
America's Imperial 'Gift': 'Crusader Democracy' Versus 'Christian Nationalism'
'America' became involved in Africa and the 'Middle East' very early in its history. There was the American–Algerian War (1785–1795); and the Barbary Wars (1801-1805,1815), featuring the heroic re-seizure and scuttling by fire of the USS Philadelphia in Tripoli Harbor in 1804. Then there was the reverse colonisation (aka 'liberation', 'democratization') of a small corner of Africa from 1822, leading to Liberia's independence in 1862.
In the 1846, there was the small matter of the United States' invasion of Mexico, resulting in the 1848 annexation of half of Mexico's territory. 'America' brought Democracy to California, through annexation. And, in 1898, the United States appropriated Spain's remaining worldwide empire, including the Philippines. And some other territories, including Hawaii. Upon his inauguration as the 47th President, Donald Trump explicitly invoked the memory of President William McKinley, America's most notorious annexor of foreign territory.
And in 1889: "Three American warships then entered the Apia harbor and prepared to engage the three German warships found there. Before any shots were fired, a typhoon wrecked both the American and German ships." After ten years of military/political stalemate – known as the Second Samoan Civil War – the Samoan 'assets' were split between the United States, the German Second Reich, and the United Kingdom. (The UK traded its share with Germany. Britain gave up all claims to Samoa and in return accepted the termination of German rights in Tonga, certain areas in the Solomon Islands, and Zanzibar.)
America's imperial 'burden' in the last 125 years
Rudyard Kipling's poem The White Man's Burden was written in 1899; "a poem about the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) that exhorts the United States to assume colonial control of the Filipino people and their country".
America's empire today is partly formal, though mostly informal, with various grades of informality. Indeed, the recent acknowledgement by the European Union that it has free-ridden on the United States for its defence indicates that the United States has had a significant degree of imperial control over Europe; hegemony manifesting as control over foreign policy.
The name 'America' itself is an imperial grab. America is the name for two continents, yet even the Canadians call the United States 'America', and its citizens 'Americans'. American exceptionalism represents the weaponisation of democracy. Democracy is packaged as 'Democracy', a secular faith like 'Communism' or 'Economic Liberalism'; a faith which must be proselytised, spread across the world as some kind of holy or secular crusade.
The remaining territories on the 'autocratic' 'Dark Side' – ie territories not subject to United States' 'protection' – are mainly in continental Asia: especially West Asia (much of which is imperialistically called the 'Middle East', which extends to North Africa), North Asia, and East Asia. Though there is also very much a contest for South Asia; a contest, which if successful for the White Man's force, will bring secular Hindi along with secular Judaism fully into the imperial fold of secular Christianity. (We note that the labels Hindu and Jew have long been name-tags which confuse and conflate religion with ethnicity. So it may soon be with Christianity; with top-tier Christians behaving very much as top-tier Jews behave today, as supremacist gift-givers and bomb-throwers.)
We should note that Catholic Christianity is now uneasy about this crusader culture, having been the main perpetrator of such culture nearly a millennium ago. And Orthodox Christianity is even more uneasy. In its North Asian (ie Russian) form, Orthodox Christianity – like Islam, and Chinese atheist capitalism – is a target of the present Christian Soldiers, not a collaborator. (The decline of the Christian East came with the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Ostensibly a western invasion force going to re-recover the 'Holy Land', instead that Crusade turned on Orthodox Christian Constantinople. The result was a weak Latin empire in the east; easy prey for the Ottoman forces which in 1453 created a Muslim empire in West Asia and Southeast Europe; an empire that lasted until 1918.)
The modern American-led crusading mentality represents a schism of Protestant Evangelism (which dates back in particular to the Calvinist side of the sixteenth century Reformation) and Secular Liberalism. Protestant Evangelism (increasingly known today as Christian Nationalism) is the imperial currency of today's Republican Party, whereas Secular Liberalism is the imperial currency of today's Democratic Party (although secular Neoliberalism is presently teaming up with the Evangelists). What both have in common is a will to impose themselves upon the rest of the world. And to produce and export lots of big guns, military hardware; making money, and making American jobs.
There are some strange bedfellows. As these two American socio-cultural Gods – Republican and Democrat; protagonist and antagonist, and vice versa – have battled out their Americanisms on a world stage, we have seen a significant posse of very rich devout Economic Liberals taking the side of the Christian Nationalists. So do a number of working-class and other disempowered former ballot-box 'Leftists', who wish to cast an anti-establishment vote but don't know which way to turn. This dabbling with new right-radicalism (not unlike leftist dabbling in New Zealand in 1984 with the recently late Bob Jones' New Zealand Party) follows the slow but comprehensive gutting of the Left-project that was so buoyant in the 1960s and 1970s.
