The Empire Strikes Back

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....

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 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....

... And DC still has the power to block it. It's called selective enforcement. It still assumes the federal has supreme jurisdiction. Though there is nothing constitutional about drug prohibition... So, yeah.. still an empire.. and us citizens are still subjects of it.. otherwise, it would be a non-issue..

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 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....

... And DC still has the power to block it. It's called selective enforcement. It still assumes the federal has supreme jurisdiction. Though there is nothing constitutional about drug prohibition... So, yeah.. still an empire.. and us citizens are still subjects of it.. otherwise, it would be a non-issue..

I find it funny that you cite the Constitution in your reply to make your point about drug enforcement and then just assert that we are subjects of an empire when that very same document you used as proof of your point also states that the USA is not an empire but a democratic republic! Cherry picking.

Uzima Moto wrote: 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..

THIS.... is SOOOOO what I'm getting at in this thread. Thank you. Very keen observation and very well said.

And let me, if I may, add to your efficient and powerful points.

When we get defensive about what America is OR WHAT WE ARE; whether one person uses the term "empire" or someone uses the term "racist"... It makes people not want to see themselves as that negative term such to the extent that they don't realize they're not personally being wrapped up or included in that term. The facts are the facts but feelings are very subjective and when people say "its not an empire because it doesn't call itself that" that's very "in my feelings". That's like saying "in my heart of hearts I know that America isn't an empire", which for me is kinda like saying "America never owned slaves".

What does it do for us to deny the facts? Because we're so desperate not to feel bad because of what the truth says about "our" country? And I put our in quotes, not to say it isn't ours, but to say that we didn't individually and singlehandedly devise this scheme. And because we didn't personally devise it we try to cover our eyes (not all of us) and pretend it doesn't exist while people on the opposite end of the spectrum maybe so sensitive to this that they fall for conspiracy theories that have become an industry that preys on fear and distrust of the government.

The people who distrust the government don't hate America, do they? No. They (in their own ways) want to "save" America. But any "salvation" becomes unsuccessful because they cannot convince the mainstream that there is a problem, or a big enough problem, to act and cannot prove their conspiracies to be true. They end up with little or no credibility like what happened to Glenn Beck. There is a strong sense of something being wrong, but most people just think it's corruption.

My issue with America being an empire in denial is that, like the Galactic Senate in SW, the reigns can very easily be taken by an even more corrupt individual who will operate the democratic republic in ways we did not previously think were even possible. People on the right were criticizing Obama as if he were acting like a king. And then they elected Trump who acted like he was a king way before he was ever elected. Royalty are held in high regard, not just because of their extreme wealth and land ownership, but personality. The side in power may not feel it but the other side feels like we're slipping more towards some kind of monarchy where, yes absolutely, you get to "pick" your monarch.

But again, I use pick in quotes because the game has become so much about money that those who already have it have an unfair advantage. Bernie wasn't rich. Hillary came from a perceived royalty because of the Clinton name. Again.... painting with a broad brush. It's not simply about what the dictionary says. I'm talking about behavior and how we perceive these things that words simply represent. What's the difference between a wealthy American and a British royal? How did "royals" become such a thing in the first place? How did they get their crowns? How did they get that kind of reverence? How did it get to the point that they are now simply born with it?

America is like a huge machine. We are the gears and the wealthy, the ruling class, are the operators. And when the wealthy can use their money to buy the vote indirectly (and please let's not pretend campaigns are a fair system) it seems like a system designed by them for this purpose. Maybe it's not. Maybe it didn't start that way. But every system can be hacked and therefore you must constantly and with caution and vigilance, guard and protect the system against attempts to undermine it and coopt it. We failed to do that a long time ago and money has taken over in ways that clearly advantage the wealthy. The US is a system we love, but nonetheless it is a system that can be used for evil depending on who we give "emergency" powers to. And when Trump flirted with using "emergency powers" to enact his own will on the border.... by then I wasn't surprised. I was almost expecting it. This is the danger of being an empire in denial. All that power... corrupted by one or by a handful of corrupt people.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 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....

... And DC still has the power to block it. It's called selective enforcement. It still assumes the federal has supreme jurisdiction. Though there is nothing constitutional about drug prohibition... So, yeah.. still an empire.. and us citizens are still subjects of it.. otherwise, it would be a non-issue..

