I founded the Imperial British Conservative Party in New Zealand in 1974
having stood three times as an independent candidate in the Australian
general elections. I fully realise that the mere mention of such words as
"Imperial", "British", and "Conservative" is likely to produce shudders of
fear or mocking laughter. However, before rejecting it out of hand, I beg
the reader to temporarily suspend his or her educational conditioning and
follow this brief explanation of my choice of such an unpopular title for a
political party.
Anti-Imperialism
Is there anyone who is not an anti-imperialist these days? It's like being
anti-slavery or anti-cannibalism. It seems so obvious that imperialism is a
bad thing. Images of cruel imperialists in pith helmets beating up natives
and taking their land have become a cliche and sometimes reach heights of
absurdity when used as propaganda to support a new ruling elite.
For example Australians often portray themselves as good honest folk who
came to a new land to get away from a wicked British government. The story
goes that when they arrived they found nasty red-coated troops still
oppressing them. When these good folk became independent (without a shot
being fired) they began to portray themselves as freedom-loving heroes who
had thrown off the yoke of an occupying power.
Yet both the settlers and the troops, being a mixture of English, Scottish,
Welsh and Irish were all British. Apart from the convicts, the only people
who really were oppressed were the Aboriginals, and their lot did not
improve under the new ruling elite of "dinkum Aussies" who were being
taught in the schools to despise their British roots. In fact the treatment
of the native peoples worsened.
They were only copying what had already taken place in the USA when the
colonists "threw off the yoke etc." of the nasty British, and behaved even
worse towards the native people.
In New Zealand, until they became "Americanised" and began copying the life
style of the wretched blacks in the urban ghettos, Maori had more trust in
the fairness of the Crown than in the New Zealand Parliament. Parliament
had a record of authorising illegal land grabs for the settlers who voted
for it and ran it, in spite of the opposition of the central government in
the United Kingdom.
The economic benefits of Imperialism
Though not perfect, (and what government in the history of the world has
been perfect?), imperialism often introduces a much higher standard of
living to people living in dire poverty and disease, with frequent
outbreaks of famine. Anti-imperialism has often had exactly the opposite
effect. Look at Africa today. Only a red-necked anti-imperialist can do so
without questioning their own educational conditioning.
Imperialists brought the sugar to the West Indies and the rubber to
Malaysia etc. and, given enough time, built up the economic infrastructure
in their colonies in a much sounder fashion than international communism
(led by Russia and China) or international capitalism (led by the USA and
Europe).
The economic benefits of Anti-Imperialism
The Spanish colonies in Latin America may not have had the advantages of
being administered by the British Colonial Office but for a century and a
half the largely hidden political interference of the North Americans in
South American states has been catastrophic to the life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness of the people there.
North Americans brought in revolutionaries like Bolivar and backed them
with money and weapons to overthrow the Spanish administrators and replace
them with corrupt dictators who could be easily manipulated by American and
European investors. The only beneficiaries of anti-imperialism are
multinational corporations and the corrupt new rulers of the "independent"
ex-colonies.
Are Russia, America and China anti-imperialists?
To someone who tries to think for himself, rather than simply regurgitating
propaganda cliches learned at school and university, I cannot see how the
world powers who have replaced the "wicked" British Empire are free from
the expansion of political and economic power that we associate with
imperialism.
At the end of WW2, at Yalta and Teheran, the USA and USSR jointly carved
up the British Empire, exhausted by years of a lone struggle against the
Nazis. Spheres of influence were settled. America bribed her allies and
Russia bullied hers but both became imperial powers in all but name.
Imperialists who are prepared to admit they are imperialists have
responsibilities towards their colonies and introduce not only a properly
functioning economic infrastructure but bring freedom from tyranny or
chaos, better medical care, education, and often grant citizenship rights
to indigenous peoples regardless of race.
Judged by this standard the British Empire was a remarkable success and the
pseudo anti-imperialists with their puppet colonies have a truly ghastly
record. How can anyone who studies history impartially conclude that the
end of the British Empire was a good thing and the heartless, faceless,
multicultural and corrupt Global Economy replacing it is to be admired?
Cultural Imperialism
The phrase, "Cultural Imperialism", is often used to describe the flood
of American products into all regions of the world. This is terrible
misnomer, since this influence is not cultural but anti-cultural. The
only branch of human knowledge which specialises in studying human
cultures is anthropology.
Anthropologists define culture as an integrated set of beliefs and
practices, or values, which produce cohesion and give meaning to a
people. The mass adoption of American consumerism and their
"neophiliac" rejection of the past has resulted in the collapse of
cultures and their transformation into corrupt and shallow imitators of
the American Dream of materialism and freedom from tradition.
Multiculturalism and the New World Order
Anthropologists would also reject the use of such a word as
"multicultural" to describe a properly functioning society. Any society
or nation only exists because it has a culture which identifies it.
The word "multicultural" is often used to justify the erosion of the
existing culture with its laws and customs in preparation for a
take-over by a conglomerate of irresponsible multi-nationals whose only
interest is in personal gain for their managerial elites. In other
words, the New World Order.
In my next article (Part 2) I will attempt to define the meaning of the cultural
concept "British". In it I will question the assumption that such
geographical categories as "New Zealand", "Australia", "Asia", or
"Pacific", are terms which have any cultural meaning. I also bring in a
word of caution about the use of the word "mankind" to justify the
destruction of existing cultural values.
