Thus far, US has been largely ruled by white elites. There is a perception among both the elites and masses around the world that white people—especially of Northern European ancestry—have been guilty of imperialism, slavery, and worldwide oppression/exploitation. White Americans have tried very hard to defend themselves against this impression, but the fact is the academic and media elite in America itself now perpetrates this perception. American kids are taught more about some slave in the 19th century than the great white heroes who built America. This perception has played a key role in restraining the power of the white elite in this country in both domestic and world affairs. But, as America grows darker and its elite becomes less white, might this not make American more 'imperialist'--unapologetically so? “People of color” feel no guilt since modern liberal history teaches us that only white folks are guilty of wars, genocide, slavery, 'racism', 'sexism', and so on. If America is indeed a 'neo-imperialist' country—a belief increasingly held even among the white right, not least because of the perception of neo-con Zionist 'democratic fundamentalists' having hijacked the US policy—and therefore must check its own power and be apologetic to the rest of the world, wouldn't this dynamic change if the rulers of this country were to become less and less white? Since their ancestors didn't commit the great historical crimes—at least according to leftists, multi-culturalists, etc,--why should they feel guilty about maintaining and benefiting from the American imperial order? Most of what follows is a meandering free-flow thoughts on this theme. Only the last two paragraphs are really concerned with this issue, so skip down if you must.
The Left has gained tremendous influence in American society. Up until the 60s, liberalism had been dominant, and though it was anti-conservative, it was still pro-American for the most part. It tended to be critical of America's failings but still embraced the notion that America was a great and good nation. But, liberals in the media and academia were nudged aside with each passing year, and the left took greater control.
To be sure, the whole process was complicated. In one sense, the Left failed in the 60s. Their call to revolution didn't inspire most Americans. Communist nations like the Soviet Union crumbled while others turned to capitalism for economic recovery and growth—namely China and Vietnam. 'Socialist' India embraced free markets in the 90s and has seen astonishing economic success. Eastern European nations were glad to shed communism. And, there seems to be a consensus even on the Left in Europe and United States that 20th century communism was, at best, a great tragedy and, at worst, indeed one of the greatest crimes ever committed.
So, what is the problem today? Not all radicals had a great change of mind. They entered the academia or media—or found positions in foundations ironically funded by capitalists—and have continued to push their radical agenda on impressionable minds. How influential are these professors? From what we see in the media and culture, very influential. No, they seem incapable of inspiring the bulk of new generations toward radical or violent action. But, even those who don't take up arms and radicalism buy into the idea that the world is miserable largely because of the United States, white heterosexual white males, legacy of imperialism, neo-imperialism, capitalism, and 'greed'. Many of the most intelligent and active members of our society have come to see the world in terms of 'social justice' vs conservatism/capitalism/white-power-ism. This is rather odd when many of these progressives tend to be affluent or privileged—much more so than your average conservative. Some of these progressives are indeed successful businessmen who'd been taught in business schools, liberal arts courses, and media-at-large that successful people must 'give back' to society—as if creating a business, creating new jobs, providing goods and services, etc are not social goods. There is still the Judeo-Christian conviction that business, in and of itself, is not a good thing. It is a good thing only because it makes us work hard and then use the fruits of our labor to do 'social good'. This is not necessarily a bad notion, and indeed, has contributed to American's superior and more humane capitalism. Even during the era of social Darwinism, American businessmen felt an obligation to use their wealth for the good of society. This is in stark contrast to what we see among Russian capitalists who neglect their own country and prefer to indulge on luxury imports. Or, consider the Latin American elite, known for their narcissism and shallow vanity. American rich hasn't been as trashy as the ones in Venezuela, Brazil, or other countries. The American rich has been more like those in Germany and modern Japan. There has been a sense of moderation and social purpose.
But, many of today's affluent, privileged, and successful are fundamentally anti-American or, at the very least, non-American(aka transnational in outlook). Of course, anti-Americanism is for idiots who know little of the world and histories of other nations which are filled with bloodshed and injustices far worse than anything that happened in the US. But, for many young people, being anti-American has become fashionable—as rebellion or cynicism associated with Rock culture or TV comedies(which are perhaps the most important shapers of how most Americans see the world). Non-Americanism is trickier, but in some ways, even more fashionable than anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism seems somewhat passe and unhip in its overwrought 'been there, done that'-ness. To be anti-American implies that there is still a powerful idea and reality of America to reject or rebel against. But, this hasn't been the case for some time. The elite of this country has long felt closer to the elites of other countries. Indeed, many affluent Americans spend a great deal of time apologizing to Europeans and others, eager to convince their international peers that not all Americans are dumb, provincial, greedy, power-mad, and immature. To be non-American means to be an enlightened citizen of the world, and in a way, Obama's victory signals the rising trend of globalism and trans-nationalism. (Rock stars—the most influential role models for the young--are internationalist, more concerned about fighting AIDS in Africa or MTV-uber-alles than preserving the demography and cultural heritage of their own countries. Today, the yuppies in Chicago are more likely to be familiar with Afro-pop than know or care anything about Western classical music or 19th or even 20th century American history—unless it's about Martin Luther Bling or Emmit Till).
This is all very tricky and confusing since anti-global-capitalism has long been the staple of the Left.
So, why are so many rich/successful people on the Left, and why are leftists so closely in cahoots with global capitalism? The truth becomes clear when we understand the macro-leftist world view. Marx hated capitalism but believed that it was absolutely necessary for the rise of socialism or communism. Marx believed no force in history was as productive and effective as capitalism in creating a new order, generating new wealth, and opening up new potentials. So, according to Marx's view, capitalism, the enemy of mankind, would create the very conditions which would eventually empower socialists who would save mankind. Capitalists would create the new economic order, but socialists would inherit and run it according to the ideals of egalitarianism. So, a rich guy with leftist leanings can rationalize his participation in global capitalism since it is giving birth to an wholly new world order which will eventually be inherited and controlled by socialists—preferably and very likely their children who are sent to the most exclusive—and leftist—schools to be trained as the future mandarins of the global bureaucratic order. Vito Corleone built up his economic empire so that his son Michael could become a senator or governor one day. Today, rich leftists justify their 'greed' because it gives them economic muscle not only to a create a new world order but to raise a new generation that will inherit it and fix its problems by socializing it. Obama kinda fits into this mold—an Ivy League leftist mandarin type promoted to power by the rich liberal and leftist class, many of them Jews(or goyim brainwashed and/or castrated by left-wing Jewish indoctrination).
