The Empire Strikes Back

Adder wrote: One is poor if they need to work to survive..... time poor, becuase someone else dictates a large part of their existence. But even having a loan means your working for the bank just to some much smaller extent. While money is not everything, surviving is, and getting more freedom is wealth. So I wouldnt attack wealth, but attack abuse of its potentials. The problem is its much much easier to lose then create - which is why handouts dont work. So while it might be easier to make money with more money, its also easier to lose. Hording is not greed, its economics..... its just the relationship with money has to change if its to grow.

This is very well said. Sometimes people rush to a certain judgement simply to defend their party or their point. But we don't need to imagine that the other side is on some imaginary opposite extreme. "Oh you're not 100% down for pure capitalism? You must be a communist!" No... "OH, well then you must be a socialist!" Uh... no.

Just like we have a democracy it's not a pure democracy. We don't have pure capitalism either. That's because it is logical to put in checks and balances in order to protect the system from corruption. Because a pure profit motive isn't in the best interest of sick patients there should be checks that make sure people are taken care of. Wanting that doesn't make anyone a communist or a socialist. It's human. None of us are immune from getting a life threatening illness or getting hit by a car, or having an accident somewhere. And these these debts can stick to families for years and take away opportunities they would otherwise have.

Life is easier when you have money. But what no one tells you is how much extra you pay when you're poor. There's no "poor tax" but there are fees for paying late, reconnection, overdrafting, higher interest rates, and on and on. And that doesn't even include predatory lending, pay day loans, fake colleges, etc.

I have zero problems with Elon Musk. I love Elon Musk. I like Warren Buffet. I love Oprah. I'm not 100% sure about Bill Gates because of certain questions but he's probably okay too. I love what Akon is doing. I'm not against wealthy people in general but rather how they get there and whether or not it was legal and moral.

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

First, I will remark on what I could but wont remark on in order to keep this discussion civil:
"jealous"
"whining"

These are personal which, years ago, would make me defensive and look for an opening to hit the same ball back like in tennis. However, since I'm fairly certain that no one here will give credibility to these attacks I'll just practice restraint and ignore them.

To the point... which is quite ridiculous...

"You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

Trumps father made him a millionaire. This is now a recognized fact. Fred Trump made Donald a millionaire by age 8.

In the first place those are not personal attacks. I said I see them as attributes of the argument, not the individual. So no attack there except of the idea. As for how Donald got his money, well big deal. How did Fred get his money to give to Donald? Yea he started out just like the rest of us. Are you actually trying to say that Fred should have given his money to you, a total stranger, instead of his own son? Maybe your father should have worked harder so you could be a millionaire then right? It has to start somewhere and because trumps started a generation back is not an issue. He took those same opportunity you have and yet refuse to accept.

As for the claim of cheating and stealing well those are unfounded. Do you have proof he did did these things? These are just bandwagon claims that you have heard. Investigations sure, but no criminal wrongdoing ever found. And as for 10 business failings, so what? Even if it is 10, that is still out of 515 so pretty good track record there.

Trump may have been born with that silver spoon in his mouth but once again so what? His father was not. His father made the family fortune. and who ever said life was fair anyway? Life is not fair. How fair would it be if you worked your butt of for 1million dollars and then a bunch of people came along and said hey that's not fair, you need to give that to us and the govt is gonna make you do it! Is that fair? No that's thievery.

In fact you do have just as much opportunity as anyone else including Fred or Donald trump to make yourself rich. But it calls for sacrifice and risk and incredibly hard work. Anyone can do it. Most don't however because its human nature to take the path of least resistance most times. Well those rare individuals that do not take that path are the ones that prosper the greatest and they are the ones that have the ability for the amazing innovation that this country is known for. Hell Musk is going to put a man on mars soon! That takes drive and ego and wealth. I am not jealous of what he has accomplished, I admire it and I use him as a symbol to do more in my life. Instead of complaining that he has more than me and how unfair that is I celebrate the fact that he was able to achieve such greatness and I welcome that same opportunity in my life this great nation provides us all that is just there for the taking! I wouldn't have it any other way.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

First, I will remark on what I could but wont remark on in order to keep this discussion civil:
"jealous"
"whining"

These are personal which, years ago, would make me defensive and look for an opening to hit the same ball back like in tennis. However, since I'm fairly certain that no one here will give credibility to these attacks I'll just practice restraint and ignore them.

To the point... which is quite ridiculous...

"You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

Trumps father made him a millionaire. This is now a recognized fact. Fred Trump made Donald a millionaire by age 8.

In the first place those are not personal attacks. I said I see them as attributes of the argument, not the individual. So no attack there except of the idea. As for how Donald got his money, well big deal. How did Fred get his money to give to Donald? Yea he started out just like the rest of us. Are you actually trying to say that Fred should have given his money to you, a total stranger, instead of his own son? Maybe your father should have worked harder so you could be a millionaire then right? It has to start somewhere and because trumps started a generation back is not an issue. He took those same opportunity you have and yet refuse to accept.

As for the claim of cheating and stealing well those are unfounded. Do you have proof he did did these things? These are just bandwagon claims that you have heard. Investigations sure, but no criminal wrongdoing ever found. And as for 10 business failings, so what? Even if it is 10, that is still out of 515 so pretty good track record there.

Trump may have been born with that silver spoon in his mouth but once again so what? His father was not. His father made the family fortune. and who ever said life was fair anyway? Life is not fair. How fair would it be if you worked your butt of for 1million dollars and then a bunch of people came along and said hey that's not fair, you need to give that to us and the govt is gonna make you do it! Is that fair? No that's thievery.

In fact you do have just as much opportunity as anyone else including Fred or Donald trump to make yourself rich. But it calls for sacrifice and risk and incredibly hard work. Anyone can do it. Most don't however because its human nature to take the path of least resistance most times. Well those rare individuals that do not take that path are the ones that prosper the greatest and they are the ones that have the ability for the amazing innovation that this country is known for. Hell Musk is going to put a man on mars soon! That takes drive and ego and wealth. I am not jealous of what he has accomplished, I admire it and I use him as a symbol to do more in my life. Instead of complaining that he has more than me and how unfair that is I celebrate the fact that he was able to achieve such greatness and I welcome that same opportunity in my life this great nation provides us all that is just there for the taking! I wouldn't have it any other way.

Kyrin, an argument can't get jealous. So when you're talking to a person there is no way for them to assume you are personifying an idea to the extent that it can get jealous or whine. No, it is the person making the argument that can get jealous and whine, not the argument itself. Just sayin'

And to stay on the personal attack front for a second... an argument also cannot be communist or be a thief. But just to qualify my earlier statement, at no time did I state that I wanted anyone to give me something for free without exchange. I was speaking within the context of LOANS. Banks "give" loans. Credit is an institution "giving" you the right to use their money, not yours. So hopefully we can at some point get past that particular straw-man and bring the discussion back to what I was actually saying.

