Living under the US empire

Abou Sandal

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
#1
An empire that was ultimately created in a way to sustain itself and its power, by constantly and relentlessly destroying, killing and looting countries and nations throughout the planet, under the pretext of chasing the next boogeyman, for the common good.

 
  • Advertisement
  • Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    #3
    Zuesse: America Bombs, Europe Gets The Refugees. That's Evil

    by Tyler Durden
    Tue, 07/10/2018
    Zuesse: America Bombs, Europe Gets The Refugees. That's Evil

    The US Government (with France and a few other US allies) bombs Libya, Syria, etc.; and the US regime refuses to accept any of the resulting refugees — the burdens from which are now breaking the EU, and the EU is sinking in economic competition against America’s international corporations. America’s corporations remain blithely unscathed by not only the refugees that are breaking up the EU, but also by the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia, Iran, and other allies of governments that the US regime is trying to overthrow in its constant invasions and coups.


    or-41041.jpg


    The US Government makes proclamations such as “Assad must go!” — but by what right is the US Government involved, at all, in determining whom the leaders in Syria will be? Syria never invaded the US In fact, Syria never invaded anywhere (except, maybe, Israel, in order to respond against Israel’s invasions). Furthermore, all polling, even by Western pollsters, shows that Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair election in Syria. The US Government claims to support democracy, but it does the exact opposite whenever they want to get rid of a Government that is determined to protect that nation’s sovereignty over its own national territory, instead of to yield it to the US regime, or to any other foreigners. The US regime has virtually destroyed the United Nations.



    The US regime even refuses to provide restitution to Syria for its bombings, and for its arming and training of the jihadists — the fundamentalist Sunni mercenaries recruited from around the world — who are the US regime's "boots on the ground" trying to overthrow Syria’s Government. Al Qaeda has led the dozens of jihadist groups that have served as the US regime’s “boots on the ground” to overthrow Assad, but Al Qaeda is good enough to serve the purpose, in the US regime’s view of things. The US regime says that there will be no restitution to Syria unless Syria accepts being ruled by ‘rebels’ whose leadership is actually being chosen by the US regime’s chief ally, the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family, who already own Saudi Arabia, and who (along with the CIA) have been unsuccessfully trying, ever since 1949, to take over the committedly secular, non-sectarian, nation of Syria. In fact, the CIA perpetrated two of the three Syrian coups that were carried out in 1949.

    The US regime, and its allies, have used the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to recruit into Syria the 100,000+ jihadists from around the world to fight to overthrow Syria’s secular Government. Even the BBC’s 13 December 2013 detailed report, “Guide to the Syrian rebels”, made clear that the “Syrian Rebels” were, in fact, overwhelmingly jihadist and largely recruited from abroad. These were hardly democrats. Even a Tony-Blair-founded anti-Assad NGO’s study concluded that “Sixty per cent of major Syrian rebel groups are Islamist extremists (not just “Islamists” but “Islamist extremists”) and yet the Blair outfit still supported the overthrow of the committed secularist Assad (just as Blair had earlier participated himself in the US regime’s destruction of Iraq).

    The fundamentalist-Sunni royal Thani family own Qatar and have been the top international funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, just as the fundamentalist-Sunni royal Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, have been the top funders of Al Qaeda. The main difference between the Sauds and the Thanis has been that whereas the Sauds hate Shia (and that means especially Iran), the Thanis don’t. Thus, for the Sauds, this is a war against the Shia center, Iran, and not only against Syria. This war against Syria was a coordinated US-Saud-Thani operation, in which the fundamentalist-Sunni group, Al Qaeda, provided the leadership but the (pan-Islamic) fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood provided the largest recruiting website. This entire hyper-aggressive operation was internationally coordinated. The Obama Administration started planning this operation, under Hillary Clinton, in 2010. As even the neoconservative (i.e., US-empire advocating) Washington Post reported, on 17 April 2011, from Wikileaks, "It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside [by the Obama Administration] at least through September 2010." That article mentioned only “former members of the Muslim Brotherhood,” not the Muslim Brotherhood itself; and no mention was made in it to Al Qaeda, in any form.

    Then, in 2013, the neoconservative Foreign Policy magazine headlined “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution” and was oblivious regarding the neoconservative Obama Administration’s having planned that “hijacking,” starting in 2010 (but going back even as far as Obama’s inauguration; this operation was a key part of his secret anti-Russia agenda, which preceded even his coming into office). But if Obama wasn’t neocon-enough to suit that magazine’s editors, then Trump certainly should be, because Trump continues Obama’s foreign policies but with an even more hostile thrust against the Sauds’ chief target, which is Iran. Above all, the US alliance’s goal has been for the Saud family’s selected (rabidly anti-Shiite) people to take over and run the Syrian Government. As Global Security has phrased this matter, “The High Negotiations Committee [which is the group who are negotiating against Assad’s government at the US-sponsored ‘peace’ talks] is a Saudi-backed coalition of Syrian opposition groups. The High Negotiations Committee (HNC) was created in Saudi Arabia in December 2015.”

    So, this war in Syria has actually been the Sauds’ war to take over Syria. And it actually started in 1949, but the US-backed Muslim-Brotherhood-led “Arab Spring” in 2011 gave the US and its allies the opportunity to culminate it, finally.

    And Europe receives the fall-out from it. This fall-out has been hurting European corporations, in international competition against US corporations. It’s not only political.

    The US regime has continued this thrust, under Obama’s successor. US President Donald Trump demands European corporations to end their business with Shiite Iran (which the Saud family is determined to take over), and to end their business with Russia, which America’s own billionaires themselves are determined to take over, just like the Sauds are determined to take over both Syria and Iran.

    And Europe receives refugees not only from places where the US and some of its NATO allies have recently been bombing, but even from Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places where NATO has bombed in the past, and even from Ukraine, where the US regime perpetrated a bloody coup in February 2014, followed there by an ethnic-cleansing campaign to kill the residents in areas which had voted the heaviest for the overthrown President.

    America is no actual ally of Europe. The Marshall Plan is long-since finished, and America has been taken over by psychopaths who are Europe’s main enemies, not Europe’s friends, at all. (They’re friends of some European aristocracies, but not of any European public, not of even merely one public.)

    Iran and Russia should be Europe’s allies — they didn’t cause any of Europe’s problems. America did. America’s intelligence agencies tapped (and probably still tap) the phones of Germany’s Chancellor and practically everybody else, and yet the US regime has the gall to blame Russia for interfering in the political affairs of European countries. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle ‘black’, then what is? If anything, the EU’s sanctions should be against doing business with American firms — not against doing business with Russian firms, or with Iranian firms. European politicians who support the US support Europe’s top enemy.

