How to find the Modern Imperialists:
The end of Empires after the Second World War might be an illusion, just as the end of History after the fall of the Soviet Union, certainly seems to be an illusion. The end of communism in 1989, marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was widely hailed as a triumph for liberal democratic ideology, suggesting a global consensus around its values of free markets, human rights, and other perceived political freedoms. However, this apparent ideological victory also ushered in a new form of imperialism under the guise of "liberal hegemony." In the decades following, Liberal Democratic powers, particularly the United States and their large alliance network, sought to expand their influence globally by promoting liberal democratic norms and economic policies. This endeavour often involved interventions—military, political, and economic—in various countries under the pretext of spreading democracy and protecting human rights.
In this article, I argue that such actions, instead of being purely altruistic, often served the geopolitical and economic interests of the intervening imperialist institutions – not nation-states per se, imposing a one-size-fits-all model of governance that may not align with their diverse political landscapes and cultural identities of the affected peoples and their independent norm-forming communities. This wide range of interventions highlights a complex layer of modern imperialism, driven by the ambition to mould the world into a liberal democratic framework, which can paradoxically lead to the destruction of human agency through their right to become independent norm-forming communities. Furthermore, this attempted destruction of human agency is already leading to instability rather than the promised creativity, harmony and freedom.
What follows is an evolving list and description of what I consider to be properties describing some of these modern-day Imperialists' modern behaviours and strategies. It is being created in the same spirit as what might have been animating Martin Luther, when he wrote the 95 Theses, to be debated by the most powerful ordering institution of his time, the Roman Catholic Church. This list is by no means complete and constantly evolving while it is rooted in my personal experience and academic framing. It synthesises my extensive readings on the subject and, more crucially, reflects my own experiences as a citizen of South Africa. This country is also my home, where my ancestors have lived for the past 12 generations. It is built on insights I gained in my search to make sense of the world that was dramatically shaped, most importantly, by the misperceived post-Communist & Liberal Hegemonic world that changed the way we think about everything ever since 1989. For myself and all my fellow South Africans of many languages and tribes, these dramatic world-changing events took place with the advent of what is known to South Africans as “the New South Africa” and to the world as “the Liberal World Order or Liberal Democratic Hegemony”.
In this examination of imperialism, it is essential to avoid the constraints imposed by any single political ideology, such as liberalism, communism, socialism, fascism or even nationalism. The reason for this approach is twofold. Firstly, imperialism can manifest under various political spectrums, adapting its methods and ideologies to suit specific geopolitical or socio-economic contexts, in order to achieve some kind of empire. By not tethering the analysis to any particular ideology, these theses will provide a more versatile and comprehensive understanding of how imperialist strategies are generically applied, irrespective of the governing ideology. Secondly, focusing on the underlying actions and consequences of imperialism, rather than the ideologies which may justify or disguise these actions, allows for a more objective and critical assessment of its impacts. This forced focus is crucial in identifying and understanding the characteristics and motives of imperialists across different times and places, thereby enabling a more effective critique of their actions and policies, and hopefully new knowledge that synthesises new, hopefully more ecology-centric ideologies.
The key to these so-called modern imperialist behaviours lies in the fact that my arguments attempt to highlight how imperial agendas impact those of independent norm-forming communities. This means that, without dogmatically sticking to the textbook definition of an “imperialist” or an empire, in the historical sense, it should be possible to create new knowledge about what a modern imperialist looks like. Throughout this synthesis, I also realised that I had to look at nationalism as both an imperial construct or in other cases a true container for actual independent norm-forming communities. Therefore, to avoid this ambiguity about nationalism, I placed my focus on imperialist behaviour regardless of its ideology or containing social structures.
To facilitate this I will simply introduce and explain some observed imperial behaviours and agendas that will allow the reader to evaluate the new imperial behaviours, and then hopefully be able to take part in the discourse and decide for yourself what a true modern imperialist is. However, at this stage of the introduction and invitation to discourse, it might not be clear what an independent norm-forming community is. Therefore, we first need to define this term.