Globalism is to neo-socialism what capitalism was to Marxism. Leftism has been about creating a new world order unified in ideology, values, and social/political systems. Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations were supposed to be a vast united empire of liberated and happy workers. They were supposed to be linked up harmoniously with their Asian brothers in communist China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Nationalisms would melt away. Workingmen of the world would melt into ne. But, it didn't happen. Nationalism continued to be a powerful force in communist nations. Because each communist nation was ruled by a paranoid elite clinging to power at all costs, no communist nation was willing to forgo or relinquish authority to any 'higher' authority. Of course, there were puppet regimes within the communist empire, but there was no real trust among the various nationalities who'd been forced to cooperate and co-exist as comrades. Each people secretly hoped to break out of the empire. So, despite all the rhetoric, Marxism failed to create a new world order. Warsaw Pact nations secretly loathed the Soviet Union. Many republics within the Soviet Union wanted to break free from Moscow. Russians and Chinese became mortal enemies in the early 60s despite their shared ideology. China and Vietnam came to blows over national issues. The only way to create a united order under communism was to use ruthless force. Few peoples ever democratically elected communists into power, and communist nations never freely joined with others to create a new world order . And, as communist leaders knew that their power was founded on terror and repression, they were averse to any social reality or political arrangement that loosened the power of the national state.
Though associated with the Right, it was capitalism that created the new world order amenable to utopian leftist agendas. In the 19th century, capitalism spread throughout the world through violence as well as trade. But, once barriers were torn down among 'nations' and peoples, it increased the levels of freedom and interaction everywhere. It opened the doors to greater political, social, economic, and cultural freedom. This was true even—or especially—of non-Western regions forcibly pried open. Consider Japan prior to the arrival of white imperialists. It had been independent as a nation but severely restricted and regimented for its inhabitants. Upon the pressure of Western nations the Japanese elite had lost much of its sovereignty, but the nation as a whole became much freer and open to new possibilities. Japanese reacted to this new arrangement in two diametric ways, often in combination. On the one hand, they were grateful for the new freedoms and possibilities. They were happy to see their country grow richer and stronger with Western ideas and methods. On the other hand, there was a great sense of shame, resentment, envy, and even hatred. Japanese became aware and increasingly anxious of their weakness vis-a-vis advanced Western nations. Also, the more power and wealth Japan attained, the more it demanded respect as an equal partner. But, even equality wasn't enough for growing numbers of Japanese, who were convinced that Japan had become as powerful as most Western nations and could take them on. Hatred turned into arrogance. Japanese believed that it was not enough to be an equal partner with Western imperialists in Asia. Asia should rightfully be dominated by Japan alone.
For much of the first half of the 20th century, imperialism was almost synonymous with global capitalism. Though trade among advanced nations was on an equal basis, most of the non-white world traded with the advanced world under the domination of Western or Japanese guns. In many cases, the imperialist were not particularly brutal, the local elites were pliant, and the local mass populations lacked, as yet, the nationalist identity necessary for the struggle of 'liberation' and 'independence'. (I use quotes because many of these 'nations' were essentially geopolitical and even historical creations of Western imperialism. It must also be said there had always been myriad forms of local imperialism within the larger Western empires. India had its mini-empires in which provincial elites of one tribe ruled over others. Zulus in Africa were imperialists in their own right. Even as China came under the pressure and influence of Western imperialists, it had its own vast imperial control over non-Chinese peoples. And, when the French arrived in Indochina, huge parts of Cambodia had come under the imperialist rule of the Vietnamese and the Siamese. And, of course, American colonists in the 18th century overthrew British imperial rule only to embark on the imperialist conquest of the entire continent. And, in the early 20th century, places like Cuba and Philippines were liberated and occupied simultaneously. Liberated by Spanish imperialists who were replaced by American imperialists.)
Anyway, the point is the viability of a unified global community was realized by 'right-wing' capitalism. (What nationalists had built up for the sake of national power was judo-tossed to serve the leftist agenda—similar to Marx's prediction that the wealth created by the bourgeoisie would be used to fulfill the dreams of socialism.) Despite all the complaints and criticism of it, there was much that was appealing about global capitalism to peoples all around the world. There is an incentive in capitalism allowing for greater freedom and wealth.
Prior to the rise of capitalism, empires had been created and maintained largely through force. In many cases, such a vast empire proved expensive for the imperial center. Because of top-down economics, the vast regions were not exploited in ways that could make them profitable—or maintain their allegiances to the imperial system except through the sword and high taxes. Such empires were not economically viable nor integrative for longterm survival. Once the center lost its ability to enforce its will, the subject peoples and nations and the periphery went their own ways.
But, there arose a new kind of empire created by the West. Many people credit the success of the Western imperialism to its technological superiority, but that wasn't as crucial as the economic advantages it opened up to many peoples—even non-whites. Africa, for instance, didn't come under Western rule until the 19th century. Up until then, much of the trade between the West and Africa involved slaves, which was very profitable to Africans. How could this trade have lasted for so long if Africans were averse to the European global order?. In truth, great many Africans were not hostile to trading with Europeans and whites of the Americas at all. There was a great deal of fortune to be made by African kingdoms along the Western coast through the sale of black slaves. The slave trade lasted for centuries because of its economic benefit to both whites and Africans. Indeed, the slave trade didn't end because black Africans realized its evil, but because whites—especially Anglos—came to abhor it and sought to end it around the world.
