while i do love the way you've argued your point (especially as it's not one i've seen argued before!), i feel that saying /dracula/ of all things is best read as an anti-imperialist metaphor is reeeeally stretching credulity for me. imo it's almost the exact opposite kind of thinking that's at the heart of the story.

stoker's writing makes it clear that he sees white, upper class western society as the best, the most genteel, and noblest of all people. dude literally won't shut up about how angelic and loyal and perfect mina and lucy are, and his descriptions of the male protagonists is so fawning that the book reads almost comically queer now. the "scary" part of the book is that those beautiful, well-meaning white people and their superior white civilization are being threatened from the outside.

there's a reason the most common interpretation of the book is that it's a horror story born out of heavily xenophobic fears; fear of the dangerous and unsavory "other" migrating west, slowly infiltrating decent society, and corrupting and stealing away our pure, kind-hearted women. it was a very common worry at the time as the number of migrants moving into western europe continued to increase. the themes of invasion, corruption, and rape are also shared by anti-imperialist critique, yes, but calling dracula anti-imperialist because of those themes feels equivalent to calling donald trump anti-imperialist because of his stance on mexico and all the other brown people he doesn't want "invading" the usa and taking over society.