i thought russell was anti imperiaist? or did i read this wrong?

i'm confused about the meaning of this passage.
it sounds like he's praising the competency of the more "rough" working class soldiers in imperialism?

context: he was talking about how the upper class british men "did well" when they dealt with uncivilised people in less developed countries, but they became "pitiful" when faced with cultured people (i.e. people of their own class) in foreign countries, as they weren't able to exert their "god-like" authority. he then says that in contrast, the working class soldiers would "preserve the insolence of military conquerors...to this contemptuous brutality the japanese have replied by adopting our standards, and the rest of the east is following their example. as an engine of imperialism, the public schools have failed"

to my understanding russell (the author) used to be liberal imperialist but became pacifist around the 1900s. this text was published in the 1930s. i'm confused...

Reply 1

Anonymous #1

is he just talking about competency of each class in achieving their goal and not necessarily about whether the goal was legitimate?

Reply 2

Anonymous #1

i guess another question is by "adopting our standards" does he mean the east is copying back the aggressive imperialist behaviour or taking up liberal principles? but wait this was written in the 30s so it has to be the former. lmao i think i answered my own question but i'd still like to hear other people's opinions xo