Anyway, the point is the new economic order didn't just benefit the dominant group. Indeed, up until the 19th century, it couldn't even be said that Europeans were dominant over most of humanity. Europeans gained dominance in the Americas only because Old World diseases wiped out entire populations in Central/South America and because most of North America was sparsely populated by primitive peoples—some of them still in the stone age. Western nations found much of the non-European Old World impenetrable or formidable. Africa was vast and had myriad diseases fatal to the white man—until the rise of modern medicine. And, without modern methods of terrestrial transportation, it was near impossible for the white man to trek through a continent the size of a planet. As for Japan, China, Ottoman Empire, India, and others, European trading ships preferred not to avoid military confrontations as those civilizations were populous, relatively effectively organized under central authority, and, in some cases, even possessed weaponry to match those of Europeans; they also had the homefield advantage
Anyway, the global order created by the Western world has been long-lasting—even after the passing of European imperialism—because there was something for every people or nation. It was not a one-way deal. In the pre-modern era, the fall of empires was regarded as good riddance to many occupied or oppressed peoples. In the new era, economic interests persuaded or even required 'liberated' peoples to stay within the global world order. (For many nations, their newly acquired economic status could only be maintained through world trade overseen by the West. Hong Kong or Singapore would be little more than poor island or coastal cities if not for the linkage with the world economy established by the Anglo-imperialist system.)
Consider the fact that United States and the British Empire remained close on many levels even after the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The new world ordert was not only about conflict among empires but competitive and mutally beneficial trade enforced by laws that became more universal and fair in execution but recognition. Even China, a xenophobic empire over the millennia, recongized and exploited the advantages of trading with the British Empire by exporting silk and tea. The problem arose when China would not buy in return, especially opium which was to have devastating impact on the Chinese--not least upon the elite. This led to Chinese trade barriers on imports, which then led to the Opium Wars which forced the Chinese to open up to Western trade. Though Chinese remember this historical episode with great bitterness, it is true that many Chinese saw the advantages of new relations with the West. Like all nations forced into the new world order, Chinese felt a mixture of resentment, envy, respect, and admiration of the new, foreign, and innovative. This is true even today as China is eager to learn and borrow more from foreign countries while, at the same time, trying to maintain their idea of a proud united China with full sovereignty.
Anyway, pre-modern empire building efforts all eventually failed—except across huge landmasses sparsely populated by minority groups(like vast areas of Asiatic Russia)--, or unless the people within the vast empire were, more or less, of the same racial or ethnic stock—like China and America through most of its history. If an empire could be consolidated into and administered as a nation, it was viable as a great enterprise. Otherwise, it was bound to fall and disappear... until the system developed in the modern era. (Recall when the Roman Empire or the Mongol Empire fell, so did the links among peoples and regions. But, even as European empires fell, the world order they'd created grew more integrated and powerful. There was something within modern imperialism that was more powerful and resilient than imperialism itself; the idea of world trade guided by a set of economic principles and universal laws ensured that the world system would continue even with the decline of the original imperialist powers. The question, then, is this. If the global system was created by imperialists but still remains even after the decline of imperialist powers, can it be regarded as imperialist when it comes increasingly under the control of people who had once been conquered, colonized, or 'oppressed'?)
Thanks to universal application of laws and mutual benefits through trade, the global empire system created by the West has not only survived but grown stronger. Of course, the system is no longer dominated—at least not politically—by the West. The idea of Western nations using gunboat diplomacy to intimidate and dominate non-Western peoples is a faint memory and a fantasy in today's world—the Iraq War notwithstanding as it was made possible only due to 9/11. Even if Western military domination were feasible materially and logistically, the new morality among Westerners would not permit such to happen—also, Western people don't want their kids to die in wars for 'national glory'. Consider the fact that the invasion of Iraq, even for the purpose of democratization, was rejected and condemned by most Western nations. And, even the Coalition nations of Central and Eastern Europe soon lost interest in the mission—and they'd really joined to win favors from the US anyway. And, when the war became more difficult, the majority of Americans called for pulling out as soon as possible.
But, despite the fall or passing of European/Western imperialism, the world order they've created has grown more powerful, more fully realized than ever dreamed possible. What we have today is not an empire with national centers as there once had been—mainly Britain, France, and Spain--, but it is connected together west and east, north and south, in ways that even the biggest imperialists of the past could not have fantasized. One could argue that it's a center-less or democratic empire whose greatest forces are the interests of transnational business elites, cosmopolitan professionals, and the masses who seek new opportunities and/or cheaper goods in the new order. It's an empire held together by an Idea and by the appetites of the entire global population than one controlled by a 'mother country' over the subject peoples. Of course, theorists of neo-imperialism will argue that beyond the ruse, the new system is no different than the old one. Marxists, who focus on economic forces, may well argue that Western nations are still rich and powerful while non-white nations—minus Japan—are still backward, powerless, and at the mercy of what happens in the Western world. But, many non-Western nations don't necessarily feel that the global economic order is exploitative or rigged to serve only Western interests(though all are well-versed in anti-imperialist rhetoric in order to wrest favors from guilt-ridden rich white countries). As long as they have political and social autonomy, many non-Western nations have been willing to join in the global order.
In Europe, most Eastern Europeans(who are kinda like white third worlders) want to be part of the EU—at least economically. And, after decades of communist misrule, Vietnamese entered the global economic system. Nations generally don't feel oppressed by foreign powers as long as they have political and social self-rule. Also, they believe that the global system brings investment to their country, opens up markets for exports, and positions their country on the global stage. Consider the fact that Venezuela, for all its anti-American rhetoric, would never dream of stop business with 'imperialist' Americans. Chavez's 'socialism for the 21st century' depends on selling oil to capitalist and 'greedy' Americans. More tellingly, Cuba, a fully communist nation, has long wanted to do business with the United States, and pro-Cuban leftists have argued for the end of sanctions.
Now, consider the funny logic of anti-imperialist Marxists. They say that being linked with the global capitalist order is to fall prey to neo-imperialism. But, they want United States and other rich capitalist nations to do business with socialist or Marxist nations for the welfare of the latter—an admission that all countries have something to gain by being part of the capitalist world order. So, whether it's a leftist or a third world nationalist, there is a desire to do business with the First Capitalist World. And, it is the undeniable advantage of being part of the global system that has maintained and expanded the new world order created by Western imperialism/capitalism.
It had been spread by European ships exploring new territories and forging economic links with empires and peoples around the world. In the 19th century, with the inventions of new medicines, transportation, and weaponry, the West was able to not only to expand trade but enforce it—even upon once formidable nations like Japan and China.
