Thread by @caitoz

Most people get that the US is imperialist per the conventional definition: projecting power beyond its borders etc. Not enough people get that it's also functionally a literal empire: the hub of a group of nations ruled by a single power structure. It's imperialist AND imperial.

Empire building is what you're seeing when coups are staged and regime change wars launched to bring a nation into alignment with the US-centralized power structure. It's literally adding a new member state to the empire. It keeps its name and flag, but it's imperial property.

When people ask why I talk about "Australia" instead of "America", it makes as much sense to me as saying you should focus on California instead of America. It's a member state of the same empire, added via coup. I just focus on the empire's head.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

International alliances are often thought of as matters of secondary importance, as just something governments do when possible to make themselves a bit safer, wealthier, etc. Actually, uniting nations into one power structure is THE goal, and it's what alliances are really for.

In old empires, powerful countries invaded weaker ones, taking ownership of the territory. In the new empire, the borders and names remain officially the same, but control is handed over in treaties, alliances, trade agreements, power-shifting coups, secret deals, etc.

So when I talk about "the US empire", I'm not being hyperbolic or exaggerating to make a point. I'm talking about the thing that it is, in the only context in which you can explain the major international conflicts today: empire building.

You could say that, but generally it's useful to acknowledge where most of the military firepower, money and "diplomatic" infrastructure is centralized. Otherwise you just look like a wimp who doesn't want to offend the yanks by acknowledging reality.

https://twitter.com/cygnus2112yyz/status/1379930187073208320?s=20

*America instead of Australia