Another straw-man is the idea that I ever suggested one cannot or should not leave money to their children. My point to you was that Donald Trump did not make himself a millionaire and never had to work hard. It was given to him. Trump said his father gave him a "small loan". It was a million dollars. And when Trump got in trouble in Vegas, Fred came and bailed him out. This isn't rumors heard on the street. This is the result of journalism.

Don't forget what you said which is what I was responding to. You said: "You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

So I simply pointed out that he didn't. In this society it's often about who you know or are related to. There are alternate ways to get to wealth that has nothing to do with personal merit or effort. You can be dumb as a rock and wealthy. And the point is that these people, regardless of merit, can get (my/our) money from banks based off the assets they already own or even lie and claim they do. I would consider conceding to whatever point you were trying to make if Trump was still using the money he got from Fred but let's be honest. He lost it a long time ago. He went from bank to bank and didn't pay the money back and often didn't pay contractors. He screwed people over. That's why he had to get money from a foreign bank. You can't be millions in debt and be a millionaire at the same time. At least I don't know what alternate universe that works in. I consider myself in debt because I have a house note, car notes, and student loan, as well as credit card debt... like most Americans. And as I stated, I don't personally want Trumps "money". If I ever got rich I want it to be because I created something that people wanted to buy. So I'm not sure how you can color my argument as saying something different from me.

No criminal wrongdoing... huh?

According to USA Today Trump or one of his companies were defendants in 1,450 cases. Around 500 were dismissed, hundreds more ended without resolution in the public record. Where there was clear resolution Trump won 451 and lost 38. Now if you're limiting your scope to criminal liability... then sure... he hasn't actually shot someone on 5th Avenue. However, he did agree to settle for $25 million as recently as November of 2016 for Trump University where he also sued one of the ripped off students for defamation after she shared her experience on social media and he had to pay her $798,774 in legal fees and costs. Why so much?

One of the worst parts of our system is the fact that rich people can force you into a financial checkmate by taking you to court. If you can't afford to deal with whatever garbage the rich person's lawyers throw at you then you're in trouble and it can force a settlement. It becomes an unfortunate game of checkers where the winner is the one who has more pieces (money) on the board. And unlike Trump, everyone he sues can't borrow 300M from a single bank.

Another example...

In 2014 Trump hired a model named Alexia Palmer. Trump Model Management promised her $75,000 /yr salary but paid her only $3,380 not per year but for 3 YEARS of work! That's SLAVERY. They promised to withold 20% of her net pay as agency expenses but ended up taking 80%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Trump_University_litigation

The problem is that Trump is like a god to a lot of people and they don't care how he made his money, who he scammed and defrauded. That's what's BS.

So I guess I'm not sure what you are complaining about? You agree that fred made his fortune on his own and it was ok to give to his son. And if you think building over 500 business ventures is not hard work I dont know what to say. And if you think that sort of effort wont generate law suits well, your nieve.

If you are talking about securing loans for money only, then you have just as much right as anyone else, and they have just as much right to turn you down if you ask for 3m but dont have the collateral or investor backing or business plan to back up that request. You want the money, you need to prove your capable of not only handling it but paying it back same as anyone else. So I dont know what your complaining about there either.

From there you move on to this weird argument about financial checkmate and claims of criminal activities and judgements of payouts without any evidence to support your claim. Who cares how much was paid and why? Without all the facts your just guessing and unfairly judging.

Every one of your arguments are based in preconceived conclusions and cognitive bias. You decided you dont like rich people out of what I can only describe as, and yes I will say it, jealousy, and your cherry picking and skewing facts to fit your conclusion.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: So I guess I'm not sure what you are complaining about? You agree that fred made his fortune on his own and it was ok to give to his son. And if you think building over 500 business ventures is not hard work I dont know what to say. And if you think that sort of effort wont generate law suits well, your nieve.

You're naive if you believe that Trump, and not Trump Organization, started and ran that many companies and that that many companies ever existed as something beyond just a name on a piece of paper. And no, an organization like that does not have to generate a bunch of lawsuits. Most companies don't. Do you know why? Most companies have lawyers who they can run questionable decisions by and who look at company policies and things looking for liabilities to write or rewrite policies and guide practices to avoid such liability. But ultimately you're still going to get sued if you try to screw people, such as writing a 'C' on the applications of black people to deny them housing. And if you love using your money to sue and bully people then you'll use the courts fight people and try to take their money even though they haven't done anything wrong.

If you are talking about securing loans for money only, then you have just as much right as anyone else, and they have just as much right to turn you down if you ask for 3m but dont have the collateral or investor backing or business plan to back up that request. You want the money, you need to prove your capable of not only handling it but paying it back same as anyone else. So I don't know what your complaining about there either.

True statement. I have just as much "right" as anyone else. But I cannot get loans like anyone else. Bernie Sanders was just talking about this on his latest interview with Roland Martin. Feel free to watch. I love how people think that everyone has equal access to things in America. This is simply not the case. And because I don't have equal access I also have every "right" to complain. And when someone who shouldn't get a loan because of bankruptcies, inflating assets which is fraud, and gaining more assets by ripping people off can get a loan and I, by following the rules, can't then I have a right to complain. Of course, having a right to complain and creating a thread for the purposes of doing so are two different things. In this thread I'm trying to discuss America as an empire and whether people who are behaving as such are currently "striking back" by getting their way. This could be such things as immigration, women's reproductive rights, taxes, etc. If it's alright with you I'd like to get back to the stated questions that are the subject of this thread rather than a personal argument about whether I'm jealous or complaining.

From there you move on to this weird argument about financial checkmate and claims of criminal activities and judgements of payouts without any evidence to support your claim. Who cares how much was paid and why? Without all the facts your just guessing and unfairly judging.

Evidence? I was talking about settled cases with verdicts and rulings. What more evidence do you need than what's in the public record? Are you suggesting that we should re-litigate all these cases before mentioning their outcomes? Because that seems like a ridiculous ask and not something worth derailing the thread for. It's one thing to support Trump. It's another thing to disbelieve anything negative as if he's some kind of god who never does anything wrong and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. I would love to know what manner of hypnosis his base seems to be under. I would really like to crack the code and understand why this support is so strong and why his supporters believe in him so much. But even this isn't the purpose of this thread.

Every one of your arguments are based in preconceived conclusions and cognitive bias. You decided you dont like rich people out of what I can only describe as, and yes I will say it, jealousy, and your cherry picking and skewing facts to fit your conclusion.