But, through it all, there was the creation of mutually beneficial trade even if, for quite some time, the West held the best cards. So, even when the empire of the gun faded, the empire of trade remained.
This is quite evident in the histories of the United States and Hispanic America. Both were creations of imperialism. And, the white settlers in both areas were terrestrial imperialists. They sought to conquer and/or dispossess the native peoples and establish new nation-states based on the European model. But, once they settled in the new land and forged a new identity, they also became anti-imperialists. American colonialists were imperialists against the native populations of America yet anti-imperialists against the British King. Even so, relations between United States and Britain remained crucial because both sides had much to gain from mutual trade.
Perhaps, this was less so between Latin-American nations and Spain or Portugal, which failed to create a world trade system as powerful, effective, and mutually beneficial as the one created by the Anglos. Even the mighty French who competed with the British neck and neck up to the 20th century—though generally obtaining the less desirable real estate—failed to create a global trading system as effective as that of the British. (Anyway, the fact that the British and the French were able to carve up the world in relative peace and mutual understanding based on mature diplomacy may have been one of the bases for something like the UN in the 20th century—even if not consciously. The very fact that neither the Brits nor the French were willing to risk everything for total supremacy was proof that understanding
on a grand scale between nations can avoid conflicts. Even though most of humanity had no say in this, it was remarkable that the two premier powers in the Age of Empire were able to expand and compete without too much bloodshed. This partly explains why the British naturally sided with the French against the Germans. Though the French had been the main competitors of the British in empire building, the British had come to regard the French as generally trustworthy and reliable—not necessarily because the French character was more honorable but because the French were a people the British had grown accustomed to. The rising Germans, on the other hand, seemed too eager, hungry, and reckless—nouveau riche without manners who might break the china. Perhaps, the Germans too would have mellowed in due time but it would still take a painstaking process of international readjustment on a massive scale. Ironically, the British effort to suppress German power in order to maintain the international status quo led to the very opposite. Two cats that have fought one another often and know each other's strengths and weaknesses are more likely to tolerate one another than a new cat on the block.) Perhaps, this had something to do with the principle of 'fair play' in British tradition. The Brits embraced Free Trade and stuck to it even with nations that disregarded or violated it. Had the British been as mercantile as the rest of the world community, perhaps the global system we have today would have been far less viable.
After all, it was US which inherited and continued the Free Trade policy from the Brits when it became the new great world power following WWII; this was absolutely crucial to the further expansion of the global world order. There is an unspoken understanding that the Mother Country—whichever country is most dominant power at the moment—in the global economy has to be nurturing, generous, and forgiving to all the other nations(just as a real mother often sacrifices her well-being for the welfare of her kids). (Of course, while kids generally feel gratitude toward their mother, this is generally not the case with nations. For all the good the British Empire has done for the world, most nations only remember and curse its guns, arrogance, and prejudice.) In a way, both WWI and WWII could be seen, to some extent anyway, as the battle between father-imperialism and mother-imperialism. Germany was the Fatherland, Britain was the Motherland. Germany was the land of the Kaiser, Britain the land of the Queen(even when a King was on the throne). German power meant dominance and self-interests of Germans. British power meant protection and interests of the world community under rules of Fair Play. Germans were more harshly realistic, the Brits were more softly idealistic. Though imperialist, Brits used their power to end the slave trade; they came up with Free Trade to give equal access for all countries to the economic system created by the British. Germans could only scoff at such naivete. Brits could only sneer at German thuggery. The British imperial mindset became more nurturing, more beset with guilt and conscience. The German imperial mindset grew more militant, ruthless, and cold-eyed. Eventually, the British empire could not stand up to a half naked Hindu who spouted platitudes in a funny accent. British imperialism was fated to fall because of its fundamental moral contradiction—it promoted Fair Play all the while allowing the Brits to be more equal than others. Still, the world order it created would not only survive but expand under the leadership of America as the new nurturing country. (When US inherited the world order after WWII, it had to grow tits to nurse the world. Uncle Sam because Auntie Sally. Today, US is like a sow pig suckled by the world community). The world order maintained by America was essentially created by the British. Though French and other Europeans had been empire builders, they came to take part in global economic paradigm constructed by the Anglos and Anglo-Americans—and advanced further by Jews. This is true of Japan and China—and the rest of Asia—as well. It's an empire without an emperor even though US is the greatest power in the world. Because the world order is premised on Fair Play and on the expected generosity/magnanimity of the richest/most powerful nations, it's not necessarily advantageous to be #1—it certainly is the most expensive and burdensome(not least because of the legacy of the Cold War when the conflict between US and USSR was essentially ideological; both nations sought to prove their moral superiority by lavishing huge aid upon third world countries, a game understood and exploited by all poor countries.) Similarly, the US president may be the most powerful man in America but he must be accountable to the people; in this sense, he is the weakest man in America. He takes some credit when times are good, but he takes ALL the blame when times are bad.
Britain may be richer and more powerful, but it has no effective control over other nations in the Commonwealth. If anything, UK is being invaded by non-white hordes from the Commonwealth nations like Jamaica. And, white Britons are paralyzed to stop this invasion because doing so would be 'racist' and against Fair Play. Of course, non-white nations rarely play fair, but they are forgiven because rich and powerful nations are supposed to be generous and compassionate to weaker and poorer ones(despite the fact that poorer non-white nations are invading European countries and America and taking over from ground up. The anti-racist Western elites are afraid to ponder, let alone accept, the truth that demography is destiny. As long as the rich Western elites can live in affluent and safe gated communities, it doesn't matter what is happening to the rest of their country. They can shut off reality and watch PBS documentaries or Hollywood movies 'celebrating diversity'). An affirmative action mentality afflicts the global community. There is a sense that since white nations 'exploited' and 'stole' from the non-white nations in the past at the point of the gun, white nations must be forgiving with non-white nations, at least until they catch up to the levels of the West. But, this affirmative action mentality may long linger even after the non-white nations rise in power and wealth. There is still great reluctance to speak honestly of rising black or Hispanic power in the US. In sports, blacks are now totally dominant, and many whites are virtually locked out of many positions; but whenever another position is taken over by blacks, we celebrate it as 'diversity' and 'inclusion'. Following this logic, we should celebrate the 'diversity', 'inclusiveness', and 'progressiveness' of an all black football team! Blacks have become victims-for-all-time. Even if blacks were all to become powerful millionaires and all whites were to become poor powerless folks, we would see blacks as victims of whites. Today, poor and working class whites are routinely harassed, attacked, and robbed by blacks, but we still see criminal blacks of the white-dominated system. In the case of Jews, the most powerful and the richest people in the world, we are still stuck in an affirmative action mentality whereby we are supposed them as helpless ghetto Jews pursued by Nazis.