The concept of independent norm-forming communities positions them as a distinct entity within the social and political spectrum. This attempted definition will try to define what constitutes an independent norm-forming community, contrasting it with the concepts of individualism and empire, and emphasizing the unique position such communities hold in enabling individuals to freely establish norms.
An independent norm-forming community is fundamentally a collective of individuals endowed with the inherent capacity, willingness, and dedication to autonomously create norms that frame and guide all dimensions of their communal existence. This definition implies a deep-rooted belief in the power of collective human action free from external dictates. Such communities are characterized by their ability to operate independently from overarching political or social structures, like empires and quasi-imperial-nation states, which often impose standardized norms and practices.
The role of individuals in these communities is central and multifaceted, as opposed to the dubious role individuals can play within the so-called “liberal democratic hegemony”. This definition highlights a crucial dichotomy: the extent to which an individual, acting within a spectrum ranging from total freedom to various degrees of coercion, chooses to align with either an empire or an independent norm-forming community—or potentially both. This spectrum of coercion versus freedom is vital for understanding the individual's agency in shaping their societal norms and their ability to influence the community's direction. The idea here is not just the physical absence of coercion but the presence of a nurturing environment where individual contributions to norm formation and internalisation are valued and encouraged.
This kind of individualist reality, should not be conflated with the broader definitions of what constitutes a community or an empire. Here, individualism is not about isolation or self-centeredness; instead, it’s about the empowerment and responsibility of each member to contribute to the communal ethos. In contrast, an empire typically operates on a supra-communal hegemonic basis, ever more centralizing power and limiting the normative flexibility of its constituents.
Moreover, this definition implicitly argues for a recognition of the unique capabilities of independent norm-forming communities in fostering a type of governance and social organization that is reflective of and responsive to the diverse needs and aspirations of its members. This approach allows for a dynamic and adaptive framework, unlike the often rigid and prescriptive norms of an empire. This is why the evolution of norms should find protected independent communities that can give life to new and revitalise old norms.
Therefore, independent norm-forming communities represent a paradigm where collective human capacities and individual agencies converge to create a self-sustaining and self-defining social order. These communities challenge the traditional dichotomies of freedom and coercion, and empire and individuality, proposing instead a model where norms are not just inherited or imposed but are deliberately and thoughtfully crafted by those they directly impact. This concept redefines what it means to be a community in that it champions autonomy, participative governance, and deep respect for individual contributions within a livable collective framework as opposed to the unlivable construct of a global ideological empire.
From this working definition of what an “Independent norm-forming community” is, it furthermore becomes necessary to build an understanding of the difference between what a community is and what a society is. The difference between a community and a society is generically described as follows:
A community is first of all the place where you experience most of your connected/shared life, as becomes clear from the German word “Gemeinschaft” and the related Afrikaans word “Gemeenskap”. It is a group of people who, demonstrably, share common characteristics and interests and most of all unique norms, and who interact with one another to pursue shared goals or interests. A community can be based on geographic proximity, cultural heritage, ethnicity, religion, or any other shared love that brings people together, within an experience of “living together”.
A society, on the other hand, is, first of all, premised on the ability of people to “talk together and make new knowledge and agreements”. This working definition is derived from one of the German words for society, “Gesellschaft” and the Afrikaans word “Geselskap”. For many reasons, of which polyglot interactions and other cosmopolitan abilities of many people, a society is usually a larger and more complex grouping of people who might share common institutions based on mostly mechanistic agreements that flow from the rational analysis of those agreements, and usually universally (…or at least multi-laterally) agreed practices that do not intend to make living bonds of community, but simply confirm transactional interactions. Society refers to the whole network of relationships and interactions among individuals, groups, and institutions that make up a social transactional system. It encompasses mostly market-related interactions of human life, including economic, legal and related social systems.
This should make it clear that the place where independent norm-forming should be focused should be the community and not the larger society because norms are the things that any individual has existentially available to enter into society. You should be able to see the community is the place where the existentially available norms of individuals are the most loved and the most naturally incorporated into any other application of those norms. Communities can indeed create societies unique to their independent norms, and it is also true that communities and individuals can share societies with other communities or sometimes individuals outside their communities. While societies do not expect the living togetherness and existential fulfilment that communities imply.
