Show Notes
Please note: This episode was made before I learned about the influence of Qatar in various parts of the United States (including, apparently, the Oval Office for the mere price of a plane), but honestly, it all just serves to help confirm my overall thesis all the more. World events have a funny way of rendering old analyses irrelevant, but I am sorry to say that imperialism in its many forms is likely eternal.
The last time we discussed imperialism on History Impossible, we looked at the form it appears to be taking under the second Trump administration, which, despite remaining based on trade deals and possibly empty threats of annexation, is a much “harder” form of imperialism than what the United States has employed in recent history (apart, of course, from our “state building” adventures in places like Iraq). This time, we will turn to the softer form of imperialism favored by places like the United States during the opening decade of the Cold War, as well as the French Empire in the mid-19th century and, as we will see from this episode, the attempts at spreading and more importantly, normalizing Islamism within the borders of Western, democratic, and decidedly non-theocratic or Islamic countries.
By examining the fringes, we can often reveal the realities of the center, and in this case, a deeper understanding imperialism can be gleaned by looking at what is largely a lost cause on paper and realizing that lost causes are often fueled by reinterpreted victories, which can be as simple as sociopolitical subversion. Will the West become Islamist? Almost certainly not. Will Islamists attempt to take advantage and make use of the cultural and political ruptures, as well as the social status symbols, that exist within the West, thus making their goals all the more likely to succeed? Almost certainly yes. We know this because this is what soft imperial power—whether wielded by United States Cold Warriors in the CIA in the 1950s or French aristocrats and business owners in the 1850s—has always attempted to do.
Imperialism is not always about coercive control of a smaller state. In fact, it often is not. The core goal of imperialism has always been one thing: influence. That is what we will explore today.
…
History Impossible has been made possible by the following generous supporters on Patreon, Substack, and PayPal. Please consider donating today if you want to show some love for what I do and make and what to help keep the show and all my written content going:
David Adamcik David Alsbach Rajan Athul Robert Babeon Michael Beach Benjamin Greg Bosai Johannes Breitsameter Carol ABC Charles C Curtis Christiansen Clayton Connell Cliffydeuce CR B.Cyr daddygorgon Danny Lynda Davis Paul DeCoster Regina Dick-Endrizzi Neil Dickens Nathan Diehl Bob Downing Dramicas Martin E. Eastone Gavin Edwards Howie Feltersnatch Pierre Ghazarian Jayson Griesmeyer Nathan Grote Benjamin Hamilton Peter Hauck Henry Eric Hodges Carey Hurst Mike Jarulic Joe6245 Lionel Joseph Thomas Justesen Mike Kalnins Bryn Kaufman Leah Kodner Benjamin Lee Constance Loucks Maddy Mounty of Madness Jose Martinez Mike Mayleben Judy McCoid Kyle Mohney Kostas Moros Ryan Mortenson Cameron Needham Shiran Skip Pacheco Mel Padden David Page Molly Pan Sr. Powell Brian Pritzl AnaR737 PJ Rader Gleb Radutsky Aleksandr Rakitin Reptilycus Matthew M. Rice Phillip Rice Terry Rosen Chris Rowe Dan S Jon Andre Saether Jake Scalia Emily Schmidt Julian Schmidt Andrew Seeber Joshua Simpson Cameron Smith Jerry Spangler timetosuccedd1995 Thomas Squeo Athal Krishna Sundarrajan Jared Cole Temple Ward Van Roy Pierre Vorupuni Robert VS Jonny Wilkie Michael Wroblewski F. You Greg Zink
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/history-impossible--5634566/support.
More from History Impossible
Hey everyone. No preamble here. Just a nice bonus as a thank you for your continued support. As the title suggests, this is an audio adaptation of an essay I wrote about the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and how it led me to reflect on my generation, that is millennials, seems to believe about itself regarding trauma, adversity, and the future.
We often hear about how the Second World War was more morally nuanced and complex than we have been led to believe. This is, to a certain extent, very true. The Axis powers meted out a level of genocidal destruction and suffering upon tens of millions of people across the world, decimating generations in places as far flung as Poland and the Philippines, and Croatia and China. To call their actions existential by their very nature is to arguably undersell the threat they posed. The Allies realized these were the stakes and were eventually faced with a very real question: what would it take to stop such a threat? It required what many have come to believe was the unthinkable: meeting destruction with destruction. And in meeting the Axis violence with more violence did indeed bring the war to its ultimate end.
In this newest episode of History Impossible we’re joined a second time by Richard Lim, host of the This American President podcast, who last appeared on this program a couple years ago to discuss the insane, contentious election of 1876. He is also the author of a new book, Refusing a Crown: How George Washington Changed the World, which releases on October 13, 2026, and covers the most significant aspect of America’s first president: his restraint from seizing power that almost certainly would have remained his.
“Because remember: Russia is a religious experience.” Those are the oft-repeated and well-said words by the host of The Eastern Border podcast, my good friend Kristaps Andrejsons. They are well-said because there are very few alternatives for explaining Russian actions, rhetoric, and political culture over the past near half-decade in its World War I-style conflict with Ukraine. The Russian religious experience, made emblematic by Kristaps’ and my favorite shared punching bag Aleksandr Dugin, is a phenomenon best understood as a more formalized and colossal version of what ISIS was ten years ago, and it helps explain why Kristaps believes the spiral of the Russian state as we currently know it is beginning in 2026.
Antizionism, as it has become, has been having a bit of a moment for going on three years. It is a tough nut to crack, given its various claims of varying legitimacy and, as we have covered more than once on History Impossible, its increasing tendency to veer into outright antisemitism, especially by those looking for a supposedly intellectual and moral veneer for their racial and geopolitical fixations. Part of the reason for this confusion is the complex intellectual history of the position, which, after 1948, became more complicated than the relatively straightforward debate over Jewish statehood before, during, and after the Holocaust.