Anyway, the global empire is still intact. The difference is that it's an empire with no real emperor. Consider the fact that there is only a weak bond between the rich white elites—who are often liberal Jews in the US—and the white masses. In Western imperialism of the past, the white elite often justified imperialism as a great benefit and glory to all whites in the mother country. Today, many of the white elites in America and Europe feel contempt for the white masses—especially if of conservative bent—and feel greater affinity for people of shared sensibilities in other countries—cosmopolitan, globalist, liberal to leftist. Of course, if you're non-white, you can embrace both cosmopolitan AND tribal sensibilities. So, Obama could pose as both a post-racial/post-national candidate AND practice the most brazen kind of black nationalism by being a member of Trinity Church. There is a conviction among the liberal white elite that non-whites, no matter how rich or educated, are justified in their tribalism or nationalism since they need self-esteem to survive and thrive in a white dominated world(which explains why Michelle Obama was allowed to graduate with honors simply by writing some bitchy doctoral thesis on how terrible it is to be black in Princeton where white people were exceedingly kind to her! That got her into Harvard where she met another resentful black asshole who was chosen, groomed, and promoted by the liberal Jew media to become president). Jews feel much the same way. Though they preach the virtuese of trans-racial and trans-national sensibilities to gentile whites, they shamelessly practice Jewish tribalism via Zionism and work together to promote Jewish power and interests.
Today, the West is still dominant in the world empire but mainly in the economic sense. Because its political morality is apologetic and guilt-ridden, the West is incapable of preserving national power rooted in demography. The Western elites are afraid of stemming the tide of non-white immigration into Europe and America because doing so would smack of racism—that Europe and America belong essentially to white people. Of course, no non-white nation thinks like the Western elite, but they all admonish US and European countries to follow the ideology of color-blindness to the letter. There is a degree of moral and economic blackmail in all this. Non-white nations throw back at the faces of pompous Westerners all the sermons about equality and human rights.
Also, a good many white liberals have built their fortunes on global trade, and they fear backlash from nations like Mexico, China, India, and etc where they've invested a good deal. Also, with the Holocaust as the religion of the secular white elite—both Jewish and gentile--, anything that pertains to white racial agenda is deemed evil. Jews, as the victims of the Holocaust neglected or turned away by most nations, speak as though turning away illegal immigrants amounts to a form of Nazi-esque bigotry. Gentile whites believe that turning away non-white refugees and illegals amounts to only a milder, disguised form of old 'racism'. Feelings and ideas about the Holocaust and Racism affect the core of social and political morality in the Western world. Even conservatives spend at least half their energy trying to woo Jews at all cost and beating their chests(and kissing the accuser's ass) to prove that they are not 'racists'. So, it doesn't matter if the Western world is still economically dominant. A nation is more than the riches and vanities of its economic elite. Today, the Western elites grow richer, but their influence is anti-national. They use the media and schools to indoctrinate us into the new world ideology. Consider the fact that though whites are facing demographic catastrophe, an overwhelming majority of young white people voted for Obama. Higher education today is higher indoctrination.
Anyway, we've gone far off track. The original point of this piece was to ponder the nature of American and European power in the years to come as dramatic demographic changes are likely to occur. Thus far, because America and Europe have been ruled and shaped by white elites—gentile in most nations--, there had been increasing moral brakes on their power, at least since the beginning of the 20th century. Because of the idealistic nature of the British—and to a lesser extent among the French with their liberty, equality, and fraternity—, pressure on Western nations to live up to their own principles regarding all of mankind intensified. Often, the non-white elites in subject nations went off to study in France and Britain and absorbed ideas about the equal rights of man, human rights for all, and so on. In some cases, many colonial subjects were introduced to ideologies such as Marxism. But, even those who came to admire the imperial system and accepted its benefits soon realized that the white imperialist dominated order wasn't equally open to all. Consider the movie “Gandhi” where we first see the Indian hero as a young British educated lawyer filled with admiration for the white-ruled world only to be rudely reminded that he's less equal than whites.
And, Ho Chi Minh grew disillusioned even with French leftists who, despite their ideology and rhetoric, believed in the French Empire and the idea of the white man's burden.
All of this changed with WWII, the revelations of the Holocaust, the glory of communism in its defeat of Nazism, and the Cold War where Western nations—European and American—had to demonstrate to the non-white peoples around the world that they were more enlightened and freedom-loving-and-promoting than the Soviet Union and Red China. Though Soviet Union was indeed the evil empire, its ideology of anti-imperialism, brotherhood of man, and world revolution was appealing to many third world peoples. Indeed, from the 40s to the 70s, great many nations might have fallen under communism had it not been for the brutality and cunning of right-wing or nationalist regimes and their exploitation of traditional symbolism. Of course, this was mostly a good thing as the ruthless communists did far more damage when they came to power. Right-wing dictatorships in Asia and Latin America could be murderous and brutal, but communist regimes were annihilative and maniacally ruthless—and committed to spreading the radical virus beyond their national borders.