With this working definition of an independent norm-forming community in mind, it is now possible to identify modern imperialist behaviours. From the following list of imperial behaviours, strategies and agendas, it should be clear how imperialists use universalist and atomising societal ideas about our human solidarity to ensure the destruction of independent norm-forming communities.
The discussion can now move towards the first 18 imperialist behaviours, with a short introductory description for each:
Imperialist Behaviour 1:
Imperialists fear independent norm-forming communities most because it is the only legitimate orchestration of human intentions able to break free from their empire, that is why they prevent independent norm-forming communities as a matter of highest priority.
Discussion:
Imperial powers are particularly threatened by independent norm-forming communities because these entities represent a profound and legitimate challenge to imperial control. Independent norm-forming communities embody the unique capacity to orchestrate human intentions in a way that can fundamentally disrupt the hegemony of an empire. Recognizing this potential, imperialists strategically prioritize the suppression of this kind of community to prevent any divergence from their dominion. This preemptive strategy is crucial for maintaining their influence and preventing the establishment of alternative norms that could undermine their authority.
Imperialist Behaviour 2:
Imperialists will try to force independent norm-forming communities into a globally sovereign state that has such a wide range of different communities, languages and tribes all ruled through the same sovereign state, that it by definition makes it extremely difficult to harmonise relationships between independent norm-forming communities. This makes the terms nation and nation-state meaningless in essence.
Discussion:
Imperial powers often seek to consolidate independent norm-forming communities into a singular, imperialistically recognized sovereign state. This state, by design, encompasses a vast diversity of communities, languages, and tribes, all of which are species for free-forming norms. The broad heterogeneity within such a state makes it inherently challenging to achieve genuine harmony and mutual understanding among its disparate groups. By imposing a uniform sovereign structure over such diverse constituents, imperialists dilute the distinct norms, identities and governance models of these communities, rendering the concepts of 'nation' and 'nation-state' effectively meaningless. The artificial unity enforced under this model suppresses the organic development of inter-community relationships and undermines the possibility of these communities autonomously navigating their coexistence and collaboration. This strategy not only stifles local self-determination but also obscures the true essence of nationhood, which is founded on more coherent and genuinely integrated “gemeinschaft” as opposed to “gesellschaft” bonds.
Imperialist Behaviour 3:
Imperialists will use multiculturalism as a melting pot to dissolve independent norms and cultures made by independent communities into subservient communities, instead of allowing other cultures to be experienced through trusted and natural interactions between communities the imperialist expectation is that all norms must become homogenised to whatever their dictates demand.
Discussion:
Imperialists often co-opt the concept of multiculturalism, transforming it into a melting pot strategy designed to erode the distinct norms established by independent communities. This approach dilutes unique cultural identities, subsuming them into a homogenized framework that aligns with imperial objectives. Rather than fostering a genuine exchange of cultural practices through organic and trust-based interactions between communities, this strategy manipulates multiculturalism to create a landscape of cultural conformity. This not only diminishes the autonomy of these communities but also undermines the rich potential for diverse cultural experiences to naturally enrich and inform each other, preserving the sovereignty and vibrancy of varied cultural traditions.
Imperialist Behaviour 4:
Imperialists try to destroy any civilization that successfully and actively supports and protects independent norm-forming communities because such a civilisation will never be conducive to lasting empires but can be called a commonwealth of communities in a dynamic balancing alliance sphere.
Discussion:
Imperialist powers actively seek to dismantle civilizations that support and safeguard independent norm-forming communities. These civilizations, by their very nature, pose a significant threat to the sustainability of empires because they foster an “ecology” of autonomous communities rather than a monolithic imperial state. Such civilizations can more aptly be described as a commonwealth – a dynamic alliance of communities that maintain a balance of power through mutual support and shared respect for differing norms. This decentralized model of governance inherently resists imperial domination, prompting imperialists to target these civilizations, from within and without that type of civilisation, as an ongoing measure to curb the emergence of an alternative and mostly dispersed power structure that could challenge their attempted hegemony.