    Russia is, itself, a European country, which additionally traverses much of Asia, but America is no European country, at all, and yet now is so brazen as to demand that Europe must do America’s bidding — not only against Russia, but also against the Sauds’ main target, which is Iran (the same main target as Israel’s).

    Why are Europeans not asking themselves: Who is Europe’s enemy in all of this — what causes this refugee-crisis? The refugees certainly didn’t.

    It’s not Russia, and it’s not Iran, and it’s not China; it is America — which is the true enemy of them all, and of us all — including even of the American people ourselves, because the US Government no longer actually represents the American people. These invasions, and military occupations, and coups, do not serve America’s public; they serve America’s aristocracy. The US is no longer (if it ever was) a democracy. The US Government now is the US aristocracy — not the US public. It’s a dictatorship. And, it has the type of ‘news’media that any dictatorship has.

    On June 30th, the US aristocracy’s New York Times headlined “Bavaria: Affluent, Picturesque — and Angry”, and reported “the new angry center of Europe, the latest battleground for populists eager to bring down both Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and the idea of a liberal Europe itself.” Their elitist (pro-US-aristocracy) ‘reporter’ (actually propagandist) interviewed ‘experts’ who condemn Europe’s politicians that are trying to assuage their own public’s anger against the EU’s open-door policy regarding this flood of refugees from what is actually, for the most part, the US regime’s (and its allies’) bombings — air-support of the boots-on-the-ground jihadist mercenaries. The combination of this air-support, and of the jihadists, has been the backbone of the US-Saudi-Israeli effort to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government.

    Libya was a similar case, but was only friendly toward Russia, not allied with Russia, as both Syria and Iran are.

    The US aristocracy funds an enormous international PR campaign for all this. These are ‘humanitarian’ bombings in order to replace a ‘barbaric’ Government — but replace it with what? With one that would be chosen by the Sauds. And this propaganda-campaign is also funded by the US-allied aristocracies. All of the major ‘news’media, in US and allies, receive their ‘expert’ ‘information’ from these privately-funded and government-funded propagandists, who are treated by 'journalists' as being objective and experts (which they're not).

    The NYT article says — and I add here key explanatory links:

    “This is not about economics,” said Gerald Knaus, the director of the European Stability Initiative, [and though unmentioned by the Times, “The Open Society Institute was a major core funder” of the ESI, which is] a Berlin-based think tank. “It is about identity and a very successful populist P.R. machine that is rewriting recent history.”
    So: the Times was secretly (and they didn’t include any links to help online readers know who was actually funding their ‘experts’, at all) pumping NATO propaganda, as if it were authentic and neutral news-reporting, instead of craven service to the US aristocracy that controls the US Government and its NATO military alliance. This is the New York Times, itself, that is “rewriting recent history.” That’s how they do it — constantly (as ‘news’).

    And here is some of that “recent history” the Times is “rewriting” (by simply omitting to so much as even just suggest, but which is essential background in order to understand the real history behind this important matter):

    House of Commons, Research Paper 01/50, 2 May 2001​
    “European Security and Defence Policy: Nice and Beyond"​
    pp. 47-48:​
    On 7 February 2001 the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, emphasised the ESDP’s [European Security and Defence Policy’s] tie to NATO during a press interview, following his meeting in Washington with US National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice. He said:​
    I have stressed that the European Security Initiative will strengthen the capacity of Europe to contribute to crisis management and therefore is welcome to a Washington that is interested in fairer burden sharing, and that Washington can be confident that Britain will insist that the European Security Initiative is firmly anchored on NATO. We are both determined to see that happen, we are both determined to make sure that the European Security Initiative carries out its promise to strengthen the North Atlantic Alliance.119
    Though the Sauds, and also Israel’s aristocracy, are mainly anti-Iran, the US aristocracy are obsessed with their goal of conquering Russia. Since Iran, and Syria, are both allied with Russia, the US regime is trying to overthrow those Russia-allied Governments, before going in for the kill, against Russia itself. That’s what all of these economic sanctions, and the bombings and the backing of Al Qaeda for overthrowing Syria’s Government, are really all about.

    Is this what today’s Europeans want their Governments to be doing — and doing it for that reason, the US aristocracy’s reason? Despite the huge harms it is certainly causing to Europeans?

    Here, then, is a debate between, on the one hand a retired CIA official who thinks "Our relationship with Israel causes us war with Muslims,” versus Representatives in the US Congress who are actually representatives of Israel’s Government and definitely notrepresentatives of the American people. Both sides in that debate are acceptable to the aristocrats who control the US Government, because neither side argues that the apartheid theocratic Government of Israel is an enemy of the American people (as is documented actually to be the case, here and here), nor that the entire problem of Islamic terrorism is fundamentalist-Sunni, and that only Israel gets hit by terrorism that’s from both Sunnis and Shiites — that Shiites (the US alliance's targets) are no terrorist threat, at all, to Europeans (nor to Americans) — the “Islamist” threat is actually only from fundamentalist Sunnis, which are the very same groups that are secretly allied with America’s aristocracy and the Sauds. Neither side of the ‘debate’ acknowledges that both the Sauds and Israel (and Israel’s lobbyists represent internationally also the Sauds’ interests) are enemies both of the American people, and of the peoples of Europe.

    As the world’s greatest blogger, the former UK Ambassador (but too honest to stay in that business) Craig Murray, recently said under the headline, "No Trump, No Clinton, No NATO”: “The destruction of Libya’s government and infrastructure directly caused the Mediterranean boat migrant crisis, which has poisoned the politics of much of the European Union.” But, of course, the US regime and its allies have also destroyed other countries than that — and thus caused refugees to Europe from many nations. And, finally, even the US Government (though as quietly as possible) acknowledges that it has destroyed Afghanistan. Ironically, that’s the very nation where America and the Sauds, in 1979, had started their war against all Governments that won’t buckle to them.