The name Christian Nationalism is a misnomer; a better name is Christian Extranationalism. Rather than being an internationalist movement – internationalism is a liberal concept – this is a movement to perpetuate and extend the global domination of American culture, through imperial merchant capitalism. The United States was born out of British merchant capitalism (and New York out of Dutch merchant capitalism); its values and institutions reflect those of eighteenth-century western Europe. Just as the British exacted tribute from their American colonies; imperial America seeks to extract tribute through the 'negotiation' of asymmetric 'deals'. Are we today witnessing an American Napoleon?
Money, Lies and God: by Katherine Stewart (2025)
Katherine Stewart this year has written about the new eclectic rightwing coalition in the United States that is coalescing under the name of Christian Nationalism. Though I've only read the introduction so far, the book has a real strength, in particular in identifying five components of this new new-right coalition: funders, thinkers, sergeants, infantry, power-players.
Of particular interest to me is the "out-sourced" relationship between the funders and the thinkers. While Stewart emphasises the 'thinkers' in the well-funded (and mostly conservative) 'Think Tanks', the real issue is that of 'selective truth', in the Darwinian sense of 'selection'. Our 'intellectual' careerists compete to publish 'truths', and the truths which prevail will be the truths purchased by the 'funders', given that the funders have most of the funds.
This kind of relationship with truth is somewhat like a 'court-of-law', where commonly two 'truths' are subject to a contest in which one will be declared 'the winner'. Not uncommonly, both rival 'truths' are at least partially false, and there may be other (possibly truer) truths that are not even 'on the table'. Evidence represents a part of the court process, but by no means the whole of that process. The truth-relationship between the funders and thinkers is a corrupt form of the 'law court' model; the more corrupt the more wealth the conservative funders control. Academic careers – indeed scientists' careers – are built on perpetuating narratives acceptable to their patrons.
While Money, Lies and God represents a prescient and useful analysis, ultimately it is part of the problem. It represents one side of the great American divide calling out the other side. The process of belligerent finger-pointing – between, in American language, 'liberals' and 'conservatives' – is the bigger problem. Why bother talking about the world when you can talk about half of America instead? Indeed, too many American intellectuals talk and write about the United States as if America is the World; a kind of mental imperialism. (Another critique of American 'Christian Nationalism' can be found in a recent Upfront episode on Al Jazeera: The growing influence of Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the United States.)
The problem of American imperialism belongs to both sides of the Divide; indeed, it is the Secular Liberalism of what has been exposed as the tone-deaf establishment – the Blinkens, Bidens and Nods – who represented the moral hypocrisy of America's imperial democratic gift. (The sheer stupidity of the Biden re-election campaign is documented in Original Sin, 2025, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.) That is, the belief that America created modern Democracy, and that those parts of the world – especially the 'western' world – have special rights accruing to them because they have been awarded the 'tick of Democracy'. These countries – and only these countries – have the "right to defend themselves", the right to make war (as 'defence through attack'), and the "right to possess nuclear weapons".
Contemporary American imperialism is mainly a 'West on East' phenomenon; Asia is the target. Ukraine and Anatolia (Türkiye) are border territories between Europe and Asia. Palestine, perhaps too, given its location on the Mediterranean Sea; though the Mediterranean littoral, from Istanbul to Morocco, is better understood as West Asia, not Europe. Iran is unambiguously a part of Asia. What we are seeing at present is nothing less than a Euro-American invasion of Asia. Imperialism. Nuclear imperialism; geopolitical imperialism; cultural imperialism. The gift that keeps on taking.
Note on the boundary between Europe and Asia
We should note that the core geopolitical boundary between Europe and Asia was set by Charlemagne in around the year 800; representing the border between the predominancies of Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity (harking back to the Western and Eastern Roman Empires). There are other important historic geopolitical boundaries in Eurasia, of course, such as the eastern and southern borders of Orthodox Christianity; and the eastern and northern borders of Islam-dominated territories. Indeed there is perpetual tension on the Pakistan-India border.
The principal medieval-era departure from that Charlemagne-set geopolitical boundary was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which peaked in territory in the fifteenth century. The first significant modern-era fudge of that geopolitical boundary was the West's acquisition of Greece over the long 19th century (essentially 1820s to 1920s). The Great World War started in 1914 very much as an East-West border conflict in the Balkans of southeast Europe. After a week or two of fudging, the anglosphere took the Eastern side; siding with Russia over Austria and Germany.