No, that would be true if the cases in question weren't over and settled. No bias is needed there. I don't even have to examine or question the rulings or presume guilt. He was innocent until the courts found against him. To ignore these findings would be a display of the cognitive bias you're asserting. And you're claiming I'm cherry picking without saying what and accusing me of skewing facts without saying which facts have been skewed. So in other words you're making a conclusion about me without evidence, guided only by your obvious pro-Trump bias. You also have not given any evidence on which to based "jealousy" on. Did you forget? You used this word from the very beginning but tried to have intelligent people believe that you weren't talking about me personally, but rather my argument. This was obviously false. Your preconception about the argument caused your mind to presume to know the reason that people might be anti-Trump. I have been providing you with other reasons but you seem to reject them in favor of your original presumption. Now that I have proven I was correct about your argument and entertained it for a bit, can I get back to what I'd like to talk about now? Because like I said before, I'm not jealous. I already told you on what basis I would accept such a lifestyle and qualified my statement that being "given" $3,000,000 was within the context of a loan and not what you presumed to be equivalent to thievery. I already told you how I admire Elon Musk as well as other rich people so your personal argument about me "not liking" rich people is contrived and baseless. One rich person cannot represent ALL rich people. What I do have something against is classism and racism and all those, rich or poor, who support these things.

So setting up a straw-man here in order to fixating the discussion on incorrect assumptions about jealousy and not liking rich people when some of my favorite people are rich, is simply not a winning strategy for debating me. What we have seen from your statements is that you don't care how Trump made his money. This is a fundamental difference that impede your ability to understand my perspective and that of others who question the direction this country is going in. I live in Dayton, Ohio. I don't live in the South. And yet, for the first time in my life my aging mother told me to avoid going downtown because there was a KKK march going on this weekend. I'm not jealous of the man who enabled that event to occur. I want to understand why people could support him in spite of it. Or maybe it is because of it. I want to understand. I'm not against you. I like you. I'm not here to accuse you. I just want to understand you.

Let me get back to the point.

The Empire is in denial because it doesn't want to see itself as a "bad guy". It represents its actions as good without the recognition that good for one isn't always good for others. After awhile "foreign interests" to help others start to take a back seat to what will reap the most profits. We blind ourselves to this because we don't want the responsibility of changing it. While in denial we stop caring how the US became an empire, who it took land from, who it used for cheap labor, etc. because this is the soylent green on which capitalistic nations prosper. While we can say, that this nation or that nations' leader is a monster and we need to get rid of them, the representative government often commits worse crimes and offences but simply argues that they are not crimes because there's no law against it. It was legal and therefore we should deny these wrongs. Because they're not wrong as long as you can simply change the label. If we judge by behavior it is an empire. If we judge by laws and dictionary definitions it's not.

If a man has an STD how do we know? Is it because he tells us? We may never be told he has an STD because it isn't in his interest to tell us. The STD can spread simply by virtue of the fact that he doesn't claim reality to be real and doesn't represent the truth about himself. You could say he's in denial but that isn't entirely accurate. It is true that he may be unaware of his condition but several people he sleeps with notify him that they have the STD and that he should get checked out... well then he has a clue. He could choose not to seek examination but this is a kind of denial, never wanting to ask the question because you don't want the definitive answer. It is also likely that he wants to continue the same behavior that contracted the STD in the first place. Disclosing the truth would make that harder so he may decide to simply omit the truth.

The US doesn't want to be thought of as an empire for the same reason. It would make running an empire extremely difficult. Many of its relationships are based on diplomacy. The fact that it has the most advanced military is a stick but using carrots help to keep opponents from allying against you. Therefore, the denial obviously makes it easier for that very thing to be true. And if it is true... it's not because it claims it, but rather because it fulfills the qualifications. A person doesn't have an STD because they say they do. Saying it simply allows other people to react to it.

A lot of people in denial simply because we benefit from the empire and its activities. We don't know it from the vantage point of those it sometimes crushes. We care about our farmers and how a trade war will effect them but now so much about the farmers in other countries who cannot compete with American products which have lower prices than theirs because they are subsidized by US taxpayers. Using subsidies is an economic weapon that effects regular people trying to survive. But as long as those subsidies can provide an economic foot hold there then after awhile the American product may knock out enough of its competitors to achieve more profit even after the subsidies expire (if ever). What I'm suggesting is that the US has evolved beyond having to fight every battle with troops. That is just one type of fighting. Using troops is very overt. Using economics and politics is more covert. But if the effect is the same then what difference does it make what you call it? It simply is what it is.

For a long time Palpatine was just a politician. Even suspecting otherwise, Jedi were hesitant to recognize him for what he was. I've always been interested in how that happened. Why couldn't they see? Is it arrogance or something else? And are we likewise choosing not to see something or denying its existence? It is my hope that through our examination of the possibility that we grow and gain the benefit of more introspection so that we can be the ones on the right side, adding to the solution and not the problem.

Question 1: Is the US government an Empire?

History much? Sumerians? Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? Mongols? How many people did these empires crush? Any idea how the Japanese treated people during their efforts at empire? Read up on the Rape of Nanking, its pretty damn disgusting.

Russia is pretty white, though, are they an empire? If not now, were they ever? And/or could they become one in the near future? What about China? Have empires ever risen in Africa? The Ashanti, perhaps? The Kush? The Punt? The Swahili? Are there or have there ever been any Islamic empires? What about the Aztecs or Mayans, werent they empires? Did you know what the Mayans did to their prisoners? The prisoners they captured when they conquered their neighbors and took their land? Cut them open while theywere still alive and pulled their beating hearts out of their chests. Then chopped their heads off and put them on a spike on a rack. A long rack of human heads. Thousands of people every year. Yes, they really did that. Its not just a myth that white people made up to justify oppressing them. But i read your subtext and it seems to be only white people who have ever been villains. Or maybe thats not your subtext. Perhaps its my white fragility clouding my judgment? What a conundrum.

Empire building is a natural course of action for nations with the strength to do it. America was founded on ideas such as “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (unequally as it was originally applied) and the belief that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. America is a major contributor to the very idea that there is anything wrong with empires to begin with. Not taking sole credit, but giving credit where its due. I get the impression that you are holding America to a standard that doesnt even exits in many other places in the world and judging us with a racially biased sense of global politics and history. Only wanting to recognize the conquests and misdeeds of white people because white supremacy is the only villain you see. Thats my impression, anyway.

Sure, our government has engaged in many empire-like deeds over the course of our growth. But let me ask you this: what prevents an empire from conquering it’s neighbors? Nothing but the empire’s own moral restraint or its neighbor’s strength to resist them. At some point we stopped expanding north and west and south. We could possibly have taken the whole damn continent if we’d wanted to. Definitely Mexico and South America. And looking back at the last century of international warfare, conquest, and genocide, do you think we would be speaking english today if we hadn't had the strength of an empire? I dont. The world is not friendly. Global politics is fundamentally adversarial: we are in a competition with seriously high stakes and as much as I genuinely dislike the idea of America being a bully, i dislike the idea of America being bullied even more.