Imperialist Behaviour 5:
Imperialists will set up and maintain a monetary system that supports transactional trust at the expense of independent norm-forming communities in favour of imperial ruling elites and the anti-community institutions they use for wealth creation (...assuming that intended community behaviour in actuality becomes normless consumerist behaviour that safeguards their monetary influence and power).
Discussion:
Imperialists strategically establish and sustain a monetary system designed to prioritize imperial transactional trust, a mechanism that disproportionately benefits the imperial ruling elites and the institutions they employ for wealth generation. This system is supposedly crafted with the intent to be ostensibly neutral or community-agnostic, yet it inherently evolves into anti-community behaviour by aiming towards a zombified individual as the base economic actor. By doing so, it ensures that financial and economic structures support and reinforce the power and influence of these imperialists at the expense of independent norm-forming communities. The monetary flows of capital are designed to undermine these communities' ability to retain wealth within local economic systems. This is not an unintended consequence but a calculated effort to maintain control and limit the development of alternative, community-based economic models that could challenge the hegemony of the imperial power structure.
Imperialist Behaviour 6:
Imperialists will frame weapons of mass destruction as a legitimizing factor for their imperial aspirations, instead of using the ability to wield ultimate force to safeguard the dynamic balancing alliance sphere where independent norm-forming communities thrive.
Discussion:
Imperial powers strategically represent the mere existence of weapons of mass destruction as a legitimizing aspect of their imperial ambitions. Rather than leveraging this formidable destructiveness to support the obvious need for a balanced alliance sphere – where independent norm-forming communities could flourish and contribute to global stability – imperialists use it to bolster an ever-increasing geopolitical dominance. By framing these weapons as essential tools for maintaining hegemonic order and security, they obscure the potential for these arms to protect and sustain a more equitable and diverse international system. This manipulation not only consolidates their control but also sidelines the constructive role that independent communities could play in fostering a truly secure and dynamic global order.
Imperialist Behaviour 7:
Imperialists don't fear independent individuals who have no real community bonds, in fact, they "breed" them through internationalist institutions in order to control and use them to destroy independent norm-forming communities, whom they fear most.
Discussion:
Imperial powers do not view independent individuals lacking strong community ties as a threat; rather, they actively cultivate such individuals through internationalist institutions. This strategic cultivation serves a dual purpose: it extends the reach of imperial control and deploys these isolated individuals as tools to undermine and dismantle independent norm-forming communities, which pose a significant threat to imperial hegemony. By promoting individualism divorced from communal affiliations, these powers weaken the social fabric and collective resilience of communities that could otherwise resist imperial domination. This approach not only marginalizes the role of strong, cohesive communities in global affairs but also ensures that individuals are less likely to form alliances that could challenge the status quo, thereby preserving imperial influence and control.
Imperialist Behaviour 8:
Imperialists will actively coerce and entice established and emerging elites from functional independent norm-forming communities to abandon their own communities to become internationalists, instead of building the real prestige of their own communities they build the prestige of an empire.
Discussion:
Imperial powers actively engage in tactics of coercion and enticement to draw established and emerging leaders away from their functional independent norm-forming communities. These individuals are lured with promises of greater influence and opportunities on an international stage, persuading them to adopt an internationalist perspective that prioritizes the goals and values of the empire over those of their own communities. By extracting these key figures, imperialists not only strip communities of their leadership but also redirect these leaders’ capabilities towards enhancing the prestige and power of the empire. This strategic manipulation undermines the autonomy and development of these communities, sapping them of the very leadership, talent and vision necessary to build their own prestige and foster genuine self-determination.
Imperialist Behaviour 9:
Imperialists will always force investments and corporate behaviours to be internationalist instead of allowing wealth creation to be the consequence of enterprises in and between independent norm-forming communities.
