https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Urb__Omug

Russia wants peace.

The US wants wars. Its EU satellite does its bidding, with the UK in full support.

English people do not support the EU. Few support the UK. The US is a catastrophe.

Russia is a stable Christian country.

The US is materialistic, power hungry, with no stability.

Daniel Jupp disagrees, and sees no danger from war.

Imperialism? I’m proud to be part of it By

Daniel Jupp

January 12, 2026

ONE of the most hilarious things in current political discourse is just how archaic most of it is.

Take the word ‘imperialist’. It’s still flung around as an insult, yet imperialism has been dead for 80 years or more.

If the insult means anything at all, it simply means an objection to strength, influence and power displayed by those the speaker doesn’t like. I suppose if we are generous we could say that those using it don’t mean a system of rule headed by an Emperor but mean instead a style of interaction with other nations based on self-interest or ruthlessness. But even there the hypocrisies in the use of the term are hilariously obvious.

Does ‘imperialism’ mean the expansion of unaccountable rule across multiple nations? If it does, then why doesn’t the increasingly demanding, censorious and expansive authority of the UN or the EU get called ‘imperialism’?

Does imperialism mean any nation state that applies force to other nation states to get their obedience or to assert control over them? In which case why is the Western European opposition to Russia, the desire to limit what Russia can do and to humiliate and defeat Russia, not just as imperial as Russia’s attitude towards Ukraine?

If imperialism means the movement of unwanted peoples who demand priority, power and authority in the nations they arrive in, power over the natives already there, then what is modern mass migration other than imperialism too?

Or is imperialism simply meant to mean expansion by conquest, and this is why migrant assertions of power aren’t imperial? But that brings us of course to another glaring hypocrisy. Why isn’t the fact that there are up to 53 existing Muslim-majority nations in the world, all of which were once non-Muslim, considered to be the most obvious example of imperialism in history, and an imperial project which is still ongoing and in many cases extremely violent and oppressive?

Or if dominance of trade, trade routes, and global expansion of influence to protect those trading interests is imperialism, as with the British Empire, then why isn’t Chinese purchasing of influence in Africa and South America imperialism? Why isn’t the grand Chinese strategy (which very much mirrors how many European empires functioned, but with far more strategic co-ordination and deliberate design) called imperialism?

Why are there no protests any more in the Western world on behalf of Tibetans who have been conquered and oppressed by the Chinese since October 1950?

If imperialism means a foreign power asserting dominance against the wishes of the people affected, then why is the term imperialism never applied to the actions of transnational bodies with very little or never gauged public support in the nations they take funding from and issue instructions to?

Today, we are being told from multiple directions (mainstream Establishment types insistent on ‘international law’, a European elite who have no regard for sovereignty, liberty and democracy when it comes to limits on their own behaviour or the behaviour of the EU, and of course both radical leftists worldwide and the new alternative media truthers and Jew haters of the Carlson, Owens and Fuentes variety) that Trump’s action in Venezuela and his offer to Greenland are imperialism, but none of these people describes what their definition of imperialism is.

It’s very convenient, of course, to use a word you refuse to define. It’s even more important not to define it if you know your use of it is utterly dishonest, utterly ridiculous, or utterly hypocritical (or all three at once). None of these people will offer any substantive description of what makes Trump’s 35-minute raid on Venezuela imperialism, especially if they never used the term regarding George Bush’s invasion of Panama with more than 20,000 troops to capture Noriega, or regarding Barack Obama’s 92,000 bombs on seven different countries, or regarding (again) Obama’s use of assassination squads and drone strikes on multiple occasions within sovereign nations given no choice on the matter. They don’t say why snatching a dictator facing outstanding US warrants for transfer and trial is imperialism, but breaching the borders of another nation to assassinate bin Laden was not imperialism.

As we examine the uses of the word imperialism the pattern of its use becomes obvious. It’s used not in its technically and literally correct sense (to refer to actions ordered by an Emperor). It’s used in no honest or logical way. And it’s not applied consistently to any of the kinds of actions and uses of force it pretends to be about (since various people can act in the same manner and not have the word and the hysterical censure that goes with it applied to their actions). What we see is that it is only applied to strong displays of competence or force from Western nations, and only when those Western nations are not led by Globalists or Leftists and not pursuing Globalist and Leftist goals.

So Globalist politics is in fact far more imperialist than what Trump is doing, who only asserts a US national right to act in obvious US interest in places where harm to the US is coming from. In Venezuela, the harm to the US was real and proven, and therefore fundamentally different (with a much more just argument for action) than Globalist wars and interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Ukraine.

Nor has there been any suggestion of the use of force with regard to Greenland, even though all of Trump’s hysterical opponents are acting as if there has been. In that case, none of them can explain why an offer to join an expanding Nato or an offer to join an expanding EU is consensual, legitimate and perfectly normal, while an offer to join an expanding US would be and is somehow imperialist, non-consensual and perfectly horrid.

So what we see is actually this: when people say imperialism they aren’t objecting to expansion by force. They are fine with expansion by force. When they say imperialism they aren’t objecting to rule without consent. They are fine with rule without consent. When they say imperialism they aren’t objecting to ignoring national sovereignty, transgressing national borders, or invading nation states. They are perfectly fine with all of these things if the people doing it aren’t white, if the people doing it aren’t Western, or if the people doing it are Muslims, Communists or Globalists.

It makes me laugh when I hear people condemning actions as imperialist. It makes me laugh that anyone thinks an archaic Communist insult means anything, other than to tell you that they are Communists. And it particularly amuses me when I’m told, in horror, that an action is just about seizing resources, gaining access to resources, or claiming be right for your own nation.

It’s just about the oil! Well, what if it was? I mean, there are thousands of moral reasons to remove a Communist dictator who was starving his own people, but let us reduce this purely to US or Western self-interest. If it was only about the oil, only about access to the oil, why is that wrong?

Because the truth is that everyone wants that resource, and everyone wants that access. This is the real world, not a fairy tale. The people who spout about international law want resources too, and Globalists will engineer wars and create disasters to claim them for themselves. If someone wants to claim them for the nation, and offers a way to do it that’s much smarter, more consensual, more beneficial, less costly, less dangerous, less damaging, benefits both sides . . . what kind of abject moron thinks that is a Bad Thing?

Venezuelans know that Trump hasn’t ‘invaded’ their nation. They also know what Maduro was. Seventy-five per cent of them voted against him. Many of them were starving under Maduro’s regime. They know what the deal will be with Venezuelan oil. Western companies will return and bring the expertise to extract the oil efficiently. Production will increase to pre-Maduro levels and beyond. Venezuela will tax at normal rates and sell at normal rates. Global oil prices will reduce but still be better than a Communist leader who didn’t know how to run oil extraction and gave the reduced amounts at reduced rates to China, Russia and Cuba. The Venezuelan economy, so long as they have a pro US leader and a peaceful transition, will recover and flourish. Of course the US will benefit too, and the West will rather than China. That’s a good thing. That’s a better thing than starvation. That’s capitalism, that’s mutual interest as well as self-interest, and that works.

It’s hilarious to be told that success is wicked, benefits to the US are wicked, the restoration of capitalism is wicked, or the fall of a Communist is wicked when these things stop people starving. And for me it’s hilarious to be told that imperialism is wickedness since the people who use the word are Communists, and the people they are referencing are ancestors I’m proud of. I LOVE imperialism.