    Furthermore, the US regime intends to keep it up. In case a reader might happen to think that, surely, the US regime and its allies are going to quit this rousing of hornets’ nests; Sharmine Narwani, who is one of the very few non-“embedded” journalists who reports in The West about — and (which the mainstream ones don’t) from — the war in Syria, headlined, on June 25th, “Are al-Qaeda Affiliates Fighting Alongside US Rebels in Syria’s South?” and she found that the answer to this question is a resounding yes:

    Despite its US and UN designation as a terrorist organization, Nusra [Al Qaeda’s main name in Syria] has been openly fighting alongside the “Southern Front,” a group of 54 opposition militias funded and commanded by a US-led war room based in Amman, Jordan called the Military Operations Center (MOC). …
    Sources inside Syria — both opposition fighters and Syrian military brass (past and present) — suggest the command center consists of the US, UK, France, Jordan, Israel, and some Persian Gulf states. … In practice, the US doesn’t appear to mind the Nusra affiliation — regardless of the fact that the group is a terror organization — as long as the job gets done.
    These wars, which pour Middle Eastern (and also Ukrainian) refugees into the EU, are inter-aristocratic conflicts reflecting inter-aristocratic competitions; and the publics everywhere suffer enormously from them. The gainers from it are very few but very rich (and they hire very powerful agents in Europe and elsewhere). Those billionaire gainers, and their agents, should be Europe’s targets — not Russia and Iran. NATO must end now. Europe needs to be freed, at last, from America’s permanent-war-for permanent-‘peace’ grip. For Europeans, who are the indirect victims, to be blaming the refugees, who are the direct victims, won’t solve anything, but will simply please the victimizers, as is the public’s ancient habit (to please the powerful). A break must be made, away from that ugly past. European publics must lead the way, or no one will.

    PS: Since this article asserts such a large number of things that contradict what the US Government and its agents assert, I have sought out and here linked to the highest-quality, least-contested and most highly authenticated, sources and also to sources that link to such sources; all of which, taken together, constitute a book-length proof of the title-case here, that “America Bombs, Europe Gets the Refugees. That’s Evil.” Furthermore, this online virtual “book” is tracking back to the most unimpeachable documents, all of them available merely by means of clicking, and thus without the reader’s needing to visit a huge scholarly library (which might be quite distant); so, the reader can here easily branch out to this entire, and otherwise largely hidden, world of reliable sources, which the US regime wants the public not to know, and certainly not to understand. It’s no longer necessary to be an intelligence-professional in order to come to understand what the regime wants the public not to understand.
     

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    #5
    America Overrules Trump: No Peace With Russia
    July 18, 2018

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/18/america-overrules-trump-no-peace-with-russia/


    Paul Craig Roberts

    The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States. No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.

    American foreign policy rests on threat and force. It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries. The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia.

    The Russians—especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists—should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene. Putin is incorrect that US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the two parties. The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump’s effort to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald Jeffries reminds us. The Trump-Putin Peace Conference - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

    The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing. Only a few experts, such as Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock, President Reagan’s ambassader to the Soviet Union, have spoken out in support of Trump’s attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear powers. Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.

    There is no support for Trump’s agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that “We must deal with Putin’s Russia as the rogue state it is.”

    Russia is a “ rogue state” simply because Russia does not accept Washington’s overlordship. Not for any other reason.

    There is no support even in Trump’s own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used. By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is “normal.” Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal. Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.

    A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact. That is what has happened to Russiagate. Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office. That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin’s lacky, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident. That Trump stood next to “the murderous thug Putin” and accepted Putin’s word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin’s pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.

    We can see now why neoconservative John Bolton arranged the Helsinki meeting. It set Trump up for political execution by the media and Congress, both controlled by the military/security complex. In the United States there is zero independence, with the exception of Tucker Carlson, in the print and TV media, and zero independence in Congress. These are controlled institutions, and Tucker will not be tolerated much longer.

    The lie of Russian interference is now so firmly established that even the Open Letter published in The Nation and signed by luminaries such as Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Gloria Steinem states: “We must reach common ground to safeguard common interests—taking steps to protect the nation’s elections and to prevent war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.” Even the most lucid Americans have to accept Russiagate as a fact and regard protecting our elections as important as preventing nuclear war.

    There is no meaningful support in the Republican or Democratic party for Trump’s agenda of normalizing US/Russian relations. The combination of a lie made into truth and the power of political campaign combinations from the military/security complex suffice to stifle any support for normalizing relations with Russia. Any US Senator or Representative who supports Trump’s effort to remove Russia from the enemy category will find themselves confronted in their re-election with well-financed opponents declaring them to be traitors who supported Trump’s sell-out of America, while their own campaign contributions dry up.

    The American people who are not on the military/security payroll or otherwise dependent on this powerful lobby support peace and elected Trump for that reason, only to discover that a president who stands for peace with Russia is branded a traitor.

    It has happened many times before. For example, in his history, The First World War, A. J. P. Taylor explained that all efforts to stop the disastrous war that destroyed Europe were blocked by smearing “as a defeatist, a pacifist, probably a traitor, every advocate of peace, or even of moderation.” As Taylor writes, the “top hats” wanted the money, and the “cloth hats” paid for it with their lives.

    What we are experiencing is that democracy is weak and dysfunctional when confronted with powerful lobbies capable of controlling explanations. In America the control over explanations is so complete that the vast majority live in The Matrix.

    The Russian media has ignored the American outpouring of hatred and insult against Trump for “selling out America” and has portrayed the Helsinki meeting positively as having established a road to better relations. This Russian view ignores that Trump has no support in the US government or in the media to help him to build this road. The Russian media desperately needs to become familiar with the American response to Trump’s Helsinki meeting with Putin. I have collected together a number of these responses in my recent columns, and the link in this column to Donald Jeffries provides a good sample of the Republicans’ rejection of Trump’s effort to repair the US-Russian relationship.

    Just as the World War I British, French, German, and Russian governments could not end the slaughter because they had promised victory and would be discredited, once the Russian government encourages the Russian people that better relations with America are in the making, the Russian government will be locked into delivering the better relations, and this will require the Russian government to give up more than it gains. Russian sovereignty will be part of the price for the agreement.

    If the Russians, desperate for Western acceptance, hold on to their delusion that Washington’s hegemony is negotiable, it will not only be at their own peril but also at the peril of all of humanity.

    Postscript: The rant in the URL below in Salon, which I suspect is a CIA asset, by a non-entity of no merit or achievement is devoid of fact. But it does stand as an accurate representation of the organized, orchestrated assault in the United States on truth and on those individuals committed to truth, such as Jill Stein and Julian Assange. As the goal is to denigrate Trump, it is not possible to believe the portrayal of the unidentified Republican state senator in the Salon account who lost his faith in Trump simply because Trump did not behave provocatively when he met with Putin. Nevertheless, the portrayal, even if fictional, is accurate in the sense that it represents the controlled explanation that is being fed to the American people and the subject peoples of Washington’s empire.Trump-regret syndrome is spreading among Republicans after Helsinki...

    The Russian media desperately needs to accurately translate and publish the Salon article in order for the Russian people to comprehend the impossibility of any agreement with the United States that leaves Russia a sovereign nation. The hatred of Russia that is being generated in America is extraordinary. It can only lead to war.

