Saturday, March 1, 2014

Expanding the Empire

Michael S. Rozeff has written the most comprehensive and succinct post regarding the US Empire that I have read.  I will highlight and comment upon a couple of sections of his post, and end with only one slight modification to his statements:

The people running the U.S. government and shaping its foreign policies at any given time generally choose friends and enemies on the basis of what will expand U.S. influence, control, power and dominance, i.e., what will expand the empire.

It isn’t for oil; it isn’t for spreading democracy; it isn’t to alleviate the suffering of women or children.  Foreign policy and the wars that go with it have one common thread, and only one – expanding control.

There is no need to be puzzled by such seeming inconsistencies as the U.S. sometimes supporting terrorists and other times fighting them; or the U.S. being anti-Nazi and yet supporting at times right-wing governments, dictators and death squads. There is no need to be puzzled by the support of democracy in one country and paying no attention to it in another or even undermining it. There is no need to be puzzled by the U.S. seeming to support the aspirations of one people while ignoring the rights of another people, including American citizens. There is no need to be puzzled by the immense hypocrisies of U.S. officials. The reason for all of this is that ideology is being made to serve the underlying purpose of the empire’s maintenance and expansion.

There is only one common thread: expanding control.

My one modification?  Referring to the empire building, Mr. Rozeff writes:

That, in turn, has material, ideological and semi-religious roots that go way back to the late 19th century and to the Manifest Destiny ideas that came before. It has some racist roots that go back to the late 19th century, in which the U.S. civilization was deemed superior to others and thought to be destined, even by God, to spread over the whole world.

Mr. Rozeff views empire through a US lens, when in fact it is broader and deeper – at minimum an Anglo-American lens.  Before Manifest Destiny there was the British push to the New World; before the US civilization was deemed superior and destined by God, it was the British.

I have written often about this; a good starting point is Stead.


  1. You can see who US friends and enemies are by which countries have joined the globalist economic system and which countries put up barriers.

    So China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia are full members of the globalist club so the US government avoids mentioning that they are dictatorships. While countries like Venezuela, Russia, Iran have put up barriers and so are the enemy even though they have much more democracy and freedom then in China, Vietnam or Saudi Arabia.

    Russia is an interesting case, on the days that it signs economic deals the globalist like then it gets praised, when it does not its condemned and called a dictatorship. It has nothing to do with elections or freedom of the press, religion etc, its all about joining the globalist club.

    Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain to put down protests against the dictatorship and the US did nothing. The last time the US said anything about Chinese lack of democracy was when that blind Chinese dissident showed up at the US embassy and they had to say something and now that dissident is in the US but gets no press or support from the US government, he is silenced more effectively then he was in China. The Vietnamese dictatorship is courted by the US and is in line to be a member of the new TPP “free trade” agreement.

    All talk by the US/UK/EU about democracy and freedom is just talk and used against anyone who does not sign up for globalism.

    1. This is also my view - nations that adopt a framework of regulation that allows for elite skimming of wealth via control.

      If it is under the guise of democracy, so much the better - but not mandatory outside of the enlightened populations of the west (who naively believe that voting gives them control).

      However, the cases of both Russia and China are interesting. It strikes me that there is ongoing conflict about who is to receive how much of the skinning.

      Perhaps neither the leadership in Russia or in China believe that an Anglo-elite is entitled to more than a token share. The Anglo-elite likely disagree.

  2. This book is well worth a read.

    Read for free by clicking the following URL.,1944.pdf

  3. This is a very telling quote from Sir Edmund Burke at the time of the American Revolution:
    "If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a
    surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has
    performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt
    not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself.
    She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must
    be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially.
    For that service - for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest in the British
    Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred
    blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as
    links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, they
    will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance."
    In my opinion, the US has always had a hegemonic relationship with Britain and still has. Britain controlled both sides of the Revolution:
    Yes that right, King George took control of the debt the US owed to France so controlled both sides of the War. Why does King George mention the Treaty of Paris 1783, that he is King of France?

    1. This is very good. Thank you for posting this here.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Why does King George mention the Treaty of Paris 1783, that he is King of France?

    Because the King of England has claimed that title since William the Conqueror. They renounced it in the nineteenth century.

    1. Yes but there is more to it. The key word in your sentence is "claimed". The word I would use is "Suzerainty".