Anyway, white man's burden changed after WWII from civilizing the rest of the world to apologizing to the rest of the world—and proving that the Free World had more to offer, morally and economically, than communist nations such as the USSR and Red China. This wasn't easy because despite all their brutality and crimes, neither Soviet Union nor China had been involved in empire buildings outside their borders. Russians did rule over a vast empire but it was all in Eastern Europe and Asia. The Chinese empire was restricted to the Chinese nation. To people in Africa and Latin America, Russians and Chinese had not been the 'imperialist oppressors'. They recalled being dominated by Western Europeans or by the gringos. On the other hand, communism had a tremendous disadvantage in many of these countries because it was an intellectual ideology which didn't make much sense to the illiterate peoples of the third. Also, communism attacked too many customs and traditions dear and sacred to backward peoples. There was greater chance of communism succeeding in third world nations if the population was more homogeneous. Since there was minimal tribal or cultural rivalry, communism could be sold simply as 'soak the rich and get yours'. But, in African, Latin, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations which had been artificially created by Western imperialists, the tribal, ethnic, and/or racial tensions and distrusts undermined the universalist ambitions of Marxism. Poor uneducated people may understand the appeal of the poor taking from the rich, but they simply could not identify or sympathize with peoples of other tribes, ethnicities, races. In a crazy quilt nation, the masses were more likely to side with the rich/powerful elite of their own kind than with the poor masses of another tribe or ethnicity. This was the problem at the core of Yugoslavia, which had been prevented from blowing up by Tito's totalitarianism. But, 45 years of iron-fisted communist rule did not resolve the hatreds will exploded in the 90s..
Anyway, white elites, or at least the gentile white elites, were supposed to feel guilt, and this moral dilemma was supposed to restrain their power. Today, Western nations are richer and more powerful than ever. US military has never been as powerful and advanced as it is today. Yet, Western nations have never been as apologetic, defensive, and desperately eager-to-please as they are today.
We see this with both US and Europe. With the US, this outlook is rooted in both pride and guilt.
Though American colonialists were imperialists in their own right, the founding of the US brought forth a sense that America was an anti-imperialist nation, the first to throw off the imperialist yoke and declare itself a democracy. When European nations descended on China in the 19th and 20th century, US acted as a kind of neutral player, even a protector of the Chinese from the insatiable Europeans. Americans took moral pride in lecturing to the Japanese about their imperialist ambitions in Asia—which was rather amusing and frustrating to Japanese who'd been forced into the imperialist game under pressure from American and European imperialists. Even though the conquest of the West and the annexation of SW territories were imperialist in nature, Americans could overlook this fact because (1) the American West was only sparsely populated and, as such, hadn't really belonged to anyone before the white man settled it properly (2) Americans spread democracy and liberty, which absolved them of the sin of imperialism (3) Americans were well-intentioned and exerted their power/influence on other nations only for the latter's own good, not for the interests of Americans. It was these sentiments and beliefs that made World War II the Good War to most Americans. It was not just the fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler declared war on the US. It was the sense that Americans, if they must fight, fight for idealism, for the good of humanity, out of selflessness. And, this attitude continued after the war. From Truman to Kennedy, America pressured European nations to abandon their empires and treat non-white peoples as equals.
But, it was precisely this idealism—both genuine and pompous—which got US in trouble. With race problems at home, it looked rather odd for white America to be morally lecturing to the rest of the world. If America was for the equality of all nations and all peoples, how come there was still discrimination in America? The rising Jewish power in the US exploited the racial issue, and in the 60s it was fashionable in some circles to see urban black areas as part of the Third World occupied white imperialist 'pigs'. If Algeria has the FLN fighting the French imperialists, left-wing Jews in America argued that the Black Panthers were the brethren of 'people of color' struggling for independence and revolution all over the world.
Of course, the influential leftists in the West favored Third World nations ruled by leftist or communist leaders. And, many Third World leaders were careful to play on the perceptions of the Western elite. While third world nations could comfortably lean right or anti-communist and receive solid American backing OR lean leftist or anti-American and receive Soviet backing, many nations learned the art of suppressing leftist insurgency at home and maintaining the status quo all the while speaking the language of progress and revolution. Leaders like Nasser cleverly played on both the right and the left. As such, they were wooed by both America and the Soviets. In most cases, they had to lean more to one side than the other, but they played both sides. Though the leaders in such nations didn't want radicals to take over, they wanted to portray themselves as revolutionaries. It was particularly these nations that were most appealing to Western European nations.
After World War II, the empires of Western European nations were lost or soon to be lost. Western Europe was anti-communist and anti-Soviet, yet it also resented the rise of American power. Europeans agonizingly came to accept the loss of their empires, but it enraged them to see—or perceive(rightly or wrongly)--their former empires being devoured by the United States which dominated the affairs of other nations in the name of spreading democracy, liberty, freedom, or stopping communism. As far as the Europeans were concerned, Americans were merely practicing a bigger kind of imperialism and world domination disguised in the rhetoric of freedom and fairness.
We saw the resurgence of much the same feelings with the invasion of Iraq. Many Europeans were convinced or wanted to be convinced that United States had simply come up with an idealistic set of excuses to embark on an imperialist conquest of the oil rich Middle East. They saw it as US taking the Middle East for itself, whereby US oil companies would get the prize. How Europeans viewed the American venture in the Iraq and the Middle East is akin to how Americans view the Chinese adventure in Africa. Chinese, as we all know, speak of friendship with African nations and fostering mutual understanding and benefit, but Americans see it merely as a Chinese play for power and influence.
Anyway, in the post WWII world order, Europeans had prosperity but not the muscle and influence to control the world. That kind of power was possessed only by the US and the USSR. So, the one weapon Europeans had left was moralism and idealism. Their hands washed of 'evil' imperialism, they could now throw idealism back at the faces of USSR and USA. Their preferred target was the USA since Americans generally gained dominance or influence over the parts of the world that had once belonged to European empires. Also, even though Western Europe was free and protected by the American military, being within the Anglo-American sphere of influence made Western European intellectuals to feel under the weight of American imperialism or colonialism. It was as if Europe too was subject nation of American imperialism. Not that American military used violence against the Europeans. But, the astonishing fact that the once proud and powerful Europeans not only lost their empires to Americans but were dependent on American good-will for survival was humiliating and insulting. French felt frustration the most because (1) it has been a loser nation in WWII and (2) its main European rival in the post WWII era—Great Britain--was close to the US culturally and politically. For many Europeans, the very dominance of American movies, TV, and pop music was enough evidence that Americans were the premiere overlords of the world. Hollywood, as far as they were concerned, was American cultural imperialism.