Post World War Two, the next main geopolitical border fudges were the 'settlements' which placed a number of mainly Catholic East European countries into Russia's orb; and which placed Türkiye (then Turkey) into NATO. The current twentyfirst century fudge is one of European expansion, placing a number of predominantly Orthodox territories – most notably Ukraine – firmly into the European political realm.
This longstanding geopolitical boundary contrasts with the widely-accepted geographic boundary; the latter – based more on physical geography and ethnicity than on faith-culture – passes along the Ural and Caucasus mountain chains, and through the lower Volga River, the Black Sea and the Bosporus/Dardanelle channels. Geopolitically, Russia, Belarus and Türkiye should be understood today to be Asian countries; indeed, the lower Dnieper River and line of the military trenches in Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk constitute the current geopolitical boundary between West and East; between Europe and Asia. And the lines within Eretz Israel – separating Israel from Palestine – also represent geopolitical borders; and American geopolitical encroachment on Asia.
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Keith Rankin
Political Economist, Scoop Columnist
Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s.
Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like.
Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
China hits back at FBI director's 'groundless assertions' in Wellington
China says it strongly opposes any "groundless assertions" after comments made by the head of the FBI at its new office in Wellington. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation is opening a dedicated attaché office in the capital to investigate threats, including terrorism, cyber crime, money laundering and child exploitation. Director Kash Patel also said it would counter China's influence in the Pacific. Jose Sousa-Santos from the University of Canterbury said the move will bring New Zealand law enforcement up to speed with modern threats. (Source: Breakfast) The Chinese Embassy hit back, saying it took note of the comments and described them as part of a "Cold War mentality". ADVERTISEMENT "Transnational crime is a common challenge encountered by all countries requiring cooperation to tackle," a spokesperson said. "On the opening of a new FBI office in Wellington with a permanent Legat (legal attaché) position, we have taken note of the assertions by the American side, as well as the remarks by relevant New Zealand ministers in response to the media. "We believe that relevant cooperation should not target any third party. And we strongly oppose any attempt to make groundless assertions or vilification against China out of the Cold War mentality. Such acts are against people's will and are doomed to fail." The government has pushed back on suggestions that the FBI's new office in Wellington aimed to counter China. Foreign Minister Winston Peters said China was not raised in his meeting with Patel, and the minister responsible for the spy agencies GCSB and NZSIS, Judith Collins, said it was up to Patel what he wanted to say. A Chinese national flag is raised at the Chinese embassy in London. (Source: Associated Press) "When we were talking, we never had raised that issue," Peters said. "We talked about the Pacific, what we could do to improve the law and order situation and the great concern that Pacific countries had and that they needed help, and that we need to be part of the solution." ADVERTISEMENT Collins said the US was "very focused on fentanyl" and knew New Zealand was focused on disrupting the methamphetamine trade. "We know that we do have international criminals ... let's just understand that our security agency is also involved in this. We're not going to single out any particular country." The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including fleeing driver hits house, severe turbulence hits US flight, and massive new bug found in Australia. (Source: 1News) University of Otago lecturer Dr Peter Grace said drug and human trafficking was "spiralling out of control" in the region, and New Zealand had limited resources to fight it. "New Zealand is a small state, and we just don't have the kind of resources that are going to help solve these problems… So the fact that you've got somebody with much deeper pockets coming down and cooperating can be a particularly good thing." Opposition parties expressed surprise at the announcement, Labour saying it had come without explanation and Greens saying the office should not exist and New Zealand should exit the Five Eyes arrangement altogether.


NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
On tariffs Malaysia finds itself caught squarely between the US and China
United States President Donald Trump wants to stop that trade. Last week he unveiled a new layer of tariffs — set at a global rate of 40% — on all goods that move through a third country before they get to the United States. The tariffs are aimed at stopping transshipment, a practice the Administration says has allowed Chinese-made goods to skirt punitive tariffs. The policy landed with a thunderbolt in Southeast Asia, where Chinese investment has helped the economies of poorer neighbours grow more quickly. A crackdown on transshipment will be an economic blow. It also complicates the supply chain in Southeast Asia, which depends heavily on Chinese raw materials and components. From Vietnam to Cambodia to Indonesia, officials and executives are rushing to assess the consequences. The new tariffs raise hard questions for countries that have long used Chinese components to make the final products they ship to the US. Does the Trump Administration, which has yet to detail how it would enforce the new transshipment tariffs, want to tax it all? One country offers a case study others could follow for what to do next: Malaysia. Over the past decade, Malaysia rose to become one of the world's biggest makers of solar panels. Ten companies, most of them Chinese, shovelled US$15 billion ($25.3b) into factories around the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Then, under President Joe Biden, the US put tariffs on solar equipment coming from Malaysia of as much as 250%. Today, just two solar panel makers remain and one of them has ceased much of its production. The upheaval has been a wake-up call for Malaysia, a nation of more than 35 million people that is rethinking how to power its future economic growth. 'We're trying to think about ourselves not just as recipients of investment, but actually creators of technology,' said Liew Chin Tong, the deputy minister of investment, trade and industry. 'We want to think of ourselves not as a production site, but also as a consumer site with a sizeable middle class.' Officials in Malaysia, who had been trying to work out a trade deal, had said they were ready to work with the Trump Administration to stop companies from passing off Chinese-made goods as their own. But they learned they would be hit with a base tariff of 19%. An additional 40% would be added for any goods deemed to have originated in China. Those are set to take effect this week. The country finds itself caught squarely between the United States and China. Malaysia believes that Chinese solar companies can play an important role in its attempts to increase renewable power sources. Its goal over the next five years is for half of the country's energy consumption to use clean sources like solar power. Warehouses are stuffed with solar equipment that can no longer be exported to the US, and the Government wants companies to sell it to local solar farms. One challenge for Malaysia is that it still needs China's solar industry on its side. More than 75% of the solar panels that Malaysia uses locally are imported from China, where prices are much cheaper because of Beijing's industrial policies that encourage exports. Longer term, Malaysia wants the Chinese companies to restart their mothballed factories to make solar panels for the domestic market. More than any other region, Southeast Asia has felt the brunt of the trade war between the US and China that began in earnest during Trump's first presidency. Southeast Asian countries profited as Chinese and global multinationals relocated their factories out of China to avoid Trump's first-term tariffs. For Malaysia, the aim now is to blunt the collateral damage from the battle between the world's two largest economies. 'I don't like to see us just having to choose between US and China,' Liew said. 'I want to see us strengthening ourselves.' Both superpowers have loomed large in Malaysia. American tech companies Nvidia, Intel and Texas Instruments built huge facilities to make semiconductors, seeing the country as a good location to hedge against the risks of doing business in China. More than 600 American companies invested in Malaysia last year, said Siobhan Das, chief executive of the American Malaysian Chamber of Commerce. Chinese investment has shaped Malaysia's manufacturing sector, and China has ranked as a top investor in the country for the past decade. Malaysia's imports from China have nearly doubled over the past decade, according to Lee Heng Guie, executive director of the Socio-Economic Research Centre, a Malaysian think-tank. It was also about a decade ago when Chinese solar companies began to invest in factories in Malaysia. The factories made everything for export to the US and other major markets like Europe. 'We knew we could not compete with the Chinese companies in the long run,' said Lisa Ong, chief executive at Malaysian Solar Resources, a solar company that shut its panel production facilities in 2013. After seven years, the company found it was being outperformed on price and production capacity. Today it has switched its focus to building solar farms and importing panels from China. After the Biden Administration initiated an investigation into unfair practices by Chinese solar companies in Malaysia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, Chinese companies began to slow some of their operations. The investigation led to steep tariffs on a handful of Chinese solar companies operating in these countries and prompted most of them to abandon their factories in Malaysia. The only Chinese company still making some solar panels in Malaysia is Longi, an industry giant. When it opened its third Malaysian factory on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur in 2023, it heralded the opening as a 'pivotal moment in Longi's global endeavours'. Its executives boasted of creating 900 jobs and promised to increase the openings to 2000. Instead of expanding, Longi has shut down several production lines at the facility. Today, much of the space at Longi's plant is unused. On one weekday last month, the parking lot was less than half full. Longi declined to comment for this article. Longi has met Malaysian officials to discuss how to support more of the local supply chain, according to Justin Sim, the president of the Malaysian Photovoltaic and Sustainable Energy Industry Association. He is pressing the Government to rebuild a domestic solar panel industry by harnessing the knowledge of Chinese companies like Longi. 