Im perfectly willing to be critical of our policies but ONLY if the criticism is predicated upon a basic foundation of patriotism. If your criticisms of America come from love and a belief that this is a good country and a good place to live and that criticisms are necessary because we have to be honest about our imperfections so that we can make the future better than the past, then im with you. Im pretty critical of America too, but only AFTER my recognition that as an American i am 100% on Team America. As Americans we can look together at the flaws of OUR country. If, however, you want to criticize America because you see us as the face of white supremacy and you want to expose and defeat the evil white man (which would be consistent with your comparison of us to a man with a venereal disease) then i have to say gtfoh. That would constitute a deliberate ideological attack on my society. Not WHITE society, mind you, AMERICAN society.

Racial tensions are stupidly delicate right now. There are people, black and white, whose goal is race separatism and who are literally trying to incite a race war. We are under an ideological attack that is intentionally seeking to fragment us into irreconcilable factions. Some of this comes from internal agents and some from external agents. Some of it is motivated by the ambitions of foreign intelligence operatives in their quest for enhancing their own empire. Some of it is motivated by genuine bigotry. Some is motivated by the understandable anger at a long history of mistreatment, the effects of which are still being felt and some of which still continues today. Some of this deliberate social fragmentation however, is rooted in the unhealthy resentment of an exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood. Black people who think that black Americans today face a situation on a par with Jews in Nazi Germany for instance, are operating on a very exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/member-discussions/121406-democracy-in-decline?start=0

The motives differ but the outcome is the same: more resentment on all sides. I put the blame for the consequences of this ideological battle on every single individual who is joining in the collective finger pointing campaigns to smear the other race- whichever race that individual comes from. I despise racism, including black racism. Yes, black people can be racist. We can get into that here or in another thread, or not at all- whatever you want. Or maybe not, ive gotten used to not being here and it may be another month before i even look at the forums again. Lets just say that theres more than one kind of power in the world and most everyone has some kind of it, at some time. Heres an interesting question for you: can you imagine a day when the NAACP is a racist organization but the Ku Klux Klan is not? That day is completely plausible (perhaps even LIKELY) by the very criteria used by those who insist that black people cannot be racist.

Question 2: Is it Striking Back? (MAGA)

Im not sure what you meant when you said this so i will just comment on what comes to mind. Leftists have this delusion that Trump was elected because America hates women and dark skinned people. Theres a misconception in “progressive” circles that white supremacists “struck back” after two terms of Obama. Im not going to explain, im only going to say that people who still believe this rhetoric are being irresponsibly obtuse. To those obtuse leftists i say this: you could (and by now, should have) actually talked to some Trump supporters and let them tell you why they voted for him. Then again, those who believe this think Trump voters are all white supremacists who are simply lying about it. You cant reason with unreasonable people. You explained earlier that racists might not admit racism because they benefit from it. That sword cuts both ways: maybe you wont admit your racism because youre trying to benefit from it? Maybe at some point we have to take each other at our word?

FYI I am politically liberal and I dislike Trump. I sure as hell didnt and wouldnt vote for him, though I dislike Hillary just as much (but thats another topic).

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Question 1: Is the US government an Empire?

History much? Sumerians? Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? Mongols? How many people did these empires crush? Any idea how the Japanese treated people during their efforts at empire? Read up on the Rape of Nanking, its pretty damn disgusting.

Russia is pretty white, though, are they an empire? If not now, were they ever? And/or could they become one in the near future? What about China? Have empires ever risen in Africa? The Ashanti, perhaps? The Kush? The Punt? The Swahili? Are there or have there ever been any Islamic empires? What about the Aztecs or Mayans, werent they empires? Did you know what the Mayans did to their prisoners? The prisoners they captured when they conquered their neighbors and took their land? Cut them open while theywere still alive and pulled their beating hearts out of their chests. Then chopped their heads off and put them on a spike on a rack. A long rack of human heads. Thousands of people every year. Yes, they really did that. Its not just a myth that white people made up to justify oppressing them. But i read your subtext and it seems to be only white people who have ever been villains. Or maybe thats not your subtext. Perhaps its my white fragility clouding my judgment? What a conundrum.

Empire building is a natural course of action for nations with the strength to do it. America was founded on ideas such as “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (unequally as it was originally applied) and the belief that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. America is a major contributor to the very idea that there is anything wrong with empires to begin with. Not taking sole credit, but giving credit where its due. I get the impression that you are holding America to a standard that doesnt even exits in many other places in the world and judging us with a racially biased sense of global politics and history. Only wanting to recognize the conquests and misdeeds of white people because white supremacy is the only villain you see. Thats my impression, anyway.

Sure, our government has engaged in many empire-like deeds over the course of our growth. But let me ask you this: what prevents an empire from conquering it’s neighbors? Nothing but the empire’s own moral restraint or its neighbor’s strength to resist them. At some point we stopped expanding north and west and south. We could possibly have taken the whole damn continent if we’d wanted to. Definitely Mexico and South America. And looking back at the last century of international warfare, conquest, and genocide, do you think we would be speaking english today if we hadn't had the strength of an empire? I dont. The world is not friendly. Global politics is fundamentally adversarial: we are in a competition with seriously high stakes and as much as I genuinely dislike the idea of America being a bully, i dislike the idea of America being bullied even more.

Im perfectly willing to be critical of our policies but ONLY if the criticism is predicated upon a basic foundation of patriotism. If your criticisms of America come from love and a belief that this is a good country and a good place to live and that criticisms are necessary because we have to be honest about our imperfections so that we can make the future better than the past, then im with you. Im pretty critical of America too, but only AFTER my recognition that as an American i am 100% on Team America. As Americans we can look together at the flaws of OUR country. If, however, you want to criticize America because you see us as the face of white supremacy and you want to expose and defeat the evil white man (which would be consistent with your comparison of us to a man with a venereal disease) then i have to say gtfoh. That would constitute a deliberate ideological attack on my society. Not WHITE society, mind you, AMERICAN society.