So, what could Europeans do to gain power or authority in the new world order? The world order following World War II was intensely moralistic, perhaps more so than at anytime in world history. If the British and French empires had competed to see which side would be mightier and greater, the Americans and Soviets competed to show which side was morally better. Of course, both US and USSR did ruthless things to win the Cold War and were allied with many thuggish regimes. But, it was a war neither side could win by arms or money alone. The British and the French were not primarily concerned about which side was nicer or more humane than the other. Their rivalry was about national-imperial glory—albeit done with some degree of Fair Play and give-and-take.
With the US and USSR, the fight was over which side offered a more humane and liberating model for all mankind. This was a rivalry that one side was bound to lose if it couldn't prove its moral worth. In the end, most of the world concluded that communism didn't spread or promote human rights, wealth, and national renewal for peoples around the world. It was becoming more and more clear that not only was the USSR a pretty miserable and oppressive place but that its satellite and client nations were no better or even worse. Even before the fall of the USSR, China embraced capitalism, and even communist nations which had fought Americans wanted to do business with the US. We need only to look at Vietnam.
But, the fact remains that the Cold War was a very ugly affair in many parts of the world. As such, it was easy and convenient for Western European intellectuals to nitpick at all the failings, flaws, and shortcomings of the Americans. Japan did some of this too. Japanese had swallowed a great deal of pride when they lost the war and their entire empire in the Pacific War. They convinced themselves that they'd deserved to lose since Japanese had employed militarism/imperialism. But, there still remained the resentment of the loser. Like the Europeans, Japanese regained authority via moralism by accusing Americans of being the new imperialists in Asia. Of course, we are talking mainly of leftist intellectuals, artists, and politicians, but such people were disproportionately influential in both Japan and Europe since they wrote books, shaped the media, and controlled the schools. They conditioned entire generations of European and Japanese youth.
As loser nations in the new world order, their one great advantage was the moral or the anti-imperialist card. For them, Americans were the new imperialists. As a way to get back at Americans, this jaundiced view was adopted by the Right as well. Anti-Americanism was where the Gaullists and the Leftists saw eye to eye in France. And, even though the Japanese Right was pro-American in policy, they were deeply anti-American underneath their skin. The Right in both Europe and Japan were angry at US for stealing what had been their empires whereas the Left hated the US for not living up to its professed anti-imperialist ideals—and standing in the way of communist revolution.
US had indeed fought a good war, defeated fascism, and pressed Western European nations to free their empires, but US then stepped in the way to take this empire for themselves—or so the European and Japanese leftists believed. This is how much of the world came to see the Vietnam War. We know that US fought in Vietnam not to exploit or oppress the Vietnamese people but only to stave off communism. The world saw it as US imperialists using anti-communism as an excuse to spread American hegemony. Besides, many people on the left felt that communism was the best deal for Third World nations as a force of social change, economic development, and overall national good. We've come a long way, but the world reaction to the Iraq War revealed that much remained the same; and this anti-Americanism was, in large measure, shared by both the Right and the Left; both the Right and Left in European countries also believed that neo-con Jewish power had a huge stake in the war but didn't say so explicitly since Europeans had become allergic to any criticism of Jewish power since the end of World War II—though not as much as Americans(which is rather odd since Americans have no reason to feel any guilt for the holocaust.) The narrative accepted by many nations was that USA, being the lone superpower after winning the Cold War, was out to dominate the entire world through economic and even military might.
To understand that moral reputations of nations—or at least of powerful nations—are of utmost importance, we need only look at the reaction, both international and domestic, to Obama. Many people around the world wanted Obama to be president in the hope that his presidency will check imperialist American power. Many people have this simplistic view that America is run by cowboys and Zionists--the Bush administration was almost a tailor-made caricature of this perception. Bush is from Texas and was surrounded by a bunch of neo-con intellectuals.
The fact that Obama is a black guy with a Muslim/African name meant—to the world at least—that the power of mad cowboys and Zionists would be checked with him as president. And, many Americans, especially the privileged, highly educated, and well-traveled, felt the same way. They felt guilty and ashamed to belong to America of imperialist cowboy Bush and his neo-con cabal. Though America is the most powerful nation in the world, the liberal elite—and even elements of the conservative elite—believe that American power isn't as important as how the world regards it. It's more important that the world sees us as a 'good nation' than to exert our power to accomplish what WE believe is right. Again, the world is like an empire without an emperor, without true central authority. In some ways, this is great progress as it means the world no longer believes in might-is-right. But, it is also frustrating for the US because, as the richest and most powerful nation, it is expected to do so much, pay so much, take care of so much, take the lead so often, and etc, etc... all the while being ever so sensitive to world opinions which are more often envy and resentment disguised as idealism-of-little-nations. (Swedes and Norwegians especially love to pull this shit, taking bogus pride in the fact that they give more to Africa on a per capita basis than any other nation. It doesn't matter that their ill-conceived aid hasn't done any good for Africa as long as they can show off the figures as proof of their own moral superiority.)
The world community is kinda like Wikipedia. Wikipedia may be the most read, most influential, and most powerful source of information around the world, yet there is no central authority. It is accessible to and controllable by all.
So, the problem of American and European power today isn't so much their dominance over other nations, which is not only forbidden but considered morally unacceptable and even evil. The problem of the new world order is that even if Western elites have most of the economic power, the increasingly open and porous world system allows all sorts of people to flood into the First World and change the demographic, cultural, and social landscape of the entire nation. In almost all cases, the majority of the people don't want this, but the elites control the laws. The courts can overturn any majoritarian demand to control the borders and restore national sovereignty.
Even so, something very strange might happen if current demographic trends continue. Remember that the only people who are required to feel any remorse or guilt are white people—and to some extent, the Japanese. Third world peoples committed horrendous crimes, but they are not held accountable in the world community. Partly, this is because they tend to be poor and backward, and it's just not good sport to knock people when they are down and miserable. Sure, Hutus killed a whole bunch of Tutsis, but look at the economic status of most Hutus and you feel pity. Sure, Chinese killed more of their own kind than the Japanese or Western invaders ever did, but until relatively recently, China has been poor, and before that, there had been a history of Western imperialism. Also, some nations simply will not tolerate any criticism and throw a fit when called on their abuses. China and Russia routinely act this way, and they can get away with it because there are enough nations in the UN that side with them just to torment US and Europe. Let's face it. Most Third World nations employ moralism not because they are morally virtuous or care about humanity but because it's an handy way to milk rich European nations and the USA for handouts. For many Third World nations, China and Russia are useful as a balance against the United States or Europe which is often moralizing to the world on human rights so lacking in the Third World. Considering that most Third World nations are still run by brutal thugs and populated by even more brutish peoples, the moral sermons of the West are most annoying to people like Mugabe and Chavez. Palestinians, for instance, are tired of Americans preaching to them about peace when Americans looked the other way when Israelis have abused Palestinians through the years.