    Throughout the Western World truth and facts have lost their authority. The West lives in lies, and this is the West that confronts the world. It is pathetic to watch Lavrov and Putin continue, time and again, to appeal to facts and to truth when these mean nothing in the West.
     
    #8
    U.S. Imperialism Without An Emperor

    American_Flag.jpg

    American establishment: It is an ugly imperialism without an emperor
    Jul 17, 2018Jul 17, 2018 Sri Lanka Guardian Essays, FeatureNo comments
    The makers of the first US constitutional state, which was founded in revolt against British colonialism, balanced popular sovereignty against the rule of law. This framework required carefully constructed rules about the conduct of representation and the limits of government intervention.
    SRI LANKA GUARDIAN A LONG READING
    by Anwar A Khan
    ( July 17, 2018, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian)
    One may identify the current moment as a critical one for US hegemony, with a possibly decisive shift toward reliance on empire as the key characteristic of emerging US government geopolitical reasoning of looting wealth of other countries and posing threat to be supreme over the present world order. One limitation of this strategy, however, is that the institutions and mores of US marketplace society do not readily support the imperial mantle. US hegemony, it is crucial to point out, is not congenial to a reinstatement of an explicitly territorial empire. It has created a new geography of power associated with the term globalisation. Therefore, by way of judgment, one should emphasise the likelihood that empire will fail and, as a result, globalisation will become increasingly free of an independent US hegemony to be regulated by a complex of markets, states, and global institutions rather than by a single hegemon with the passage of time. And that time is not very far.
    The makers of the first US constitutional state, which was founded in revolt against British colonialism, balanced popular sovereignty against the rule of law. This framework required carefully constructed rules about the conduct of representation and the limits of government intervention. The fear that public virtue would be corrupted by private interests, however, was difficult to assuage once the revolution against Britain was over and the essentially liberal political economy inherited from the past proved more significant in integrating the vast new country than did its institutions.
    Geographical size and cultural heterogeneity worked against the popular participation and public virtue promised by the-then fabric implicit in the US Constitution. The United States proved too big to be governed by such tenets. The cloth also necessitated formally breaking with the dynastic tensions and balance-of-power politics of eighteenth-century Europe. Raison d’´etat was widely seen as antithetical to the American experiment in democracy, as leading to foreign entanglements, and as increasing the role of the military in domestic politics. Yet, at the same time, the fledgling United States has to adjust to a world that worked according to different rules and made decisions about its territorial shape in other countries of the world and the character of American internal political economy that pointed away from the erstwhile ideal.
    Though distant from Europe, the United States was immediately implicated in European power politics, not least in how to respond to European claims to territory in the continental interior of North America. Likewise, the living republican model offered little by way of how to direct or limit private economic activities within and beyond American borders, not least because it was premised on both limiting government powers and seeing America as a fixed territorial enterprise without interests beyond its immediate geographical confines.
    In practice the republican model has always failed to contain the expansionist impulse. Though claiming impeccable republican credentials and therefore, requiring assent, cooperation, and consent from those governed by its actions, the US government has consistently expanded its grip territorially and economically beyond the juridical limits of America itself. This urge to empire initially took a largely territorial form as in continental expansion, but in the twentieth century has been mainly based on constructing alliances, such as, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) building international institutions, such as, the United Nations (UN) system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), etc. and using economic and military leverage, such as, the US Dollar and the threat of nuclear weapons. Given the origins of the United States, however, explicit territorial control over other places, at least those judged as moral and political equivalents unlike the native Indian groups of North America, has been considered problematic unless it could be placed in some positive relation to the republican model existing during those times.
    Exercising power beyond national boundaries does not require territorial control
    This is where hegemony arose, as a solution to the American dilemma. Exercising power beyond national boundaries does not require territorial control. Indeed, it can be enabled and pursued through the cooperation, assent, and acceptance of others as a result of their socialisation into seeing it as right, proper, and rewarding. This required a shift in the geography of power from a strictly absolute territoriality bounded, absolute space to a functional, relational spatiality involving command over the rules of spatial interaction for trade, capital flows, etc. Intended or not, this fundamental alteration in the practice of foreign policy is what laid the foundation for later globalisation.
    By the 1940s, the United States was particularly prepared for this transformation by its worldwide business interests, the centrality of international finance capital to the US economy, the perception that territorialised economic blocs had deepened the depression of the 1930s, and the need to square its republican tradition with a global role. A global role had long been problematic in American domestic politics because of the threat it posed to the ideal of a new sort of polity. The Mexican-American War had been condemned by then-congressional representative Abraham Lincoln because it favoured territorial expansion at the expense of good and honest government in the country, as it then was.
    Lincoln was particularly exercised by President James Polk’s fabrication of a pretext for going to war with Mexico, a scenario remarkably similar to that of the build-up to the 2003 war in Iraq involving claims about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be specious. Again, between 1890 and the 1920s, as the national economy soured, the solution of territorial expansion again became popular. The clear failure of this strategy by the time of the Wall Street crash in 1929 suggested that some other path was necessary to resolve the contradiction between the bounded national spiritual landscape and the unbounded, materialistic marketplace.
    The idea that republic and empire are inherently contradictory was resolved after the 1940s by attempting to practice and portray the expansionist impulse as conforming to at least minimal republican principles, both abroad and at home: bringing so-called good government, building international community and achieving so-called global consensus. This was particularly the case after the United States was faced with an especially potent global foe created by their own faulty free-will representing a very different model of government and political economy: the Soviet Union. There is evidence that the US government was beginning to orient itself to hegemony as a global political strategy as early as 1934. The presence of a powerful global competitor, however, meant that it had to tread carefully for fear of alienating potential allies from its republican promise. The end of the Cold War has removed this constraint. At the same time, the US government has become impatient with international ties and more willing to exercise its military power in pursuit of its interests without the backing of the international community. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as it is widely and deliberately spread provided a more immediate impetus to unilateral action, by signifying that the US homeland is not as geographically distant and sheltered from the rest of the world as many Americans had come to think. But the temptation to go it alone has much deeper historic roots. It has been present since the founding of the United States.
    The tension between republic and empire has been recurrent in US relations with the rest of the world. How it has been worked out, however, has changed both as the world and as US domestic politics have changed. It seems clear that the institution-building internationalism of the immediate post–World War II period—supported by most of the major political factions in the United States—came to an end with the debacle of the Vietnam War and the US unilateral abrogation of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971. Since then, but particularly since the end of the Cold War, the US government has been divided over the best course for continuing to secure US hegemony. The evidence for the range of options both considered and pursued indicates the problem with seeing no difference in policies between and within US administrations or insisting that there is a master design in US foreign policy that has remained unchanged through the years, save for increased military power relative to other states. This realist reading of US foreign policy, popular on both the far right and far left, leaves little room for analysis of actual policies.
    This realist reading of US foreign policy, popular on both the far right and far left, leaves little room for analysis of actual policies.
