What became of the "U.S. empire"?

[PetrChelcicky]

When I started reading Christian sites in the United States, the "U.S. empire" was a real matter. I vaguely remember that there was a site called "After empire what" - meaning that Christians had overcome their ties to the U.S. empire and now had to find out the alternatives.

Of course that idea was connected to the idea that there existed a modernized version of classical imperialism. In this modernized version the means were mostly worldwide military stations and control centers in client states (one of the last being the Kosovo). And the prize to win was not a territorial gain, but economical advantages (like pivileged access to natural resources, like oil, or to consumer demand, like McDonald's). This idea was not really new: Hobson had developed it during the Boer War and Lenin had made it popular,
This idea of a "modernized version" has been nullified completely. If I read about "imperialism" nowadays, it's always the sins of our forefathers, either colonialism or mission.

All that explains among others why Americans are so tone-deaf about Russian emotional sensitivities. Americans simply avoid studying the period when the United States really determined Russian policy, the Yeltsine era - Yeltsine would not have kept his power without massive U.S. interference. (So, Russians and others think that Americans are completely hypocritical when they demand that other countries must have no influence on their own politics.) The Yeltsine era was a time of extreme poverty for the Russians, was it a time of big gains for their American counterparts? I don't know, the information is inconclusive - and the people most apt to study it, the American scientists themselves, are obviously not inclined to do it.

How come that the idea of a modernized imperialism has completely disappeared from Christian thinking? I see the reason in a strong, but undiscussed influence of modern "neocon" and "liberal interventionist" literature on the mind of Christian "leaders" and publicists. The United States are seen again as the world's policeman in defense of a "rule based international order", just as in the Eisenhower days. But not with the innocence of the Eisenhower contemporaries - those people did really not know what they did. If our contemporaries are ignorant, it is a half-conscious ignorance, they don't WANT to know what might disinquiet them.

This is a sideline in my defence of "Christian nationalism". I've learned that the renowned Walter Brueggemann has said that "nationalism tilts to imperialism". Which shows that even intelligent men can be stupid when they overestimate the small experience they have had in their small span of life. In fact, nationalism tilted to isolationism before 1950 and does it as well nowadays in the Trump era.
So, when "Anabaptist World" now collects articles about "how to fight Christian nationalism", they do it for to fight isolationism and to promote imperialism. The fight between Christian nationalists and Christian imperialists will be the gréat political fight of our times. Every Anabaptist ought to consider which side to choose.

[Josh]

For an example of U.S. empire, ask yourself why Victoria Nuland was recently in Niger, griping about changes in that country’s leadership.

U.S. empire tries to maintain global control of resources - in this case, a planned oil pipeline from Nigeria to the Mediterranean coast.

[Ken]

For an example of U.S. empire, ask yourself why Victoria Nuland was recently in Niger, griping about changes in that country’s leadership.

U.S. empire tries to maintain global control of resources - in this case, a planned oil pipeline from Nigeria to the Mediterranean coast.

Is "changes to a country's leadership" your new euphemism for a violent military coup?

In any event, the pipeline you are referencing is a joint project of Nigeria, Algeria, and Morocco. It would actually COMPETE with the US natural gas export industry, but would, in fact, bring natural gas resources to 11 different African countries that are energy poor. We can't have that can we?

Not every world event or international business deal is part of some "US Empire." But the US (and the rest of the world) does have an interest in seeing peace and prosperity around the world, as do all of us. The alternative is chaos, violence, terrorism, economic collapse, and waves of millions of new migrants washing up on our shores and the shores of Europe.

[Josh]

For an example of U.S. empire, ask yourself why Victoria Nuland was recently in Niger, griping about changes in that country’s leadership.

U.S. empire tries to maintain global control of resources - in this case, a planned oil pipeline from Nigeria to the Mediterranean coast.

Is "changes to a country's leadership" your new euphemism for a violent military coup?

When replacing a U.S.-friendly puppet government, yes. It is very suspicious when the U.S. empire ordains which governments are “okay” and which arent.

In any event, the pipeline you are referencing is a joint project of Nigeria, Algeria, and Morocco. It would actually COMPETE with the US natural gas export industry, but would, in fact, bring natural gas resources to 11 different African countries that are energy poor. We can't have that can we?[/quite]

And Niger doesn’t want to cooperate. Seems that’s up to Niger to decide, not the U.S. State Department. The purpose of the pipeline is to supply gas to Europe, too, let’s not kid ourselves.

Not every world event or international business deal is part of some "US Empire" and the US does have an interest in seeing peace and prosperity around the world as do all of us. The alternative is chaos, violence, terrorism, economic collapse, and waves of millions of new migrants washing up on our shores and the shores of Europe.

I think it is safe to say a lot of the chaos, violence, terrorism, and economic collapse can be blamed squarely on the Western and Soviet empires.

[Grace]

Not every world event or international business deal is part of some "US Empire." But the US (and the rest of the world) does have an interest in seeing peace and prosperity around the world, as do all of us. The alternative is chaos, violence, terrorism, economic collapse, and waves of millions of new migrants washing up on our shores and the shores of Europe.

Seems like the United States is swiftly moving in that direction. Especially in the last two and a half years.

[barnhart]

The fight between Christian nationalists and Christian imperialists will be the gréat political fight of our times. Every Anabaptist ought to consider which side to choose.

Why must we choose one of these options?

[Szdfan]

The fight between Christian nationalists and Christian imperialists will be the gréat political fight of our times. Every Anabaptist ought to consider which side to choose.

Why must we choose one of these options?

You don't have to choose one of these options -- it's a false choice that Petr is presenting here. The world is much more complicated than Petyr argues and has a lot more options than he presents here.

Furthermore, the distinctions between the two are not as clear as Petr argues. The "Russian World" (Russkiy Mir) ideology advocated by Putin and Patriarch Kirill is both nationalistic and imperialistic. It seeks to unite all Russian speakers (and those non-Russian speakers within the Russian sphere) into a single Russian state centered politically in Moscow and spiritually in Kyiv (traditionally thought as the origins of Orthodoxy in the Kyivian Rus). It's an ideology that's both nationalistic in the way it elevates Russian identity and imperialistic in the way it seeks to unite everyone in it's sphere regardless of whether they want to or not.

[Josh]

Of course, the U.S. and Western empires are also "nationalistic" (although they loudly claim not to be, just like the Soviets claimed they weren't nationalist and claimed to be anti-fascist and anti-Nazi, a claim that continues to the present-day non-Soviet Russia). One of the lies the Empire tells about itself is that it is really just on the side of peace, truth, justice, democracy, liberty, and so forth when it is, of course, nothing of the sort.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I liked a lot in this post except for the choice between imperialism and nationalism. In reality, the two often go hand in hand. Nationalism is usually a precursor to imperialism. Look at Nazi Germany.
Many people are opposed to nationalism primarily because they know it very VERY easily leads to imperialism, which is just very destructive for the whole world.