Muffin1611
Banned
So you're serious with that whole Jewish globalist bankers conspiracy thing that gets regularly picked up by the extreme right and left, huh.
The US Empire doesnt care who is president
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
So you're serious with that whole Jewish globalist bankers conspiracy thing that gets regularly picked up by the extreme right and left, huh.
Welcome to El_tigueres world.
His other positions now make much more sense.
Raven117
Member
While the U.S. does indeed share alot of the blame on this and have been an aggressor when not necessary, our "aggressor" status also comes on the urging of the rest of the world to act as a police power in many areas of the world.
This allows smaller countries (looking at you E.U.), to not have to spend as many tax dollars on the state of the art military and hide behind Germany, England, France, and the U.S., especially the U.S
The U.S. is essentially the army of the West at this point.
This allows smaller countries (looking at you E.U.), to not have to spend as many tax dollars on the state of the art military and hide behind Germany, England, France, and the U.S., especially the U.S
The U.S. is essentially the army of the West at this point.
Barajas_201
Member
I would take a Russian or Chinese empire any day over the US who specifically have wrong my people the most. Having read the article, this parts really speaks to me the most:
I feel dishearten now, but hopefully Trump in his irrational hatred of Mexicans ends NAFTA and we get at least one chain off us. Hopefully.
dripdripsplash
Member
I think I might agree with this. We are better off with one imperial America, killing, maiming, murdering but at least have a facade of protecting human rights, than a world where everyone does it and admits to doing it.
El_Tiguere
Member
In case you missed it from the last page:
And on the whole Rothschild thing, it was a picture I found that listed the seven countries. While the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties STILL operate in the background, global banks are now more in your face about exerting their control without the need to point at shadowy figures who conspiracy theorists love. It's not reptiles or Jews... it's just bankers and investors.
dragonelite
Member
China will probably become the Asian hegemonic power before 2030~2035, don't think they have the ambition to become the global super power like the USA.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Iran becomes one of the great powers in the middle east probably forming a coalition with Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan,
kinda like 21st century Persian empire or a Muslim Union/caliphate.
The question is how will the EU, Israel and India play in this 21st or 22nd century "old world" trade block?
I also wouldn't be surprised if Iran becomes one of the great powers in the middle east probably forming a coalition with Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan,
kinda like 21st century Persian empire or a Muslim Union/caliphate.
The question is how will the EU, Israel and India play in this 21st or 22nd century "old world" trade block?
So you're not an anti-Semite, you just fall for their arguments.
El_Tiguere
Member
I know you are dying to make me guilty by association.
You're putting in all the effort here, not me.
One of the biggest mistakes that Barack Obama made foreign policy wise was to set a hard and fast timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan that 1) was completely unachievable, and 2) gave the Taliban a date to look forward to.
HellforLeather
Member
This is a bullshit ahistorical rant about America being the great Satan while trying to prop up the common socialism pipe dream as the shiny fix for all of our problems. The dude even seemingly advocates for revolution and quotes Marx at the end. Its banal, high school level paper shit.
El_Tiguere
Member
It's not a hard effort to show how global banks collude to expand their power and wealth. There are literally too many instances through history to list, and it is not some anti-Semitic thing (funny how topics like global bankers can't even be discussed before people have a Pavlovian reaction and attack you as an anti-Semite).
All I enjoy doing is following the money, and money runs deep deep in the world since modern banks came to be in the 1600s.
On the topic of US Empire and bringing countries to heel who refuse to play ball with our Western bankers and investors... let us not forget that we started a war in Iraq based on pure propaganda lies pushed at all levels of our government and media. Let us not forget that. Needless to say, that isn't the only war for profit/power which we have been lied about. Far from it. Is this defensible as an empire?
ginger ninja
Banned
Of course USA is an empire. The strongest and the most stable empire in the modern history if not in all of history. Not our fault other nations are weak. I get it makes others jealous, tough titty.
In other words, I am sorry but I couldn't hear you over the sound of star spangled banner that's blasting behind me.
In other words, I am sorry but I couldn't hear you over the sound of star spangled banner that's blasting behind me.
You quoted a Rothschild meme to support an argument. You lose.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
enjoy it while it lasts. The US is a failing super power.
I don't think you understand what being an empire is.
Go check what past empires did to attain and maintain their power.
hint: the iraq invasion is small potatoes.