    By way of example, the rise to national power of a southern dominated Republican Party with the election of George W. Bush in 2000 was marked by an initial reluctance to be drawn into international affairs, including little, if any, interest in humanitarian interventions or in international agreements. This may well have remained the case if not for the events of September 11, 2001, which triggered a reaction that drew upon the deep-seated fears and previously articulated attitudes of those who surrounded Bush and had brought him to office. The Bush administration’s regional origin in the southern and mountain states of the United States is very important to understanding both its policies and its style of government. Not only are the white populations of these states the ones most likely to benefit from military spending and committed to service as officers in the military, but they are also the ones in which the credos of macho bravado, rentier capitalism, vigilantism, and apocalyptic Christianity are most deeply rooted. Not surprisingly, in his post–September 11, 2001, reincarnation supervised by election advisor Karl Rove, President Bush has thrived as commander-in-chief of evil in the war with good, rather than as the chief executive of the federal government. It is little exaggeration to say, “The American President—though not of the United States—whom George Bush most nearly resembles is the Confederacy’s Jefferson Davis.”
    In the immediate aftermath of Bush’s contested election in November 2000, the Bush administration made it a priority to try to reorganize the US political economy by giving a freer hand to business and redistributing incomes to the rich on the supply-side premise that this would produce a national investment bonanza. But after September 11, 2001, this focus was largely eclipsed from public view by a fiercely aggressive and militarist foreign policy that played into the hands of a neoconservative group of officials and advisors. This group included such figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Kristol, who were already eager to pursue an overtly imperial strategy against states seen as aiding, abetting, or providing moral support to terrorist networks opposed to US policies in the Middle East and elsewhere and held responsible for the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Whether Iraq, the main target of this policy, was actually such a state remains, at best, moot and probably unlikely. Certainly no credible evidence exists, or ever existed, linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network. Nor does evidence exist proving that Saddam’s putative weapons programmes posed a threat directly or indirectly (through terrorists) to the security of the United States. As seems obvious to many observers, the essence of al-Qaeda is that it consists of a series of loosely connected terrorist cells without either open or clandestine support from Iraq, Iran, Syria, or any other state. Indeed, it represents a prime example of the new geography of power with a reticular or nonhierarchical network of global reach beyond the control or influence of territorially based actors. What seems more important in motivating the US invasion of Iraq is that Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, has long flouted US designs in the Middle East and that Iraq had the potential resources in the form of oil to subsidise its own liberation by US forces. In other words, it was Saddam’s lack of acceptance of American hegemony, his resistance to US norms of political and economic conduct, along with the other states of Iran and North Korea in what President G.W. Bush called the axis of evil in world politics, that singled him out for evil treatment.
    This license to operate an endless War on Terror comes with a high price on both the domestic and external front.
    In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration largely abandoned the multilateral institutionalism, which, it is important to reiterate, the US government had largely invented and put into place after World War II, for an aggressive and unilateral militarism. This was justified by claiming that because the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were directed at targets in the United States, the US government had the right to police the globe in pursuit of all those it decides may have a connection to future terrorism potentially directed at the United States. This license to operate an endless War on Terror comes with a high price on both the domestic and external front. This policy puts the US government at odds with many other governments, including many of its nominal allies in NATO and with international organisations. It also puts the United States at odds with itself, domestically, having led to the Patriot Act and other anti-subversive legislation similar to policies against which the American settlers rebelled in pursuit of independence and the creation of the republican form of government symbolised by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The fact that the US Congress went along with President Bush’s fervent wish to attack Iraq without questioning the shaky secret intelligence upon which it was based suggests how much appeals to hypothetical, exaggerated, and imaginary threats, going back even before the bomber gap between the United States and the Soviet Union claimed by John Kennedy during the 1960 presidential election, have corrupted the American body politic. “A Congress so easily manipulated has in effect surrendered its role, allowing presidents to do as they will.”
    As imperialisms go, the American attempt at empire is also singularly inarticulate and inchoate. This is revealed above all in the disinclination to know much of anything about its dominions. Unlike the erstwhile colonial enterprises of the British and French, which assiduously desired to understand those they conquered, even if on largely Orientalist assumptions, the US enterprise is entirely devoid of cultural curiosity. The American historical experience of defining its republican polity in opposition to the rest of the world is crucial here. From this point of view, there is literally nothing much to be learnt about or from others that could possibly challenge what is known already. This leads to a hands-off style of administration and policing, seen to lethal effect in post-conquest Iraq, that involves the repetition of slogans about “bringing democracy” and “defeating terrorism” but with absolutely no strategies in place to do either. Such an autistic approach to empire inspires no confidence in its longevity. The tension between republic and empire in American political life has never been so clearly visible at any time since the Mexican-American, Indian, and Spanish-American Wars of the nineteenth century.
    Like so many technical political words in European languages, “hegemony” and “empire” have Greek and Roman roots. Hegemony is from a Greek word signifying domination or leadership, particularly of a state or nation in a league or confederation, but without clear commitment to whether this is the result of coercion, consensus, or a mix of the two. Undoubtedly, however, the domination or leadership exercised is not necessarily either territorial or contiguous. It can be diffused and widespread or concentrated geographically. Typically, it involves more than simple military and economic coercion and relies on active assent and cooperation. Common rules, institutions, and values form the core of the hegemony, backed up by the superior economic, cultural, and military position occupied by the state or social group exercising hegemony. The word “hegemony” is thus also a purported solution to the dilemma of either singular economic or cultural determination by positing an integral form of class rule which exists not only in political and economic institutions and relationships but also in active forms of experience and consciousness. In the context of world politics, the two senses of hegemony can be fused profitably: that of state hegemony, as in much world-systems and international relations literature, or direction by the state that anchors the world economy; and that of consensual domination, in the sense of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, in which direction relies on enrolling others into practices and ideas that come out of the experience of the dominant state or social group.
    Hegemony is from a Greek word signifying domination or leadership, particularly of a state or nation in a league or confederation, but without clear commitment to whether this is the result of coercion, consensus, or a mix of the two.
    Because of its reliance on marketplace society, American hegemony is a form of social domination that has become increasingly transnational in operating beyond formal state sponsorship and control. Even so, empire still could be one geographical form that hegemony might take. But it is not only analytically and historically distinct; it is basically incompatible with the trajectory of American hegemony over the past seven decades.
    “Empire” is Roman or Latin in origin, signifying supreme rule, absolute power, and dominion. Typically, it is a polity in which many peoples and territories are united administratively under a single ruler or single administrative apparatus. An empire may be a contiguous territory as with the ancient Roman and modern Russian empires but can be a maritime or overseas empire as with the Spanish, Dutch, French, and British empires. Many territorial states have an empire aspect to them as a result of the conquest of adjacent territories e.g., England in Wales and Ireland; the United States to the west of the original colonies, but once populations are sufficiently homogenised, culturally this fades in significance. It is the unification of multiple peoples under a single ruler that is the main distinguishing feature of empires. Or, to put it somewhat differently, “Empire is the rule exercised by one nation over others both to regulate their external behaviour and to ensure minimally acceptable forms of internal behaviour within the subordinate states. Merely powerful states do the former, but not the latter.” Often, the term is used more metaphorically to indicate domination or hegemony, but this departs from most historic usage and loses the analytic capacity that comes from having different words for different political-geographical constellations of power. Etymology only takes us so far. Although it allows for clarification of what terms might actually mean in common usage, it does not focus explicitly on how they are actually used in political and academic circles. It is best to survey recent ways in which hegemony and empire have been used in accounts of contemporary world politics. Usage seems to differ along two dimensions of power: type of power, hard or soft and geographical organisation of power either strong or weak. Obviously, these are continua or ideal types rather than discrete categories and, therefore, any real-world example might be a mix of all tendencies rather simply located one on one between extremes. The two dimensions and associated examples are provided in. If hard power is anchored by military coercion and soft power by cultural values, tastes, and preferences, the geographical organisation of power ranges from the strongly territorial to the extremely diffuse or networked. The categories that these dimensions define are necessarily over determined in the sense that they leave out how, in any real-world context, one can lead to another. They are not necessarily in total opposition to one another but appear so when put into juxtaposition.