Racial tensions are stupidly delicate right now. There are people, black and white, whose goal is race separatism and who are literally trying to incite a race war. We are under an ideological attack that is intentionally seeking to fragment us into irreconcilable factions. Some of this comes from internal agents and some from external agents. Some of it is motivated by the ambitions of foreign intelligence operatives in their quest for enhancing their own empire. Some of it is motivated by genuine bigotry. Some is motivated by the understandable anger at a long history of mistreatment, the effects of which are still being felt and some of which still continues today. Some of this deliberate social fragmentation however, is rooted in the unhealthy resentment of an exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood. Black people who think that black Americans today face a situation on a par with Jews in Nazi Germany for instance, are operating on a very exaggerated narrative of personal victimhood.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/member-discussions/121406-democracy-in-decline?start=0

The motives differ but the outcome is the same: more resentment on all sides. I put the blame for the consequences of this ideological battle on every single individual who is joining in the collective finger pointing campaigns to smear the other race- whichever race that individual comes from. I despise racism, including black racism. Yes, black people can be racist. We can get into that here or in another thread, or not at all- whatever you want. Or maybe not, ive gotten used to not being here and it may be another month before i even look at the forums again. Lets just say that theres more than one kind of power in the world and most everyone has some kind of it, at some time. Heres an interesting question for you: can you imagine a day when the NAACP is a racist organization but the Ku Klux Klan is not? That day is completely plausible (perhaps even LIKELY) by the very criteria used by those who insist that black people cannot be racist.

Question 2: Is it Striking Back? (MAGA)

Im not sure what you meant when you said this so i will just comment on what comes to mind. Leftists have this delusion that Trump was elected because America hates women and dark skinned people. Theres a misconception in “progressive” circles that white supremacists “struck back” after two terms of Obama. Im not going to explain, im only going to say that people who still believe this rhetoric are being irresponsibly obtuse. To those obtuse leftists i say this: you could (and by now, should have) actually talked to some Trump supporters and let them tell you why they voted for him. Then again, those who believe this think Trump voters are all white supremacists who are simply lying about it. You cant reason with unreasonable people. You explained earlier that racists might not admit racism because they benefit from it. That sword cuts both ways: maybe you wont admit your racism because youre trying to benefit from it? Maybe at some point we have to take each other at our word?

FYI I am politically liberal and I dislike Trump. I sure as hell didnt and wouldnt vote for him, though I dislike Hillary just as much (but thats another topic).

What-about-isms sure are a great way to deflect, huh? Beats making a real counter argument, I guess.

Sooo... Criticism, in your description, should only come from a subset of our society least inclined to criticize it?

Well I say "in a wealthy man's house there is no where to spit but his face ", so I WILL criticize, whether it's patriotic enough or not.

Past wrongdoings, no matter how loosely relevant, do not invalidate criticism of current wrongdoings; your logic is merely flawed and shortsighted, at best, and at worst, is thinly veiled excuse to alleviate a sense of guilt, achieved by diminishing wrongdoings.

You want to pull the race card, huh? Well I'm white, too, and I don't act nearly so hostile and defensive simply for knowing the discussion is being lead by an intellectual black man with a dissenting opinion from the status quo.

To paraphrase the now controversial Bill Cosby, if the criticism bothers you so much, than maybe it needed to be said?

You can't lead the free world while working to make it less so; you can't credibly claim to be the good guys who care about freedom while putting boots to necks.

And you cannot own up to being a violent and warlike people, and expect to be taken seriously when trying to argue that it's not wrong when WE do it. More quoting! "It is very easy to confuse What Is with What Ought Be, particularly when What Is has worked in your favor. "

This string of opinions has been brought to you by, Not a Patriotic Citizen (I just live here, man)

Kelrax wrote: You can't lead the free world while working to make it less so; you can't credibly claim to be the good guys who care about freedom while putting boots to necks.

What is your definition of freedom here? If it means allowing illegial immigrants to continue to slowly invade then your damn right we can lead the free world while at the same time enforce the rules of our boarders and letters of our laws. And as for being the good guys, well that calls for putting boots to necks when it's called for. A paper hero is no hero at all. Freedom is won with blood, mostly the ability to make the enemy bleed more.

ZealotX wrote: And no, an organization like that does not have to generate a bunch of lawsuits. Most companies don't. Do you know why? Most companies have lawyers who they can run questionable decisions by and who look at company policies and things looking for liabilities to write or rewrite policies and guide practices to avoid such liability.

You are just factually wrong here. Any multi conglomerate company such as Trumps is faced with anywhere between 50 and 150 separate lawsuits at all times on average during its existence. Look it up. Take a company like ATT for example. They have one of the most prolific legal departments ever in operation and yet they have been sued by the govt over a dozen times. This isn’t even to mention competitors and private individuals and groups.

ZealotX wrote: True statement. I have just as much "right" as anyone else. But I cannot get loans like anyone else… I love how people think that everyone has equal access to things in America. This is simply not the case. And because I don't have equal access I also have every "right" to complain.

I never said anyone had equal access to anything. I said everyone has equal opportunity. You have no right to equal access. If you don’t have access to something it’s because you have not used your opportunity to gain it and because of that you have no right to complain about that or complain about others that have done the work to gain that access. If you want the access, stop complaining and do the work!

ZealotX wrote: That is just one type of fighting. Using troops is very overt. Using economics and politics is more covert. But if the effect is the same then what difference does it make what you call it? It simply is what it is.

Ahh so you dismiss mine and others definitions of empire so you can now covertly insert your own made up definition to prove your point. Sneaky but ultimately a fallacy. If we can call behaviour whatever we want in order to prove our point then I call the United States a "Multidimensional Organized Cluster of Micro-Force Components" all working towards the greatest good possible. Its obvious that this is what the US actually is! I mean just look at its military policies and diplomacy history. Its becomes pretty obvious at that point!

self explanatory mike drop...

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: What-about-isms sure are a great way to deflect, huh? Beats making a real counter argument, I guess.

Pot, meet kettle. Youve deflected my point while accusing me of deflecting ZealotX’s lol.

To be fair, i assumed that what i was saying would be obvious and i failed to overtly articulate it in the clearest possible terms. Here i will correct that mistake: America did not emerge in a vacuum. We’ve always been a product of our times and of our environment. It seems to me that you want to separate America from the rest of the global community and use our own modern standards to judge us in comparison to some hypothetical “perfect” nation that doesn’t actually exist.

Sooo... Criticism, in your description, should only come from a subset of our society least inclined to criticize it?

I am saying that your motives make your position suspect. Bigots use facts to justify their bigotry all the time. Even when they use the truth, theyre not loyal to The Truth, they are loyal to their bigotry. Hating America can be a bigotry just as much as hating black people or Muslims or whatever. You are free to hate America just as the ku klux klan is free to hate black people and I am free to call out the biases that motivate your position.

Well I say "in a wealthy man's house there is no where to spit but his face ", so I WILL criticize, whether it's patriotic enough or not.

Youd spit in the face of someone who accepted you as a guest in their home? Not exactly a paragon of moral virtue, huh? Or did you and the other revolutionaries break in with rifles in order to “redistribute” his wealth?

Also, you seem to think rich people dont have garbage cans lol.
Perhaps this is another one of your biases slipping out? Whats gonna happen if you ever write a book that people actually like and you start to make some money? Would you still hate wealth if youd accumulated some? Would you convince yourself that you were the only wealthy person who actually worked for what they had?