'All the Chinese companies came here when there was not really any capacity or interest in building the local market,' Sim said. 'And then they all went bust or left because they were hit with tariffs from the US and Europe.' Ong of Malaysian Solar Resources said she would not rule out her company going back to solar panel manufacturing, especially after the Chinese Government announced plans to scale back subsidies to companies. Still, she is hesitant, citing the intense competitiveness of Chinese firms. 'I'm worried and a bit concerned about our future,' she said. 'Many Chinese nationals are migrating to Malaysia and they are a lot more industrious than many of us.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Alexandra Stevenson and Zunaira Saieed ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES


NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Aaron Smale: Why politicians don't take the Māori vote seriously
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Christopher Luxon's indifference reflects the larger issue of the major parties ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. Photo / Getty Images Whoever the press secretary is for Christopher Luxon these days, they might want to have a weekend bootcamp teaching him how to keep his foot out of his mouth. Apart from when he uses corporate gibberish to masquarade as an answer, on the rare occasion Luxon says something pithy, it often turns out to be an absolute clanger. Luxon tossed off one such clanger when he questioned whether the September 6 by-election for the Māori electorate seat of Tāmaki Makaurau would be a real fight or 'a pillow fight'. (Kind of ironic given the real pillow fight is in the Epsom seat, which National hands to Act every three years.) A by-election will be held in Tāmaki Makaurau because the person who held the seat, Takutai Tarsh Kemp, recently died. And she held the seat because the voters of that electorate put her there, unlike some party list mediocrity like, well, take your pick. Luxon's comment was flippant at best and disrespectful to both the late MP and her constituents. So, no, it's not a pillow fight, it's a vote in the largest Polynesian city in the world. But Luxon's indifference to Māori voters in the coming by-election reflects the larger issue of the major parties mostly ignoring Māori as a voting bloc. One of the underlying reasons for this was first pointed out to me by my sixth form history teacher at Edgecumbe College, Gerry Rowlands, an American originally from Florida, a southern state with all the history that entails. Mr Rowlands posed a hypothetical idea that Māori would be better off all going on the general roll and getting rid of the Māori seats altogether. His rationale was that the electorate we were in was often held by National because of the high number of Pākehā farmers. But if Māori all went on the general roll, then National – and Labour, for that matter – would actually have to compete for the Māori vote to win. The then-named Eastern Māori seat went from the Bay of Plenty all the way around the East Coast and down to Wairarapa and Wellington. This area has one of the highest Māori populations in the country and the election campaigns in the general electorate seats would look completely different if all Māori went on the general roll. Mr Rowlands didn't say this but I don't think he'd disagree – the Māori seats are acting as a passive version of what Americans call gerrymandering. That is, Māori are being electorally contained – or at least split – and thereby robbed of their actual voting power by the Māori seats. The Māori vote has been ghettoised; every Māori who goes on the Māori roll is a Māori the candidates and the elected MPs in the general seats can ignore. And they do. Back to Auckland and the present day. One of Luxon's long catalogue of gaffes since taking up National's leadership was encouraging women to have babies to boost the flagging population. He quickly backtracked. Women have fought long and hard to have control over their fertility and some male politician telling them to start banging out babies for the national cause wasn't landing well. But what Luxon dimly recognised was that Pākehā numbers are in the early stages of decline, and this decline will only accelerate as the 34% of the Pākehā population that is over the age of 55 falls off the perch at an increasing rate. Luxon doesn't seem to recognise, even dimly, that Māori and Polynesian populations are rising steadily. Listen to Luxon's political messaging and it's as if Māori don't exist in his calculations. Labour's Chris Hipkins isn't any better, and in some respects he's worse. When Māori became a political target, he, like Helen Clark before him, dropped them like a hot hāngī rock so he could appear non-threatening to old, white people. The coalition government has had a free run in its attack on Māori because Hipkins does little to stand up for them, or articulate in any coherent way why what's good for Māori is good for everyone. He'd rather let Te Pāti Māori take the flak. Te Pāti Māori has become a convenient – and, it must be said, easy – political target. But those who bear the brunt of the political attack are actually their voters. Their interests get drowned out in all the posturing from across the political spectrum. The merits of the Tāmaki Makaurau candidates – Peeni Henare for Labour, Oriini Kaipara for Te Pāti Māori and Hannah Tamaki for Vision New Zealand – are open to serious question. But National, NZ First, Act, and even the Greens, have disqualified themselves from any part in the conversation, because they haven't bothered to put up candidates. Māori are at the pointy end of issues that concern everyone, particularly those of a younger generation: the cost of housing, the cost of living, the environment and the future of employment. The economic and social direction of South Auckland and other regions of the country with high Māori populations is the direction of the country as a whole. It's a bare-knuckle fight for the future of the nation. Mr Luxon is just too scared to even get in the ring.