    The categories are also inherently normative in that those who use them can see them as preferred or progressive states of affairs, or as goals or situations that resolve political problems or are at least better than the alternatives. Thus, there is still nostalgia for a benign image of the British Empire in certain circles in England and in the United States as if self-sacrifice, afternoon tea, cricket, rugby, and political order were all that the British Empire had to it. British bestseller lists in 2003 had any number of books devoted to telling stories about those who had sacrificed themselves for empire. At its most apologetic, the position seems to be that empire is not necessarily a bad thing. More stridently, it marks the revival of the old Roman idea of homo sacer: Brits, Americans, etc., are capable of self-rule, and others are not; they need American savoir faire and they will impose it on them. Yet, at the same time, the war that now must be fought on terrorism is global, without spatial limits or singular territorial goals, and involves the collapse of the distinction between sea, air, and land arenas. There is a major mismatch here between a commitment to inside and outside thinking, on the one hand, and the reality of a contemporary world that is no longer divisible into neat territorial blocs or containers, on the other.
    In a similar vein, hegemony achieved by means other than empire can be portrayed in either a positive light, involving relatively benign or even sacrificial leadership, or a negative light, involving profoundly exploitative relationships based on steep power gradients between a hegemon and its subordinates in a hierarchy of power. Hegemony’s difference from empire, however, lies in its lack of explicit commitment to the territorial or geographical bloc organisation of power per se and its reliance on persuading or rewarding subordinates rather than immediately coercing them though even empire as absolute hegemony is never reliably achieved purely by coercive means. If we can give at least some credibility to evidence from experimental games in psychological laboratories, this suggests that almost Hegemons are even less solicitous of the interests of the junior partner(s) than is an absolute dictator, who needs no allies. . . When we have absolute power over others, we take some account of their interests, as a matter of moral principle. But when others also have power, the appearance of having to bargain with others gives an almost Hegemon licence to ignore the interests of others.
    There is a major mismatch here between a commitment to inside and outside thinking, on the one hand, and the reality of a contemporary world that is no longer divisible into neat territorial blocs or containers, on the other.
    The European Union (EU) offers a good contemporary example of a form of hegemony without empire, if only within one world-region. The US neoconservatives who planned the 2003 war on Iraq, of course, famously dismiss the EU rather like Stalin dismissed the Pope, “How many battalions do they have?” They miss the point entirely, however. The EU has immense legal and moral reach. While expanding to cover more countries and more aspects of political regulation, the EU has insinuated itself into the very fibre of everyday life, not just in member countries but also in those that would like to join and in those that trade with it. First, the EU spreads stealthily. Its influence works largely through existing institutions by creating and imposing common standards. Second, the EU franchises its legislation by implicitly threatening firms and countries outside its boundaries with isolation. US businesses, for example, must follow EU regulations to gain access to European markets. Third, the EU works as a network rather than as a command-and-control system. Henry Kissinger once complained that Europe didn’t have a single telephone number that he could call when faced by a foreign-policy crisis.
    The EU is, rather, a network of centres united around common goals and policies that can, consequentially, expand both in the scope of what it does and in the geographical area it covers without collapsing. This can be disadvantageous in reaching rapid consensus in crisis situations, but it allows for relatively light administration by encouraging political and economic reform through existing channels rather than centralising power in a single center. The various categories of empire and hegemony, however, can be best understood with respect to some specific examples from contemporary usage. The ones that follow are by no means the only ones available, but they are ones that seem to define some of the main features of current debate over empire and hegemony in relation to US government ideology and action.
    In Niall Ferguson’s The Cash Nexus, for example and also in his more recent book to accompany the BBC television series of the same title, Empire, the world politics is viewed as best ordered by classic empires, such as, Britain’s in its heyday. Ironically, those on the political left who see the US government as the political face of a purely national US capital also see the necessity for the United States to adopt an increasingly imperial approach to guarantee resources particularly oil and send bellicose messages to possible challengers for global domination, such as, China. This reflects the same imperialism diagnosed by Lenin. Though acknowledging the sacrifices made for empire—largely those of its servants more than its victims—Ferguson wants to recuperate the order that empire brought to disordered and dangerous regions. In his view, the present-day world is in disarray in large part because of the United States’ refusal to take on its imperial destiny and drag the world into line. Of course, this is similar to the refrain of those neoconservatives in the United States associated with the Project for a New American Century and their agents in the Bush administration, such as, Paul Wolfowitz. In their construction, there are parts of the world where US hegemony does not currently prevail but where hard power has to be applied to prevent possible future military threats from materialising, to secure fundamental resources for the world economy, and to eliminate rulers who refuse to play by the rules laid down under the current hegemony.
    Writing long before September 11, 2001, Ferguson and others argued that for the world to successfully diminish military threats and to enhance US economic interests, the United States must become an imperial power rather than continue as a traditional nation-state. From this viewpoint, there is little or no danger of imperial over stretch in the sense popularised by Paul Kennedy. The economic threat to the United States does not come from its military budget but from the costs of domestic welfare and pension programmes. Its American advocates, however, believe that empire does not necessarily mean direct rule but more a system of informal or indirect rule through surrogates who openly accept US political and economic dominance. Unlike Ferguson, who emphasises the role of political persuasion and cultural interchange as well as military coercion in empire building, the American advocates of empire tend to place all of their emphasis on military power as the single leg for the construction of empire. Indeed, the 2003 Iraq coalition of the United States, Britain, and Australia perhaps suggests something of a Waspish cultural predisposition to empire as a hegemonic strategy when multilateral routes are judged as requiring too much diplomacy, consultation, and compromise.
    The other most important recent usage of the term “empire” comes from a very different source (Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their book, Empire) and has a very different meaning and they are its critics rather than its proponents. In their usage, “empire” is essentially synonymous with contemporary globalisation: a world of networks and flows that may have arisen under American sponsorship but that is increasingly diffuse, decentered, and placeless. This neo–empire, then, bears little or no resemblance to any empires in previous history. It is a set of practices associated with capital accumulation and labour exploitation without any homeland. It is imperialism without an emperor. But it can also be liberating in the possibilities it offers for releasing ordinary people (the “multitude”) from the territorial reifications (states and places) that have long held them in thrall. This could be construed as hegemony without a hegemonic power, and this does seem to be what Hardt and Negri actually do have in mind. Their choice of the word “empire” to describe this phenomenon, however, is misleading, if attention getting.
    An original and provocative melding of Marxist and poststructuralist thought, Empire is a serious attempt to come to terms with what is different about the contemporary world and to avoid slipping back into political vocabularies about imperialism, colonialism, etc., that are firmly stuck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Of course, whether this approach bears a one-to-one relationship to the actual organisation of the contemporary world economy, which still seems strongly divided geographically between states and places, is very doubtful. Their image of empire seems to be a mirror version of the view of globalisation found among its most exuberant proponents: that the Internet and air travel have created a whole new world as opposed to a radically changing one.
    Empire contains more than a whiff of Georges Sorel and Rosa Luxemburg’s spontaneism.
    Politically it also seems problematic in that, even within their framework, the defence of places may be more potent in contesting empire’s logic than simply endorsing the virtues of movement and the nomadism it entails. Of course, the challenge then becomes finding mutually intelligible and supportable collective strategies for a multitude in place. But the discovery of some sort of commonality across places seems a more realistic basis to countervailing action in contemporary globalisation than does a multitude in movement. Empire contains more than a whiff of Georges Sorel and Rosa Luxemburg’s spontaneism.