Muffin1611
Banned
You can criticize the upper class, Wall Street etc. etc. all you want, but choosing the specific conspiracy loony right and leftextremists always use while "totally not being anti-semitic, I didn't even know he was jewish, but it definitely is odd isn't it" or something along these lines does an incredible disservice to your argument.
I hope this is sarcasm :V
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It did, but not enough people noticed or cared. Obama was a good enough president, and that was satisfactory for most. Once that goodwill is built up, it gets harder to get on his case for the USA's institutional imperialism, especially when it might be largely out of his control.
It's always possible, but it's also curious how it always seems counter to the populist rhetoric that gets leaders elected in the first place, as if it was all just lip service all along. It's also curious how these supposed "best options" always tend to favor the military industrial complex and line their pockets with cash.
SprachBrooks
Member
Emmet is an excellent writer.
I read the entire thing, and I feel it was written in pretty bad faith. It does the preaching to the choir thing of telling people who already feel the US is an oppressive power exactly what they want to hear, and is kind of light of facts in describing an alternative, how this came to be, or how it can be dismantled. When it does get into facts, it's either skewed or outright wrong. This line, for example:
It's as if the author conveniently forgot the entire Cold War happened, and what state the world was in after WWII (all of the major powers except for the USSR and US were drained of resources, so those two ended up facing off against each other; because the USSR was an unstable governmental system that relied entirely upon one person, they eventually collapsed, leaving the US at the top).
But of course, instead of discussing what America's role in the world is, let's just link to a Wikipedia page listing wars America has been involved in, ignoring the fact that the Russian list is just as long, if not longer, even when only looking at the 21st century.
The last momentary mention of "socialism can replace the hegemony" is laughable and completely divorced from reality. How would international adoption of socialism be obtained? How do we make sure it doesn't go wrong, like every other macro-scale socialist experiment in history? What about those who don't want socialism, wouldn't forcing them into that system require a hegemony? It's a shame an article like this gets play on GAF, it's not unlike some alt-right site praising some article that Trump is the right person at the right time to bring forth the future or some other insubstantial crap.
It's as if the author conveniently forgot the entire Cold War happened, and what state the world was in after WWII (all of the major powers except for the USSR and US were drained of resources, so those two ended up facing off against each other; because the USSR was an unstable governmental system that relied entirely upon one person, they eventually collapsed, leaving the US at the top).
But of course, instead of discussing what America's role in the world is, let's just link to a Wikipedia page listing wars America has been involved in, ignoring the fact that the Russian list is just as long, if not longer, even when only looking at the 21st century.
The last momentary mention of "socialism can replace the hegemony" is laughable and completely divorced from reality. How would international adoption of socialism be obtained? How do we make sure it doesn't go wrong, like every other macro-scale socialist experiment in history? What about those who don't want socialism, wouldn't forcing them into that system require a hegemony? It's a shame an article like this gets play on GAF, it's not unlike some alt-right site praising some article that Trump is the right person at the right time to bring forth the future or some other insubstantial crap.
It sort of makes sense though, doesn't it? The world's armies caused the issues and the world's armies could potentially be required in whatever the best solution might be. We, as in NATO, could walk away and let other armies do it I suppose but is that better?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Who knows, maybe we should try it someday. Why shouldn't we when our track record of "helping" in the past 50 years has resulted in so many shit outcomes? Or course, it's always possible that the world might actually be even shittier today if it wasn't for America's foreign interventions, but it sounds implausible.
Would the world really be better today if we hadn't armed rebels in Afghanistan who later turned into the Taliban? If we hadn't meddled with and overthrown governments in South America? If we hadn't gotten involved in the Vietnam War? If we hadn't started the Iraq War (both of them)?
Muppet of a Man
Member
It's the military-industrial complex at work.
Of course we are the modern day empire. That's what "superpower" is a euphemism for.
We even clearly state where our economic investments lie in a euphamised manner when our leaders say "It's in America's interest..."
Of course we are the modern day empire. That's what "superpower" is a euphemism for.
We even clearly state where our economic investments lie in a euphamised manner when our leaders say "It's in America's interest..."
You're kinda taking a very biased approach if you only cite the bad outcomes. Would the world have been a better place if the US deserted Europe after WW2 and allowed Stalin to extend the USSR all the way to the English Channel? Would the world have been a better place if Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait? (lol at the US starting that one) If North Korea had been allowed to conquer South Korea? China allowed to conquer Taiwan?
