White Imperium vs Diaspora
Recently, I came across the discussion around Imperium Art, what it is, what it means and how it should inform the cultural endeavours of Whites / people of European descent. I noticed that the concepts of Imperium and Diaspora were at times being used in a quasi-synonymous or at least related way. This is interesting on several levels.
Let us begin with a basic question: What is Imperium?
Imperium at its core describes the powers of office assigned to high-ranking Roman officials. This power of office extended towards different domains. First, an official with Imperium was authorized to fulfill the duties assigned to his specific office (such as the supervision of temples, jurisdiction within the legal system or the executive function of implementing decrees by the senate). Second, officials with Imperium were authorized to sentence Roman citizens to death, although this authority was limited to areas outside the city of Rome. Third, officials with Imperium had the authority to raise armies and wage war (again, limited to areas outside of Rome).
Imperial magistrates were accompanied by lictores or lictors carrying the well known fasces to symbolize the official‘s position. The number of lictors accompanying a magistrate made for a useful rule of thumb to assess the pecking order. Praetors were accompanied by 6 lictors, consuls by 12,
dictators (from Sulla onwards) by 24.
As a gross oversimplification, we can posit: Imperium is about power. What is discussed as an Imperium or empire by contemporaries is actually the result of Imperium — Rome grew through the conquests of its officials. The Imperium enjoyed by Roman magistrates essentially overpowered the quasi-Imperium of foreign states, tribes, peoples etc. When Rome‘s power waned, so did its empire.
The second term we are dealing with is Diaspora, which essentially refers to a dispersed population with some degree of homogeneity. The original meaning refers to a population that was forcefully dispersed from their original territory (e.g. Jews), but the modern world offers many examples of a non-violent or „voluntary“ Diaspora, such as Asians in the US or Eastern Europeans in Western European nations.
There is at least one significant link between the two terms. Within the Roman Empire, Romans actually had to be dispersed in order to maintain and grow the Empire — consider Caesar‘s lengthy absence from Rome to conquer Gallia or the fact that Roman settlers occupied or founded many of Europe‘s largest cities — London, Paris, Cologne etc. However, this dispersal occurred from a position of strength: the victors taking control over their spoils of war, seeking to modernize and improve the new territories, enriching themselves in the process. With the fall of the Roman Empire, these centers of Roman culture were essentially transformed into a Diaspora — no longer in a position of strength and creativity, but rather seeking to preserve what was left of antiquity during the dark ages. Monastic libraries are likely the best example of this trend — a few learned men dedicating themselves to copy ancient texts with relatively little original thought strewn in on occasion.
I believe this to be an important differentiator — Imperium is a creative force, whereas Diaspora typically focuses on preservation, sometimes even mere survival.
Another significant difference lies in its structure. While Diaspora distributes power and influence across several dispersed entities, Imperium radiates outwards from a focal point — in its original meaning the person of the magistrate, but also from Rome as the seat of power within the empire.
We can also observe these concepts in more recent iterations of empires. European colonialism offers another striking example. Originally a creative and transformative force, it dispersed Europeans across the globe, perhaps most noticeably in Africa. When European power started to decline in the 20th century, colonial settlers turned into a Diaspora. Look at Zimbabwe or South Africa today. No new statues are erected towards their founding fathers, their most popular cultural export is probably Die Antwoord and everything seems to be in a state of decay and violent unrest. For many white South Africans, guaranteed stagnation and survival must seem like pretty attractive options right now.
To me, the discussions around a White Diaspora seem to center around the prediction that a similar development will take place in the entire Western hemisphere, reducing Whites to a Diaspora in their own homelands and traditionally occupied oversees territories. The White Imperium will devolve into a White Diaspora.
When this happens (based on current birth rates it seems quite likely), it seems questionable whether Whites will be able to manifest a common cultural identity typically associated with Imperium. The default outcome would most certainly be a racial and cultural Diaspora coupled with the aforementioned stagnation or even decline. Alternatively, there would either have to be an organic, growing cell with the ability to launch a reconquista (similar to Aeneas escaping from Troy to Latium) or a virtual center of power for the White Diaspora with the ability to engage in some measure of orchestration for the increasingly dispersed communities.
As none of these options currently exist, it is vital to consider them now, while the shadow of European power and influence still lasts.
I believe the following questions could be interesting starting points for future discussion:
- What are the mechanisms by which a Diaspora may regain its Imperium?
- Considering the pitfalls of modern technology, is a virtualized Imperium a long-term possibility?
- Since empires have the tendency to disintegrate, is Imperium a concept which we want to pursue long-term?