    Quite what this “empire” has to do with historical ones or with hegemony is not entirely clear from the text except that it notes that hard economic power i.e. control over capital is seen as making the world go around, if increasingly without any identifiable national-territorial sponsor but within a constitutional framework of separation of powers between various institutional forms analogous to that of the United States. Where the US invasion of Iraq might fit into this account is not entirely clear, except perhaps as a throwback to old ways increasingly anachronistic in a global era. More important, however, their overemphasis on the transcendence of place under globalisation perhaps leads Hardt and Negri to under-emphasise the degree to which empire, in the Roman sense, is still very much an available option for attempting to secure hegemony and, hence, for protecting their empire from the threat posed to it by the multitude. However, in a recent volume that consists of an interview with and a number of clarifying essays by Antonio Negri on themes from Empire, Negri makes an argument to the effect that “Bush and the political-military apparatus he uses should not be confounded with the government of the Empire. Rather, it appears to me that the imperialist ideology and practice of the Bush government will rapidly begin to collide with the capitalist forces that at the global level work for the Empire. The situation is completely open.”
    The term “hegemony” figures prominently in the account of modern geopolitics proposed by Stuart Corbridge in Mastering Space. This account sees the modern world as experiencing a succession of hegemonies associated with different dominant states but with recent American hegemony slowly giving way to a hegemony without a hegemon, or hegemony exercised increasingly through global markets and international institutions by a growing transnational class of business people and bureaucrats. In this construction, hegemony is absolutely not equivalent to simple domination of territorial or otherwise but refers to widespread assent to principles of conduct that are the common sense of world politics and that emanate from distinctive cultural-economic sites with potentially global reach. It sees the transformation of US hegemony as pre-dating the end of the Cold War but intensifying thereafter.
    The support for Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the Hegemony versus Empire period of Soviet occupation helped create the global chaos that relies on the technologies of globalisation.
    It views increased US unilateralism since 1970, beginning with abrogation of the Bretton Woods Agreement governing fixed-currency exchange rates in 1971, as evidence for a crisis in rather than a strengthening of American hegemony. Unwittingly, however, this and other unilateral acts by the US government have had the net effect of spreading and deepening the impact of globalisation. For example, US recognition of Communist China in 1972 has had the long-term effect of bringing China into the world economy as a major producer and consumer.
    Also, the support for Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the Hegemony versus Empire period of Soviet occupation helped create the global chaos that relies on the technologies of globalisation. And, the imposition of import controls on Japanese cars in the 1980s brought Japanese car companies to produce in the United States. In this construction, American hegemony is extremely reliant on soft power, the active assent to an agreement with international standards of conduct governing economic and political transactions, even as the US government rails against the very institutions and rules such as, the UN, for example it first sponsored.
    Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda know this very well, and it is why they behave as they do. In contradistinction to the Empire of Hardt and Negri, the post–Cold War geopolitical order is still organised geographically. No longer does the geographical structure consist of US and Soviet blocs and a Third World in which the two central powers compete. Rather, it consists of a profoundly uneven or fragmented global economy with a patchwork of local and regional areas connected together through or marginally to the control centres in the world’s major cities and governmental centres.
    But states are, if anything, even more important to this economic hegemony without centralsed political control, to paraphrase Wood, than they were to the Cold War geopolitical order. From this perspective, recent US government actions post–September 11, 2001, can be seen as an attempt to reestablish the United States as central to contemporary hegemony by using the one resource—military power—in which the United States is still supreme. Though it can be construed that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were directed as much at the values and practices of the world economy in general as at the United States specifically, the Bush administration has chosen to see them in a nationalist light. To a significant degree this response is related to the fact that the Bush administration is dominated by people with business and political ties to US defence industries as well as to the militarist attitudes of the American South. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the United States can economically afford to prosecute a war without end on terrorism or its perceived cultural and political opponents without the active cooperation of its previous allies and without sacrificing the very values and interests that its war is supposedly all about. In the end, empires always seem to undermine exactly what it was they were initially supposed to sustain. From this perspective, empire is both unsustainable and counterproductive as a strategy for re-securing US hegemony.
    Finally, US hegemony can be construed as a negative and without benign leadership responding to the collective action problem of a world in dynastic ties….The account is offered by Joseph Nye in his book Bound to Lead. He argues for the necessity of US leadership in a world in need of public goods—direction on issues of global importance, a global currency, global enforcement of norms of conduct, intervention on behalf of human rights, etc.—that can only be provided by the last remaining superpower. From this point of view, the United States has tended to favour soft over hard power in a world that is culturally pluralistic and politically fragmented. In this respect, it differs fundamentally from previous hegemons in that it depends upon soft power. This goes back to the essentially liberal image that the US government claims to have of its role in world order, in which the absence of spontaneous international collective action requires a leader willing to take on the task of organising international institutions and agreements. Absent such a role, under conditions of international anarchy collective action will not take place.
    Because there must be limits to US power, the United States must be a self-denying and non-benevolent leader and deal with the global collective action problem: the inability to coordinate action across multiple actors. If the United States does not take on this role, the world will become a desperately stable and non-dangerous place for all. That the US government did not gain UN backing for its invasion of Iraq might be seen as a failure to fulfill this role. But the war could also be interpreted as taking on that leadership role, albeit one that must be followed quickly by recourse to international coordination rather than by the US administration fully fledging a liberated postwar Iraq. The danger to the United States is that its recourse to war will further weaken its hegemony, given that this, more than with any other hegemony in history, depends on the deployment of soft power. This soft power requires at least the appearance of assent and acceptance; not recourse to coercion and an urge to empire could be construed as signs of American weakness rather than strength.
    The American government does not want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war. What’s happened over the last hundred years in the world because of American ugly desire of hegemony? It is well known to everybody. It prevents peace by sponsoring terror globally. With the ultimate weapon that it is deceptively developing, the American establishment aims to gain hegemony over the entire world and holds the world’s economy hostage.
    The American government does not want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war. What’s happened over the last hundred years in the world because of American ugly desire of hegemony?
    People in the world consider the US as an evil hegemony that has tainted their culture. Trump is the worst. I mean, he is like a shape shifter. You can’t nail him down. It is like the last gasp, the last bastion of old white males, of white supremacy and hegemony.
    The philosophy of praxis does not aim at the peaceful resolution of existing contradictions in history and society, but is the very theory of these contradictions. It is not the instrument of government of the dominant groups in order to gain the consent and exercise hegemony over the subaltern classes. It is the expression of subaltern classes who want to educate themselves in the art of government and who have an interest in knowing all truths, even the unpleasant ones, and in avoiding the impossible deceptions of the upper class, and even more their own.
    One cannot discuss the world without understanding US imperial hegemony, both globally and certainly in Europe, Middle East and elsewhere in the world as it stands. The scope of America’s global hegemony is admittedly great, but its depth is shallow, limited by both domestic and external restraints.
    It is not pleasant to surrender to the hegemony of a nation like America which is still wild and primitive, and to concede the absolute superiority of its customs and institutions, science and technology, literature and art. Must one sacrifice so much in the name of the unity of mankind, but not American like hegemony all over the world?
    America poses to be supreme over the present world order. Its futile struggle between hegemony and empire on the global state of affairs will not last long. Evilness of American hegemony shall be condemned in the harshest language to stop it from doing further damage to the present world order. Peace is of the essence for mankind throughout the world, not of American hegemony or of its supremacy over the other nations with ulterior motives. Let peace prevail everywhere, not war, destruction, murdering of mankind. If America ceases its ugly and brutal game with other nations of the world, the whole world will be better place for peaceful living of mankind.
    -The End –
     