US interaction with the rest of the world since WW2 has been a mixed bag, no doubt. As a European, I still prefer JFK and Reagan over Stalin and Mao any day of the week.
That doesn't actually justify that graph.
Also the significantly more important Bank of England and Bank of Scotland already existed by that point. France was not the center of finance up to the Waterloo, it was England (later Britain) and the Netherlands from 1700-1745 and Britain from 1745- 1944.
El_Tiguere
Member
Once we all get past Civ5 games of world domination, real-life military contractors and investors pushing for toppling entire governments to replace them with friendly ones is NOT a mandate of any one nation. We have done it over and over and over again since WWII, and we are now paying the heavy price (the rise of terrorism).
In essence, FUCK "attaining and maintaining power" since it only means power hungry sociopaths wanting to expand their yearly profits by capturing even more markets, ultimately resulting in mass death and chaos.
Let's look it up real quick...
http://www.economicreason.com/usdol...ppened-during-previous-periods-of-transition/
Empires always collapse from within, never from without. Past Empires collapsed because of internal issues that basically made continuing Empire untenable. Britain was in no condition economically to continue the British Empire because of WWII. The French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte pretty much killed off the French Empire. And it goes all the way back to even Rome which also ultimately collapsed due to internal issues.
It can be said that the American Empire is beginning its collapse right now. America is much too divided politically and socially right now and with an incompetent president to not begin its collapse. One singular Trump is not going to gum up America's Imperial Machine too much, but multiple people like Trump, each elected one after the other, is almost certain to cause the collapse of the American Empire.
It can be said that the American Empire is beginning its collapse right now. America is much too divided politically and socially right now and with an incompetent president to not begin its collapse. One singular Trump is not going to gum up America's Imperial Machine too much, but multiple people like Trump, each elected one after the other, is almost certain to cause the collapse of the American Empire.
El_Tiguere
Member
EXACTLY THIS. We are going the way of Rome, so our generation needs to be prepared to live through times similar to those around 1776, 1865, and 1945.
Some possible precipitating factors are already in place. How the West reacts to them will determine the world's future, says Rachel Nuwer.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse
Stalin and Mao haven't been a factor for over half a century and there have been no global power challenging US+European military and economic hegemony since the late 80's, yet for some reason we are still dropping bombs on brown people, exploiting cheap labor in the global south, meddling with sovereign elections, the NSA spying on every single global citizen who access a European and US server, and killing foreigners without due process based on big data algorithms, because the US and Europeans don't care about Arab people. Also, while invading and bombing an entire region, we'll have some talks that obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with Islam, because look how crazy all these Arabic people are acting. And then there's of course the guilt of climate change that also historically lies on the US, Australia, and Europe, so when shit is going to go down, you know who will be to blame.
Whatever cold war fear people have is long gone and there has been no reason for the continued military empire of the US and EU, yet almost 3 decades after the so-called end of history, the deaths and pain and misery caused by US and the EU continue to be reproduced. And defended as an abusive husband, but instead of beating his wife, he oppresses, exploits and murders thousands of people.
The US and the European countries (the former colonialist ones, at least) are the biggest hypocrites and this continued acceptance and apologia of the murder of other people by self-identifying progressives is sickening.
Starfish_Oxide
Member
Oligarchy. How does it work.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
The problem is, in the real world, I don't think this mindset will ever end. It would literally take an actual worldwide police that could forcibly strongarm people into complying with that world view. All we're seeing is unbridled human nature on a globalised scale. The game of empires has always followed the same rules: someone WILL have power and use it, whoever takes the most power suffers the least. I'd argue America has been one of the most benevolent, human-rights centered empire of known history. Is it great? No, there could be better, much better, but human nature always gets in the way of progress and the whole world is seeing some backslide right now.
That's not a reliable source. At all. (Tellingly, it doesn't even mention the French franc when talking about France's role in the geopolitical landscape in the very same page. Until the introduction of decimal-based currency during the Revolution, France's currency was regularly manipulated by the royalty. They printed coins that had no values on them. You've have to be crazy to use it as a reserve currency like we use them now.)
You can just admit you have no clue what you're on about. It's obvious to everyone else already.
andythinkpad
Member
You will care when he set Rome on fire.
This reads like some college kid becoming "woke" and blaming the world's problems on the US and capitalism.
The truth is, the world is a better place with the American "empire" than it has been in any other time in history. It promotes global trade and thus world peace.