Past wrongdoings, no matter how loosely relevant, do not invalidate criticism of current wrongdoings; your logic is merely flawed and shortsighted, at best, and at worst, is thinly veiled excuse to alleviate a sense of guilt, achieved by diminishing wrongdoings.

Unlike certain crazy radical leftists, I understand that i am not my group identity and don't have to feel guilty for the decisions of people who arent me just because they were also Americans, or men, or jedi, or whatever.

You want to pull the race card, huh? Well I'm white, too, and I don't act nearly so hostile and defensive simply for knowing the discussion is being lead by an intellectual black man with a dissenting opinion from the status quo.

Yes, you're white, a White Knight lol jumping up to defend all the poor little victims being mistreated, whether they need you to or not. And youve certainly got your own issues with hostility going on, lol.

Oh btw, dont you know that its racist to complement a black person? ESPECIALLY on their intelligence. Youre really saying black people are dumb. And the fact that you didnt actually say that or mean that is totally irrelevant: someone else can assume you were thinking it and be offended. You need to check your privilege, buddy.

To paraphrase the now controversial Bill Cosby, if the criticism bothers you so much, than maybe it needed to be said?

I love this! Didnt he also say something like it cant be rape if she never actually said “no”?

*then

I wanted to see how this was going to develop from the beginning when I first saw it pop up.

I have to say there is wisdom in what was said about it being the fall of The Old Republic (loosely). After-all the Sith had contingencies for all of the population did they not. Citizen vs Citizen either of independent states or one large central state makes for easy gains. (Just and idea?)

Some are tired of constantly fighting battles of moral imperative. Often on both sides of the spectrum this is the case(it is obviously more complex when thinking geo-politically). People are tired of what they perceive as BS. So much to the point that in order to make their points they become the very thing that the other side is using to dehumanize them. Story of history right there. Micro and Macro perspectives will most likely show this as a repetitious pattern globally surrounding different issues for different state/people/races.

Obi brings a good point in the last few points of stating the US does not exists in a vacuum. This is just something that should be considered.

A point I want to bring up and please excuse me if this seems like I am saying I am above it because I am not, but sometimes I have my moments of different perspective. In the west and first world we literally have a lot of time to think about what if's that paint us a picture based on the information we obtain. For some there is a much higher capacity to gather that information and process it. Personally for me I don't gather what is not pertain to the situations I can effect, which is really not that much on the Macro scale. I have been to protests and watched the anti-fascist become the fascist on both sides, it's honestly a beautiful tragedy and cycle when you look at it knowing the basic facts you need to survive the long term.

I guess I am some what ignorant because, I could spend a lot of time searching through a ton of information to prove an argument on the relevance of the imperial model to the current American system and it's similarities and differences to other modern imperialistic actions but in doing this how slowly will looking at these details skew the whole image? Will the perspective I have become more blurred? Am I then stuck in a moral quandary and argue one side? Is this a danger of blocking together large amounts of information for ingestion?

Crappy things happen, have been done, will be done in the name of governments, ideology and beliefs. Their names will change undoubtedly but it's inherent in any systems. Where do we place a reasonable way to make things less crappy as we go? How do I play into that? Time hasn't stopped.

This got pretty politically existential and off the cuff but what I have honestly spent a lot of time thinking about both in the idea of the thread and to my general thoughts of the world as I go through my day exposed to the information I am in the area I am in and the sources around me.

I will fight for what I find morally right from my perspective, emphasizing my being grouped in with others based off one individual idea is not only somewhat enraging but honestly quite dangerous to any idea's of freedom or possibilities for any to live it and we are all guilty of this are we not? Are any minds truly always open?

Just 25 or so cents

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

I follow and promote the law as a standard, but am happy to break it if I am accepting the risks of doing so. If a society breaks a broken law enough, then it should serve to fix the law..... in a democracy. An Empire might limit that. But as individuals we need to make our best decisions, not the selfish ones or most popular. Some things though are exceptional to circumstance and push the principles of the law, things like war, and in that example they can control that problem by defining activity in a frame of reference that seeks to avoid abuse of powers eg, proptionality, necessity and distinction.

Kobos wrote: , I could spend a lot of time searching through a ton of information to prove an argument on the relevance of the imperial model to the current American system and it's similarities and differences to other modern imperialistic actions but in doing this how slowly will looking at these details skew the whole image?

This is really the crux of my argument right here. Of course some people can define America some of the time as having some empiric actions. But so what, does that make it an Empire? NO! Because it can also be defined in a myriad of other ways as well, based in the individual, the definition and the action being discussed.

We can use history to paint the picture of what America has become but we know that even that can change over time. The American Indians went from a savage and aggressive people that committed white man massacres that the benevolent US was forced to defend itself from to a peaceful people that only worshiped the land and wanted to share but were mislead and duped and slaughtered themselves by the war mongering and land greedy USA.

So which is it? Well neither one of course. These contrasts are attempts to strawman and reduce and cherry pick action to depict a group of people in a specific absolute light in order to further an agenda. Its poor argument practice and frankly its bullcrap. The same is being done here by trying to depict the USA as an empire. The problem is that the history and the policies and the diplomacy at different times in the past are much to complex to ever reduce them to a single neat and tidy term. America Defines itself. It is a democratic republic under Capitalist economy. That is what it is and to set out to prove there is some secret conspiracy in place to undermine that definition is just as futile as trying to prove we didn't land on the moon.

Question 1: Is the US government an Empire?

History much? Sumerians? Assyrians? Babylonians? Persians? Mongols? How many people did these empires crush? Any idea how the Japanese treated people during their efforts at empire? Read up on the Rape of Nanking, its pretty damn disgusting.

Sooo.... the answer to Question 1 is yes? LOL. I mean wow... what a hostile way to agree with someone! You do realize that this whole paragraph is not a dispute to whether the US government is an empire, but rather an argument that it isn't a bad thing? I'd like you to pay close attention to what I said about empires in the OP. Relax. It'll be quick.

Did you see it? No. Because I didn't say anything negative about empires. In my 3rd post on page 1 I did give a definition of empire. Not included in that definition was the word "evil" or any other term to malign the US simply because it is (which you seem to agree with based on your argument, unless it was hypothetical without a statement of such) an empire. So where did the negativity come from? From me? or you? An "Evil" empire would be an grammatically redundant if empire was evil by necessity. If it isn't necessary for an empire to be evil then you can take all of those evil deeds of other empires out of the equation.

I'll reiterate something for the sake of review.

The more you rob people of their freedom the more they will resist. Therefore, the US preaches freedom while using military and economic force to control people both in named territories as well as de facto territories.

