginning to retreat within themselves (or try to). In the current state of the world I think this has the potential to be a good thing. Although I consider myself an Imperialist in the true sense, modeled after Holy Roman Empire, I also believe that to revitalize such a Sacrum Imperium we must first restore the individual strength of Occidental nations. The leftist-democratic ideology must first be destroyed and caste out. European nations must work to safeguard and restore the traditions that flourished under Christendom. Once they regain their strength and true culture, then a new Sacrum Imperium can be created. It is like I’ve said many times in past posts, we must cultivate first. If we ever hope for the restoration of Occidental glory then we must begin by setting the foundations. So get to work.
So in a sense I am a
Nationalist (Thedism is more accurate) and an imperialist. The unique Christian cultures of the occident must be restored before a new imperium can rise. This is why I support the imperialism of empires such as HRE, because it allows for a thedistic local structure in many places, while maintaining a multiethnic imperium. In this aspect one can take pride in his heritage and traditions, honor his King, his Empire and his God. It provides the unity of peoples, while preserving the local (granted this is within an Occidental framework. What modern imperialism seeks is globalism, which destroys the local)
In the end what is boils down to is ultimately who is the prime sovereign of the Imperium. In the proper sense it would be Christ, in the modern sense it is liberalism, equality, and other vague concepts. Those are my thoughts on the matter, at least for now. Its been a while, hope my readers are still out there.