I find it funny that you cite the Constitution in your reply to make your point about drug enforcement and then just assert that we are subjects of an empire when that very same document you used as proof of your point also states that the USA is not an empire but a democratic republic! Cherry picking.

organisms cannot be defined by their origins.

organisms evolve.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

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...

Lol... first its "mic drop". You can't do that. You can't fail in the act of dropping the mic. That's just wrong.

Secondly, I apologize for not answering sooner. I was in a tornado and have to be selective in my responses for the time being.

thirdly, I do not have to dismiss anyone's definition in order to have my own or share the same view as others. You seem to dismiss the fact that others are out there who share this opinion, including academics which I already posted a link to. When we have differing opinions you can't simply change my mind by stating your opinion. Should I consider you to be more credible than myself or your mind more credible than my own mind? What makes your opinion superior? You need to prove that through intellectual examination, not simply stating your beliefs. And yes, it is a belief. You can call it a fact but this is a "fact in question". You're claiming it is an absolute. I'm saying it's relative. If you can't see it as something relative but rather an absolute which can never change by virtue of some strict measuring stick you're not going to fully see and appreciate why I'm saying its relative. The dictionary is not an absolute measuring stick because it, itself, is relative to the common usage among English speakers. If enough people said an empire can include E, F, G then the dictionary will update to reflect that view. I know. I've been using the dictionary in debates for a long time.

So the thing your argument is missing (whether you accept this or not) are strong reasons why the original/current definition/use of "empire" cannot be changed, expanded, modified, or used in another context. There's a TV show I'm sure you've heard of called "Empire". Trump would definitely consider himself as the head of a Trump "Empire". So the question is, do you see any reason why we cannot be fluid in our use of words? Don't we create new words and change or add definitions all the time? Language itself is in flux. My kids wont let me forget that.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yeet

Now you can think America does the greatest good possible, but I would ask "for who?" Because you can call it whatever you want, but I judge by works. I don't always agree with the bible but there are certain things I definitely agree with as universal truths. For example:

Matthew 7:16-20 King James Version (KJV)
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

and if you don't like the bible then I give you William Shakespeare who, in his play Romeo & Juliet, spoke of names.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

So I implore you, in defending America, don't get so caught up in the role of protector that you never smell America's farts. And yes I just said that. I love America too. In fact, I felt patriotic pride when a stranger stopped to help me clean my property up after the tornado hit. He just wanted to help. That is America too. That's the good part. So all I'm saying to you is PROTECT THE GOOD PARTS of America. But please don't be blind to the bad parts, nor to the potential for corruption or the abuse of power. I believe that it is more America to protect America from both foreign AND DOMESTIC threats. And domestic threats aren't just terrorists but people who would exploit our country for their own greed. But in order to defend America against that kind of threat we HAVE to question and examine America to root out the causes of these things so that we can FIX problems. How can you fix a problem you never admit is there and never go to the doctor check out?

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 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....

... And DC still has the power to block it. It's called selective enforcement. It still assumes the federal has supreme jurisdiction. Though there is nothing constitutional about drug prohibition... So, yeah.. still an empire.. and us citizens are still subjects of it.. otherwise, it would be a non-issue..

I find it funny that you cite the Constitution in your reply to make your point about drug enforcement and then just assert that we are subjects of an empire when that very same document you used as proof of your point also states that the USA is not an empire but a democratic republic! Cherry picking.

organisms cannot be defined by their origins.

organisms evolve.

The United States is not an "organism".

Not much time today so will have to reply more detail later but I leave these thoughts for the weekend. I have never said being an empire is a bad thing or an evil thing or a derogatory thing. I have no prejudice to the term. I have also stated that the reason I define the US as a republic is because that's the way it was defined when founded. I've said the US engaged in empiric activity at times as well, but still it's not an empire. The political turmoil in the country is proof enough of that. An empire would not tolerate such things. So in the end the US is many things, so I will concede that could be callex an empire if you will concede that it can also be called a republic.