In saying this AND questioning whether it is an empire it should be obvious from my statements that I'm not suggesting that it is an empire JUST LIKE every other empire. We're allowed to evolve by looking back at history and making some different choices. So in terms of size and power I say yes it is an empire. However, in terms of using that power the same way as other empires I have said no which is what allows it to be "an empire in denial". There are other ways to get what you want. It's not all about military force. The US is smart and efficient at building its global interests and this has extended through the use of corporations, economics, and diplomacy. So I'm not the one supplying all the negativity to the term empire. But I'm also not blaming you for doing that. It is the very reason why people would want to deny the application of the term. And the denial is what makes it fertile for a lively debate.

The parallel that I've already stated in the OP that I'm looking at is the Empire in Star Wars.

What was the Empire before Palpatine? A Galactic Senate. The Senate gave "emergency power" to Palpatine in order to act on their behalf.... to represent them much like you would have a "president". Now does this mean I'm saying that the presidents are all evil and there's some conspiracy? Absolutely not. Probably. I don't know. Perhaps an argument could be made. I'm just not sure what that would be since we spend most of our time denying this system we've created to the extent that when it (or parts of it) are subverted by malicious or corrupt people we grow accustomed to it. Not only should we ask Trump voters (Which I actually have btw), but we (as in all because I'm not pointing fingers at individuals) talk to people who don't vote at all and why they feel like their vote doesn't matter.

And I'm not one of those people.

But I will admit that in the last election I voted for the Green party because I knew Republicans would win Ohio and I didn't like Hilary anyway but even more than that, I don't like "corporate democrats" or that whole strategy that ends up being "republican light". So I wanted to send the DNC a message that they need to be more progressive. I supported Bernie and feel like they cheated him during the primary because of how much they wanted Hilary. That support is just a mere 1cm deep surface skim of what corruption can achieve; or what powerful people can do given the right positions and the wrong ideas.

See, the problem with power isn't power itself. It, and consequently my the problem with the system, is corruption.

So if Kyrin (who I happen to really like) wants to accuse me of not liking rich people I laugh and talk about my man crush on Elon Musk. The difference is that Elon Musk appears, at least to me, to have a soul. And I see the benefit of him and his wealth being a positive thing for all of humanity. Trump likes war heroes who weren't captured. I like good people whether they're rich or poor. I don't like bad people whether they are rich or poor. But a bad person with more power is more dangerous than a bad person without power. You can't compare some kid selling weed to El Chappo.

Likewise if someone wants to accuse me of racism I'm going to laugh again and talk about my man crush on Elon Musk who is a white American born and raised in South Africa. I can walk and chew gum at the same time but I can't hate white people and love white people at the same time. I don't like racists, nor do I imagine (because that would be a feat of imagination) all whites being racist. Although, to be honest, there is an argument for that to some degree and that people have a tendency to deny words that they associate as being wrong even if they share some of the same thoughts, feelings, fear, and other behaviors.

The reason I'm concerned about America being an empire, as a patriotic citizen who loves America and, as I said before, think that it is already great and doesn't need to be made "great again" which implies going back to some point in the past which different people seem to have different answers to. And to be quite honest, your answer may differ from others simply because you are not like them and because no racial group is a monolith. Is that okay? So if your racial group is not a monolith then you cannot act as their spokesperson. Trump and his cronies never said when America was great. You're filling in the blank for them and using your vote to do so. And when I tell you of recent experiences involving race and black children being told to go back to the plantation and how I feel this is precipitated by the current administration's position on racial politics and especially "White nationalism" and the equivocation going on... do you really need to presume that I, because I don't like it, must be guilty of being a "black racist?"

And yes, I will deny such a thing exists. And I will tell you why. I don't say this very much because honestly not everyone understands.

Racism is a power dynamic. It is based on a relationship where those who have power exploit those who do not in order to maintain that power and the advantages that come with it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that is common. People think that racism is purely about hatred or dislike. No, that's "prejudice". If you don't like black people because you think they steal or they're dirty or whatever ones' reasons may be, that's not racism. That's prejudice. It is the application of power that makes prejudice racist. You can think your race is better than mine but it really doesn't matter to me if you don't have any power to effect my life as I have no power to affect yours. As a black person I cannot speak for all black people because we are also not a monolith, but generally those who are negative towards whites are not so because of prejudice. If a white woman doesn't want to date them that's fine. Maybe she also doesn't date short people, fat people, bald people, etc. What those who are more negative towards whites are (over)reacting to is the use of authority and power in ways that, without exaggeration, can literally kill us. We're all out here trying to survive; all races. But when you're afraid of the police because you have brown skin and you know that you have to act extra nice and be extra compliant or else you could die... that's not an easy pill to swallow. But it seems like we're asked to swallow it every time we draw attention to negatives and issues in the system that we would LIKE TO FIX... and someone just wants us to shut up and stop complaining and just be too busy loving America and hugging the flag in order to advance civil rights and other causes that would make America better tomorrow than it is today and than it was 20,30,40,50 years ago when other people think it was great.

So no, blacks cannot be "racist" in the sense of what real racism is; a power dynamic. But since words like discrimination and prejudice don't have the same bite as "racist" it is easier and honestly more effective for whites to equivocate on that particular term because then it lessens the burden on the group in power to change when, instead of calling it an empire, we can call it something else or talk about other empires that were more horrible. But what happens when a world power is horrible? Revolution. Of course, there is a certain amount of horror that people can stomach. Look at Russia. There's also a certain amount of revolution an empire can stomach. It's called elections. So yeah... I can perfectly understand the utility of applying the term racist to black people and because the word is so widely misused by all races (notice I said all) then it becomes very forgivable to do so. But intellectually, racism is a power dynamic and that's why it hasn't gone away. It's slowly losing and some racists are feeling it. And that's why they (not you) love Trump and why they just had a march in Dayton, OH.

But i read your subtext and it seems to be only white people who have ever been villains. Or maybe thats not your subtext. Perhaps its my white fragility clouding my judgment? What a conundrum.

Well you said that. I didn't. I would never attack you like that. It is interesting why you read into what I said something so far removed from what I said, but for me it wouldn't be in proper form to discuss any personal motivations because I'm not here to assassinate anyone's character or reputation. I happen to like you even if it doesn't seem like it today. The very idea that one would ever think that whites are the only ones who have ever been villains is like implying that black people are new to this world and only existed as slaves. One would need to be remarkably ignorant. And if I seem so to you then that is the bigger insult. There were black slave owners even in the US. They simply weren't the ones in control of the laws which said that indefinite slavery could be instituted based on a person's color. They didn't have power. And since black people couldn't vote black people couldn't effect the law without the help of whites. And the only way to get their attention was to protest. However, they were also wrong headed.

To be perfectly honest I don't think racist (a qualifier) whites will ever stop being so until the power dynamic shifts to the point where they cannot deny that blacks are entirely equal human beings. And that there is really no difference and they only exploited an advantage that they themselves made up and manifested which all whites do not agree with.