Also socialism is a failed idea no matter how many times a new excuse is brought forward about why a socialist country failed again.
One last thing, the post-WWII era is unlike any thing we have seen in human history, so you can't really compare the "American Empire" to past empire to predict its collapse.
The truth is, the world is a better place with the American "empire" than it has been in any other time in history. It promotes global trade and thus world peace.
Also socialism is a failed idea no matter how many times a new excuse is brought forward about why a socialist country failed again.
One last thing, the post-WWII era is unlike any thing we have seen in human history, so you can't really compare the "American Empire" to past empire to predict its collapse.
ginger ninja
Banned
People have been saying this perhaps since the 70's. At this rate, I will be enjoying it for a while.
lol
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
I just want to add, anyone that says they'd prefer China, Russia, or India to be on top, I think are fooling themselves. All of them are money and power first without ANY of the concerns for human rights that a lot of the west at least attempts to strive for sometimes. These are almost literally dog-eat dog governing philosophies that claim order within their own border through force and coercion.
My post was a counter-argument to one that directly cited Cold War conflicts, so I'm not sure how yours relate to it. Your argument also feels something like 15 years out of date - the US isn't a hegemonic power anymore, and with each passing day we move closer and closer to a truly multipolar world. And one that for the first time in 500 years or so won't be completely western-dominated, but rather have the west as one or two factions (depending on how well the US and EU get along post-Trump).
I perfectly agree about your cited examples being atrocious. At the same time, I'm pretty sure they're inherent to any power strong enough to commit them. They're not uniquely western even - the USSR did the exact same thing (hypocrisy included) and Russia is right back at doing them right now, they just needed to grow strong enough. China will probably go the same route, as will India and the other future great powers. History proves as much.
El_Tiguere
Member
This is absolutely true also, as in we live in a rock where we can't control the actions of others. The primary question here I guess is whether the US has used its power to bolster peace around the world (the Middle East policy says NO), has it used its wealth to make others better off (Latin America and Haiti say NO), has it collaborated with other world powers to make the world safer (nukes and ISIS say NO), etc. etc. etc.
We then go back to the simple realization that there has been a dark group of Americans since WWII that have grossly profited from military incursions into other nations. This group willingly lies and murders people for the sake of these power-grabs.
We have to all be vigilant and come to terms with the difference between benevolent Empire making to ensure our survival, and the sociopath power games the wealthy play among each other for macabre competition.
Fuchsdh said:
Go read who John Law is and his role in France, and come back to me.
US hegemony (NEO-COLONIALISM) based on US debt servitude is as real as American pie. It can be argued that the military is the usual enforcer of last resort when countries don't play ball (Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a great read for this).
One hilariously SAD thing many people didn't notice about the SEVEN countries targeted by Trump for his travel ban:
So here is General Wesley Clark right after 9/11 listing the same SEVEN countries targeted by the US empire going forward (Yemen made the travel ban list because Saudi Arabia wants to cleanse the Shiites there):
Could there be anything related to global bankers and the US empire about those countries? Why are they the targets? Time to take out and put on those tinfoil hats!!!
It didn't cause it. It just marked the end for that particular reserve currency being used as the global reserve currency.
Can you please elaborate on what a "Rothschild-owned central bank" is?
Good news everybody, the US doesn't care about the global system anymore, if you believe Peter Zeihan.
http://zeihan.com/north-korea-part-iii-why-i-already-worry-about-south-korea/
Im not exactly sure if the US is willing to completely renegotiate or upend Bretton Woods; after all global leadership as a claim is still pretty useful.
But the long term trend from 1991 to now fits the pattern and current events dont seem to indicate otherwise
http://zeihan.com/north-korea-part-iii-why-i-already-worry-about-south-korea/
Im not exactly sure if the US is willing to completely renegotiate or upend Bretton Woods; after all global leadership as a claim is still pretty useful.
But the long term trend from 1991 to now fits the pattern and current events dont seem to indicate otherwise
lol
Care to explain how that all relates to your idea that the franc was the world's reserve currency of the late 18th century? Boom-bust economic cycles with government-backed paper currency is not novel and doesn't intrinsically relate to your earlier point.
That poster appears to be making arguments in bad faith.
How are either of those things wrong? We have not had a single global conflict in 70 years, all these conflicts today are tiny compared to pre-WW2 conflicts.
Also, name one time socialism has worked.
dragonelite
Member
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's not, strictly speaking, socialism.