ZealotX wrote: My issue with America being an empire in denial is that, like the Galactic Senate in SW, the reigns can very easily be taken by an even more corrupt individual who will operate the democratic republic in ways we did not previously think were even possible. People on the right were criticizing Obama as if he were acting like a king. And then they elected Trump who acted like he was a king way before he was ever elected. Royalty are held in high regard, not just because of their extreme wealth and land ownership, but personality. The side in power may not feel it but the other side feels like we're slipping more towards some kind of monarchy where, yes absolutely, you get to "pick" your monarch.

But again, I use pick in quotes because the game has become so much about money that those who already have it have an unfair advantage. Bernie wasn't rich. Hillary came from a perceived royalty because of the Clinton name. Again.... painting with a broad brush. It's not simply about what the dictionary says. I'm talking about behavior and how we perceive these things that words simply represent. What's the difference between a wealthy American and a British royal? How did "royals" become such a thing in the first place? How did they get their crowns? How did they get that kind of reverence? How did it get to the point that they are now simply born with it?

America is like a huge machine. We are the gears and the wealthy, the ruling class, are the operators. And when the wealthy can use their money to buy the vote indirectly (and please let's not pretend campaigns are a fair system) it seems like a system designed by them for this purpose. Maybe it's not. Maybe it didn't start that way. But every system can be hacked and therefore you must constantly and with caution and vigilance, guard and protect the system against attempts to undermine it and coopt it. We failed to do that a long time ago and money has taken over in ways that clearly advantage the wealthy. The US is a system we love, but nonetheless it is a system that can be used for evil depending on who we give "emergency" powers to. And when Trump flirted with using "emergency powers" to enact his own will on the border.... by then I wasn't surprised. I was almost expecting it. This is the danger of being an empire in denial. All that power... corrupted by one or by a handful of corrupt people.

I just want to point out one thing a wise man once said about this argument. The fear of the American Empire as you explain it is real and I can sympathize with it because it is real. But, you are looking at the shadow. Dewey, (whom I am not a huge fan of philosophically but got some observations right.) stated the government is just the shadow cast upon society by business. This has proven true over and over again, regardless of political leaning. It was this way in the 1800's is still this way now.

Bernie was rich before hand just not as much. Look into his wife's handling of her presidency of the Jr. College she ran, left a soiled taste for them in my mouth.

I ask you to consider this deeply because it is not just one, but many view points that are needed to look for tyranny. Tyranny takes many forms, it is when an undivided citizenry recognizes tyranny that it can be eliminated. Tyranny has no political views, is not interested in laws, people, or ideology. It's only interest itself and it's future the rest are only tools by which it takes hold.

Just somethings to consider when we discuss political view points. There are often many sides of the same story, but seldom different endings.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: 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....

... And DC still has the power to block it. It's called selective enforcement. It still assumes the federal has supreme jurisdiction. Though there is nothing constitutional about drug prohibition... So, yeah.. still an empire.. and us citizens are still subjects of it.. otherwise, it would be a non-issue..

I find it funny that you cite the Constitution in your reply to make your point about drug enforcement and then just assert that we are subjects of an empire when that very same document you used as proof of your point also states that the USA is not an empire but a democratic republic! Cherry picking.

organisms cannot be defined by their origins.

organisms evolve.

The United States is not an "organism".

You persist in trying to be literal with everything but the dictionary disagrees
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organism

organism noun
or·​gan·​ism | \ ˈȯr-gə-ˌni-zəm \
Definition of organism
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
the nation is not merely the sum of individual citizens at any given time, but it is a living organism, a mystical body … of which the individual is an ephemeral part
— Joseph Rossi
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
a multicellular organism

p.s. - you don't need to disagree with everything I say to keep the debate going.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Not much time today so will have to reply more detail later but I leave these thoughts for the weekend. I have never said being an empire is a bad thing or an evil thing or a derogatory thing. I have no prejudice to the term. I have also stated that the reason I define the US as a republic is because that's the way it was defined when founded. I've said the US engaged in empiric activity at times as well, but still it's not an empire. The political turmoil in the country is proof enough of that. An empire would not tolerate such things. So in the end the US is many things, so I will concede that could be callex an empire if you will concede that it can also be called a republic.

I never said it couldn't be called a republic. I don't see these terms as either or so I think we can agree on that aspect of this discussion-which is good because its hard to debate HOW something is doing something (i.e striking back) if others cannot consider it to even be that thing that is doing something.