In other words... for example, a poor white guy working a hard job in the South... he may genuinely be afraid of losing his job, his livelihood, and what that would do to his family. And he bands together with other whites who live in the same situation. And because they're not banding together with blacks (who they see themselves competing with) they're injuring their own ability to get what they want and now this whole KKK thing looks super racist and is impotent to those in power who don't think the same way. But in their minds white is right and whites should stick together and look out for each other. You can call it "the good ol boys" or whatever you want. But they think this way without a doubt. And so they think tax cuts for the rich should advantage them over others. I can empathize with them up until the point where their fear of their survival is based on prejudice. They're afraid that there wont be enough white babies. Okay... then procreate only with each other. That's almost an argument pro inbreeding. Diversity is more than great. It's fundamental to human genetics. How does the gene pool pick the best attributes to carry on if you're artificially trying to limit that pool? If I could build a dream woman she'd have features from every race.

But this thread exists because I can see some of the White Nationalist agenda in the white house just as Steve Bannon was a white nationalist. And whatever that means to you, the behavior of white nationalists tends to evoke and intermingle with the agenda of the KKK and the Nazis. If there is a distinction, it's weak. But what to do? Because one side keeps saying "white people did this" and the other side says "white people are that" even good people, I feel like, are confused and keep feeding into these contrived constructs where whites and blacks can be spoken of in monolithic terms. When speaking about historic atrocities it would be better to use national or perhaps even, if applicable, more regional terms like Europeans. Once we start using even the term "Caucasian"... like... do any of you even tell histories of life in the Caucus regions? Or is that simply an attempt to trace the lineage of whites to a point just short of Africa where whites (who choose to) can deny that they too came from Africa and that they too came from African people?

And that is the cruel joke that denial plays upon us because if you came from me how am I superior? How could I be inferior? Do you have special powers that I don't? Did you evolve telepathy or telekinesis? If so, cool, show me. If not, sit down somewhere because you're not special and neither am I.

Racism is simply one dimension of how an empire can be used to cause significant harm when operated by a corrupt person DUI of power. If power corrupts and you give more power to a person who is already corrupt? What do you think will happen? He'll learn to be more "presidential"? We have children separated and dying at the border because some of us appear to believe that our immigration policies are that important, even while extolling the virtues of free markets and competition. If you like competition then let them come. What are you afraid of?

So the problems I see in America I will continue to point out whether folks want to call it a complaint (so they can package it and discard it) or "reverse racism" or whatever other argument that seems to protect corruption because it attacks people for attacking the corruption in our system. Protect the system! Not the corruption. If I start speaking against the Constitution (which you'll never hear) then by all means you should rain holy fire on me. I should be flamed to the fullest extent of flamedom if I did that. But if I'm not doing that... if I'm not saying "hey, who needs police? Let's get rid of them." then maybe my problem isn't with the existence of the police but rather bad policing. And maybe.... just maybe... if I'm not out here saying "white people are bad" then I'm not saying... "white people are bad". Maybe if I say "black lives matter" I'm not saying "White lives don't matter". We get so entrenched sometimes on what we believe to be "our side" that we don't even notice who is on the same side with us. I want more whites to believe that black lives matter and not JUST white lives. That's what that statement is about.

No need to read in between the lines. I'm fighting against corruption. If you're not corrupt then I'm not fighting against you. But if you wont work with me and if you attack me, then YOU ARE IN MY WAY and it becomes easy to draw the conclusion you're part of the problem; part of the very corruption that I am arguing against. Why, as a citizen of the US, should I ever have to demonstrate or even be questioned on the issue of patriotism? Is it because I'm black? Do I question yours? And to me it is patriotic to protest and argue against errors and corruption in the system because THAT, not languishing in eternal do-nothingness, is how you make things better and that, my friends of above average intelligence, is what our founding fathers WANTED. Politicians are supposed to debate the issues before voting on them.

(now if you only consider them to be your founding fathers because you're both white then the problem is greater than perhaps this thread can address, but I don't think in these terms)

All discrimination is abuse of power, and anyone with any nature of power can do it.

I don’t think that the current iteration is an empire in the traditional sense, although in the past it has shared some traits with the historical idea of empires (“Manifest Destiny”, the aftermath of Spanish-American War). What I do believe is that it’s a flawed state, not a utopia, and as a Black woman I am acutely aware of the challenges that people of color have faced and do face in this country. The word I would describe America as is an “experiment”; it’s a constant work in progress.

Oh, this is a fun topic..

I will say that the US government, for all intents and purposes, operates unequivocally as an empire. A democratic one, but an empire in all but name.. in this empire, you get to choose your emperor.

These United States of America no longer function as they were created. The FEDERAL REPUBLIC as designed (a confederate union of equally independent states ceding certain sovereign powers to a higher authority without ceding their overall sovereignty) has been centralized into a despotic democratic empire ruled by a sovereign "city-state" in the District of Columbia. Not in just a few ways, but in all.

Legally, Americans are nationals of DC(federal government) instead of of their States. The States existing as nations themselves since the Declaration of Independence. Exacting complete and total control over the citizens as individuals. Owning their lives, labor, and property. Through this, and other manipulation of the Constitution, DC has centralized all legal authority unto itself..

Economically, Americans are controlled by their "system of credit" and the Central Banksters that control it. A system which, once again, is centralized in DC and is actually said to be independent of it. The shareholders of this system own those who are indebted to it. This system, and the Multinationals attached to it, use the centralized "legal" authority to solidify their power. Keep others from challenging said power. While using that same power to steer the masses in favorable directions.. Hence, we are constantly lead to war..

Militarily? I mean, come on. Over 800 bases around the world. Literal moving air/naval bases deployed halfway across the world securing the rackets of the Multinationals. A Surveillance State that spies foriegn and domestic citizens without cause or warrant and claiming the security of the "state(empire)" as probable cause. The secret wars, domestic experimentation, advanced projects, assassinations, and secret coups.. the centralized control of the militaries of the Several States and the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".. all of which are unconstitutional.. all hallmarks of Imperialism..

Politically, a Union of two parties controlled by one party states. Each vying for ultimate power in DC, to vanquish the other.. at least as the spectacle is presented to us... In reality, these parties are beholden to the same interests and shareholders.. they may change certain aspects, but the core remains intact.. these parties are so entrenched they have actually BECOME the political system.. they serve themselves first, the platform second, the Constitution third if at all..

I could go on about those 3 instances alone. Not to mention the other imperial/despotic institutions that have formed in the US. From unlawful protection of Corporate Personhood to unlawful intrusion of natural persons..

America is an Empire in Denial..

LMAO.. I have one thing to say about this idea of the "all powerful City State of DC".

Legalized Marijuana based on STATE authority, not federal....