Anyway, as America becomes darker and its leadership filled with more 'people of color', the world will have to face a paradox—an America that is at once weaker and stronger. The divisions caused by radical diversity and multiculturalism will likely weaken unity among Americans and lead to massive social problems. On the other hand, if the political, cultural, and economic areas are more and more controlled by 'peoples of color', there will be less justifiable reason—at least within the leftist context—for the world to condemn or denounce the US.
The main moral argument against American power has rested on the notion that the United States is the creation of white imperialists—especially of Northern Europeans who are especially held in low esteem by political correctness. (Whites of Hispanic or Portuguese background, due to their racial mixture and their having become the 'subject peoples' of Norte Americano Yanquis, can just barely pass as honorary 'people of color'. Che Guevara was white but is widely seen as a Third World figure.) As America becomes controlled more by blacks, Hispanics—the majority of whom are of mixed blood(substantially Indian-American)--, there is a less of a reason to condemn it as a world center of white imperialist evil. Indeed, we've already seen this change of perception take place. Consider the fact that much of American pop culture is dominated by liberal Jews and blacks. Much of American export in music is jiveass Rap music created and spewed out by demented negroes. Though it has conquered and colonized the minds of young people all around the world, it isn't condemned as an example of American cultural imperialism—at least not in the way that American TV shows with white casts or Westerns used to be. Because blacks are perceived as the oppressed people in America and because rap music is regarded as the music of the disenfranchised, US music companies—mostly owned and/or run by liberal Jews—can peddle that garbage all over the world and rake in gazillions, and yet not be accused of cultural imperialism.
And, this brings up another issue. Perhaps the white elite in this country knows this all too well. Perhaps, they find people like Obama and Oprah useful in maintaining their own power. Rich white folks are well aware of how the both the elites and masses around the world see the US as the center of global neo-imperialism. Having the likes of Oprah and Obama as the prominent face of American politics, power, and values changes the way the world sees America. The American elite will largely be dominated by whites in decades to come, but having Obama as president may give the impression that American power is no longer 'racist'-imperialist and has become open-and-fair-to-all. (This may also account for the sudden rise of Bobby Jindal. Even Republicans want to prove that their party is no longer the bastion of evil white males by hiding behind a 'person of color' hindu-convert-to-christianity.) This perception may work to disarm the critics of America. How evil can America be when a negro is president? This is especially useful to the Jews. Jews, as we should all know, have become the most powerful and the richest people in America. On the one hand, Jews are happy and proud to have all this power. On the other hand, Jews are awful worried because it means that the world will see Jews as the main operators of the global American neo-imperialist system. By supporting Obama and using him as the proxy of Jewish power, Jews can then make people believe that Jews are not all that powerful. How can they be when US never had a Jewish president and now has a black president with a Muslim name and is friends with certain key Palestinians? In truth, both the Bush and Obama administration is 50% dominated by Jews, for good and bad. I do not suggest that Jewish power, in and of itself, is evil. It depends on the perspective of those who might benefit or suffer from the consequences of Jewish power. Since over 80% of Jews are liberal to leftist, Jewish power is bad for people on the White Right. If most Jews were rightist, we would embrace them. To be sure, Jewish leftism has been existential as much as ideological. Jewish leftism preserves their rightist instincts to gain and maintain their own power. If rightism is particularist and if leftism is universalist, Jews found leftism useful in the service of their particularism. When it comes to their own power, Jews are tribalist and fanatical. But, Jews make up only a small minority and cannot easily enforce their will on us. So, their main weapon has been leftism whose purpose is to weaken the particularism or tribalism of the goy majority.
Anyway, it's something to think about. As American grows darker, it will become a more troubled and divided country. A weaker country. But, if its elite becomes darker—by perception or in reality--, American position will grow stronger because 'people of color' will be in control. As we know, only white folks feel—or are required to feel--any guilt about their historical crimes. If blacks and Hispanics came to rule America, they would never feel guilty about anything—just as Chinese feel no guilt about anything they've done. As a 'people of color', Chinese perceive modern history as imperialist nations having picked on and exploited China; China has been the victim, and so no one has the right to criticize the Chinese who are only struggling to rise up in the world as an 'equal nation'. (Besides, even if the Chinese committed mass horrors, it was mainly to themselves, and as such, they didn't technically exploit or kill OTHER peoples and nations. Their crimes were not 'racist').
Germans felt the same way in the 19th and first half of 20th century. They saw themselves as hemmed in by the imperialist orders of Britain and Russians. Both Germans and Japanese—and Italians—saw themselves as victim-imperialists or victimperialists. They felt that the established imperialist powers—Brits, French, Russians, Americans, etc—were not giving them an equal chance to carve out their own empires..
Americans felt something similar too for much of its history, and this gave Americans the moral confidence to do as they pleased in conquering and settling new lands. As long as the narrative said Americans were freedom loving folks who had cast off the British imperialist yoke, Americans could always justify their use of power as former victims who had stood up. So, when Americans took the SW territories from Mexico, Hawaii, Cuba, and Philippines—either to incorporate them into the US or to manage them as protectorates--, they didn't see anything wrong with what they were doing.
And, it has been this sense of victimhood among Jews and the perception of guilt-ridden Europeans and Holocaust-indoctrinated Americans that allowed Zionists to get away with the creation of Israel and the oppression of Palestinians for 60 yrs. Since Jews are saints who'd been crushed by anti-semites, how can they ever do wrong? Similarly, when blacks burn down cities, they feel no remorse since they are victims of history.
So, the future of America will be interesting.