And just to reiterate... the Galactic Senate in Star Wars was also a republic, correct? Hence "Knight of the Old Republic".

In Episodes I-III part of the story was practically a How To guide in manipulating a Republic to the point that you simply flip a switch and its an empire because you deceive people into giving you the power. I'm not saying Trump is an emperor. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Is he making full use of his power? Yes. Is it flirting with the whole "emergency powers" thing? Not to the extent that Palpatine did or to the extent that he would do away with elections. I'm simply saying there exists a slippery slope that isn't obvious to the naked eye. I will say this. The Constitution of the United States is a brilliant document. Absolutely. And when you go through a disaster like I just did it is easy to see how good many of the American people are. And it is for their sake that we should be concerned. If you love America and what it stands for that means we should be vigilant no matter which party is in power. Because parties can be infiltrated, seduced, and taken over as well. And we can also talk about this too but I believe this has happened to the Republican party.

The American system of government has really great safeguards against the very thing I'm suggesting COULD happen. Again, the checks and balances... brilliant. However, Trump, who used to be a Democrat not very long ago, who doesn't seem to display conservative values or policies, but who appeals to the fear of the Republican base which is large enough to make other politicians fall in line, this guy who is so beloved even though he's actively screwing over the same people he conned into loving him, and who will undoubtedly argue against even this, he's very close to having the influence and power to pull off something similar to what Palpatine did.

I was surprised, honestly, with how the Republicans in Congress got in line. Especially Lindsey Graham. Amazing. And I don't fully disagree with conservative principles and values. But it's like Trump is basically able to get all this power by not having any definite principles or positions, but instead is willing to do whatever "people" want as a populist. And so he starts trade wars and imposes tariffs that hurt Americans but that make him look strong to a lot of people who don't understand the effects of all these policies. They just see him doing these bold moves that other presidents didn't make.

But when Trump started attacking the FBI and the courts people were starting to change their views. Those views equate to "political capital". As long as people are informed this keeps politicians from voting against the people's interests so much that we all lose. However, people's information generally comes from the media which Trump also attacked. At the same time Trump was giving credibility to Alex Jones who has sway over a lot of republican voters through a shared acceptance of conspiracy theories aimed at the elite. At first Trump attacked the elite and said he was going to drain the swamp. But after he got elected he said in a rally that he was one of the elite and of course he hasn't drained the swamp at all. He just filled it with weak people who would do whatever he wanted. And therefore all these positions that are supposed to be somewhat independent and autonomous are just extensions of Trump who is an extension of people like Miller and Bannon and Kushner. When level headed people who, may still be corrupt but not over the top, like Rex Tillerson, when they try to keep some sanity in their positions they get pushed out.

Basically, by staffing the Executive with incompetents and yes men, power is effectively pulled further into the hands of a small cabal. And when you can threaten Congress (who shouldn't be intimidated by the Executive branch because they are co-equal) you now effectively own 2/3 of the government. The ONLY thing really saving us right now from a total Trumpocracy is the Judicial branch. And Robert Mueller has basically said, yes he's guilty but Congress has to prosecute it in the political sphere, but couldn't say guilty without being unfair to someone who isn't even charged yet. And Trump even tried to push him out, lying about his people being a bunch of angry democrats.

So it's like Trump is building a "Death Star" with the power of the US but he can't get past the Judicial branch at least without tweaking things and hiding the intent of the policy like he did with executive order 13769 which was the "Muslim Ban". The thing is that its not necessarily a "conservative" idea to discriminate against a religion or racial or ethnic groups. However, those views do exist within the party to the extent that they have ways of hiding a certain agenda and talking about it publicly only through dog whistles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Let me be clear. Palpatine did a great job hiding his intent. So the lesson there is, if you want power for your own use, you can't tell people your plans. Second lesson is you need to make people afraid of something even if you have to engineer the danger yourself. Third, you pump money into the military and get more people into "patriotism" as a base of support. These same patriots will protect you and possible go against any attempt to wrestle the government out of your hands. And if you need to start a war or even just flirt with one or two people see you as strong and as protecting them. And as long as they feel that danger they will continue to give you power until eventually no one can oppose you.