Discussion:
Imperial powers systematically enforce investment strategies and corporate behaviours that align with internationalist principles, deliberately suppressing local and regional economic autonomy. By doing so, they ensure that wealth generation serves broader imperial interests rather than emerging organically through enterprises rooted within and among independent norm-forming communities. This orchestrated redirection of economic activity stifles the potential for these communities to cultivate their own economic landscapes and sustainably develop their resources. Instead, the wealth created flows back to enhance the imperial core, entrenching economic dependencies and precluding the growth of self-sufficient, locally-living economies. This strategy not only marginalizes the economic aspirations of these communities but also weakens their ability to form resilient economic networks free from imperial dominance.
Imperialist Behaviour 10:
Imperialists will actively promote all forms of suboptimal communities because in aggregate it will undermine the probability for it to endure and grow into lasting independent norm-forming communities.
Discussion:
Imperial powers strategically support the proliferation of suboptimal and/or dysfunctional communities, recognizing that such entities, by their fragmented and inefficient nature, inherently lack the resilience and cohesion necessary to evolve into sustainable, independent norm-forming communities. This tactical endorsement is calculated to destabilize the foundational structures that could otherwise enable these communities to thrive autonomously. By fostering conditions conducive to disunity and inefficacy within these groups, imperialists effectively dilute their potential normative strength, thereby mitigating the risk that they coalesce into formidable entities capable of challenging imperial dominance. This approach not only stymies the development of these communities but ensures their dependence and subservience to imperial agendas, curtailing their growth and longevity.
Imperialist Behaviour 11:
Imperialists use some universalist claims of identity politics as a virus that turns individuals into victim zombies programmed to destroy independent norm-forming communities.
Discussion:
Imperial powers manipulate certain universalist claims within identity politics, using them as tools to fragment and weaken independent norm-forming communities. By framing these claims in ways that emphasize victimhood and grievance, they effectively reprogram individuals' perceptions, leading them to act in ways that inadvertently undermine their own communities' cohesion and resilience. This strategic deployment acts like a virus, infecting individuals with a mindset that prioritizes personal and disconnected identity grievances over the collective well-being and autonomous development of their communities. As a result, these communities face internal divisions and conflicts that detract from their ability to form strong, cohesive units capable of resisting imperial influence and sustaining their own norms and values.
Imperialist Behaviour 12:
Imperialists will use the universal truth claims taught by utopian ideologies, religions and theological convictions like atheism to invalidate the independence of norm-forming communities, instead of allowing religion and other theological convictions to guide & connect independent norm-forming communities.
Discussion:
Imperial powers strategically exploit the universal truth claims of religions and the philosophical assertions of ideologies like capitalism, socialism, communism and atheism to undermine the autonomy of independent norm-forming communities. By co-opting these spiritual and intellectual frameworks as being valid outside the community, they craft narratives that question the legitimacy of local norms and values, positioning them as somehow inferior or in opposition to these broader, proposed universal truths. This approach not only diminishes the perceived validity of the communities' own traditions and beliefs about universal truths but also prevents these from serving as a basis for unity and inter-community alliances. Instead of allowing all kinds of religious and philosophical convictions to foster connections and guide the development of these communities naturally, imperialists repurpose them as tools of division and control, thereby stifling the potential for genuine independence and self-determination.
Imperialist Behaviour 13:
Imperialists will use the universal aspects of science and some conflated scientific interpretations of data as universally normative authority to destroy independent norm-forming communities. Instead of using the amazing diversity and durability observed in nature to validate the "social ecology" of independent norm-forming communities – imperialists reduce humans to bacteria-like atomised utility optimisers.
Discussion:
Imperial powers often leverage the universal appeal of scientific authority and selectively interpret social data to undermine the legitimacy of independent norm-forming communities. By presenting certain scientific findings as universally normative, they assert a monolithic amoral interpretation of data that can override and invalidate local norms and practices, thereby eroding the autonomy of these communities. Rather than acknowledging the incredible diversity and resilience found in natural ecosystems as a model for the social ecology of varied human communities, imperialists manipulate ecological scientific narratives to centralize control and assert a homogenized global standard. This strategy not only stifles the rich potential for community-specific adaptations and innovations but also disregards the natural principles of non-homogenizing diversity and adaptation that could otherwise validate and support the sustainable development of independent norm-forming communities.