    manifesto

    Well-Known Member
    #11
    There isn't a government that has been overthrown by the USA, which didn't deserve being overthrown.
    (Hitler, Saddam, Gaddafi, and all the cold era communist dictators...)

    USA is a force for good in this world. May it forever continue to be a shining beacon of freedom.
     

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #12
    No country is perfect, but I would rather live under US rule than under Saudi, Iranian, Soviet, Chinese, or whatever else rule.

    Most of these articles are nothing but cherry-picked and spinned propaganda.
     
    #14
    No country is perfect, but I would rather live under US rule than under Saudi, Iranian, Soviet, Chinese, or whatever else rule.

    Most of these articles are nothing but cherry-picked and spinned propaganda.
    Good point. To enforce it further - even Arabs living in Israel would rather stay and not move back to anywhere in Arabia.
     

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #17
    Love it more :)

    I find it also annoying and ridiculous when they beg for US aid and support all while having anti US stances policies and rhetoric.
    Exactly...if the West intervenes, they complain; if the West doesn't intervene, they complain.

    I was recently watching a documentary about the Vietnam war and I realized that when the US first went there, it was to help the Vietnamese fight their French colonizers. The Vietnamese wanted them there! And, as a country who had fought its own anti-colonial war, the US was happy to help.

    Things got messy when the communists got involved and tried to take over the newly independent country, despite half the population being against them. But you never hear about that in the criticism of that war!

    They always make it sound like it was the evil Americans against the Vietnamese; when, in fact, the Americans were supporting the anti-communists while the Soviets and Chinese were helping the communists.
     

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #18
    An empire that was ultimately created in a way to sustain itself and its power, by constantly and relentlessly destroying, killing and looting countries and nations throughout the planet, under the pretext of chasing the next boogeyman, for the common good.

    Another example of bias...

    The US drops a bomb every 12 minutes? What...they have a clock and someone watching it at all times waiting to give a signal every 12 minutes to a randomly placed bomber?

    They probably came up with this number by calculating the number of seconds in X
    amount of weeks, months, or years and dividing that number by the number of bombs dropped during that time.

    But 100 bombs dropped on the same daeshi target in 3 days is not the same as 100 bombs dropped individually, every 12 seconds, on various targets.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate war and weapons, but the media manipulate numbers to make them mean whatever they want.
     

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    #19
    'The Greater Israel Project' Explained by Ken OKeefe
    Islam in the Levant was, and still is, a colonial project. When you take others' lands, you should know that your descendants might one day have to deal with their descendants claiming their inheritance.
     

    Top