Imperialist Behaviour 14:
Imperialists will use welfare to invalidate the independence of norm-forming communities, instead of allowing fair play, work & thrift to secure and develop independent norm-forming communities.
Discussion:
Imperial powers strategically deploy welfare policies as a mechanism to undermine the autonomy of independent norm-forming communities. By positioning such aid as essential for survival, they subtly erode the self-reliance and internal governance of these communities, creating dependency. This method effectively invalidates the communities' capability to govern and sustain themselves independently through their own values of fair play, hard work, and thrift. Rather than encouraging these communities to develop robust internal economies and social structures that promote self-sufficiency, imperialists use welfare as a tool of control, discouraging the very industriousness and prudent resource management that could empower these communities to thrive autonomously and maintain their distinct norms.
Imperialist Behaviour 15:
Imperialists focus their overbearing sense of caring and justice on taking away communities' will to toil for sustained independent norm forming and togetherness.
Discussion:
Imperialists often cloak their interventions in communities under the guise of an exaggerated concern for care and justice. This ostensibly benevolent approach is strategically employed to subtly erode the communities' drive and capacity for self-determination and collective resilience. By presenting their oversight as necessary for the community's well-being, they gradually diminish the local will to engage in the hard work and collaboration required to develop and sustain independent norms and cohesive communal structures. This method effectively disempowers communities, making them reliant on external support and guidance, and thus less likely to assert their independence or challenge the imperial status quo.
Imperialist Behaviour 16:
Imperialists will implement human rights only as individual rights and not as community rights, with the individual rights aimed at destroying independent norm-forming communities in favour of an internationalism of isolated individuals.
Discussion:
Imperialists systematically implement human rights frameworks that prioritize individual rights at the expense of community rights. This approach is not merely a preference for individualism but a calculated strategy to weaken independent norm-forming communities. By emphasizing rights that isolate individuals from their communal contexts, imperial powers fragment the social fabric that binds these communities, thereby undermining their collective identity and resilience. This policy shifts the focus from communal to individual priorities, effectively promoting a form of internationalism that favours detached, isolated individuals over robust, interconnected communities. This intentional undermining of community rights serves to dilute the power of collective action and erodes the foundation upon which independent communities build their norms and sustain their autonomy.
Imperialist Behaviour 17:
Imperialists conflate a global sense of justice with togetherness to legitimate their empire, instead of allowing universal and local togetherness to be experienced through the security and cooperation in and between independent norm-forming communities.
Discussion:
Imperialists skilfully conflate a globalized notion of justice with the concept of togetherness to legitimize their empire, presenting their dominion as a benevolent unification of diverse entities. This strategic conflation diverts attention from the true potential of togetherness that could be realized through security and cooperation within and between independent norm-forming communities. By promoting a universal sense of justice that aligns with imperial interests, they overshadow the nuanced interplay of local and universal values that could foster genuine collaboration and mutual respect among communities. This approach not only centralizes power within the imperial structure but also discourages the organic solidarity that could emerge from communities empowered to define and uphold their own norms in a secure and cooperative framework.
Imperialist Behaviour 18:
Imperialists will monopolise your personal search for understanding to ensure that you don't trust your own independent norm-forming community's socialisation of understanding and knowledge.
Discussion:
Imperial powers systematically co-opt and control the avenues through which individuals seek understanding, ensuring that these processes reinforce reliance on imperial narratives rather than on the wisdom and knowledge cultivated within one’s own independent norm-forming community. By monopolizing these channels of education and information, imperialists undermine trust in the local processes of socialization, understanding of any kind of knowledge and knowledge-creation. This strategic intervention not only isolates individuals from their communal roots but also diminishes the community’s role as a source of credible knowledge and understanding. Consequently, individuals are steered away from valuing and trusting the insights and norms developed through their community's collective experience, further entrenching imperial dominance and control.
