I Have A Theory About That

But the system will be unchanged. And it will happen again, generation upon generation. Whenever the empire feels its grip loosening, we'll get a "mad man" who wants to flip the board rather than losing U.S. hegemony and "good guys" who will let him do it, because they don't want to lose it either.

Once the U.S. feels secure in its ability to control/exploit its southern neighbors, it then gets to recoil in horror about how that security was achieved. The people get to go back to electing the "good guys" and feel like the system has changed for the better, that we've learned something.

Doing that under a democratic administration would be difficult. The only way the people might tolerate that level of adventurism is if it could be spun as an anomaly, caused by one mad man deviating from our foundational principles...rather than the truest expression of those principles.

The entire capitalist class has known for years that the "war" with China is over along with U.S. global hegemony. They also knew their contingency plan--tightening the US grip on the western half of the world--would require incredible violence and human rights violations.

This kidnapping operation started at least 16 months, so that'd be under the Biden administration. This feeds into my larger theory that the DNC never intended to win in '24. Because they, with all other empire managers, knew what the U.S. was going to have to do to salvage some of its hegemony.

U.S. attempted to lure Maduro’s pilot into betraying the Venezuelan leader A federal agent had a daring plan: persuade Nicolas Maduro's chief pilot to surreptitiously divert the Venezuelan president’s plane to a place where U.S. authorities could nab the strongman.

In WWI, the U.S. pursued hegemony in the western hemisphere [see: fighting "communism" in South/Central America] to secure supply lines cut off by the war in Europe. For 2+ years, *the Pentagon* (not the Rs or the Ds) has been pursuing what appears to be the exact same plan. pbs.org/newshour/wor...

First it was housing. Then it was our 401ks. Now they're trying to force us into investing in their takeover of our water and energy sources. This also, probably, serves their AI investments by ensuring AI data centers aren't held accountable/charged for draining our energy resources dry.

Private Equity Is Coming for Public Utilities While extending its tentacles elsewhere, private equity has mostly stayed away from electric utilities because they often don’t yield quick returns. A BlackRock subsidiary’s campaign to take over a re...

Why is private equity buying public utilities? jacobin.com/2025/08/priv... My theory: they want to be the new slave masters. They know US consumer buying power will keep tanking and plan to keep profits up by further inserting themselves as middlemen gatekeeping life necessities.

Is misogyny just a thing that happens in some societies? Or is it an intentionally cultivated rot necessary for empires to expand? A sociocultural evolution theory on misogyny as military tech for expansionist empires.

"Great replacement theory" is the ultimate expression of the phrase: every accusation is a confession.

It’s funny how the same people who say “nobody living actually committed those awful crimes of the past, why should *we* pay for *their* crimes?” are the SAME people who say “*we* should have committed more crimes in the past than *we* did.” (emphasis added)

Radical Unlearning by Lewis Raven Wallace: 9780807014882 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books A road map for rewiring our brains to unlearn harmful beliefs, heal broken bonds, and transform our communities The beliefs that hold us back—inherited prejudices, self-limiting thoughts, destructive...

I was lucky to read an advance copy of my friend & colleague @lewispants.bsky.social's new book Radical Unlearning. I cannot recommend this book enough. FACTS do NOT trump BELIEF and this book helps explain why. But it does much more than that by sharing stories of people who have changed beliefs.

So, if you still think that conservativism is ideologically competitive, that its popularity is a sign of its merit...well, I've got a bridge to sell you Indonesia. /end

Because that's how empires respond to real threats: with preemptive, comprehensive, well-funded, and persistent efforts to stamp them out. It doesn't do this with right-wing extremism because right-wing ideas aren't a threat to empire, they're its tools.

It funds institutions, organizations, outlets, and entire armies to fight the red scare. And it has murdered millions - perhaps billions - in the process. All to keep progressive politics at the fringes and ensure the empire functions uninterrupted.

It has couped or assassinated democratically elected leaders around the world for merely suggesting anything akin to progressive reforms. It has funded or trained color revolutions, dictators, and death squads in nations failing to adequately stamp out leftist movements.

It has done the same to Indigenous sovereignty movements, Puerto Rican independence groups, student protesters, unions, queer rights groups, feminist organizations, animal rights activists, anti-war activists, and climate activists, among others.

Just think about it. Has the US ever waged a multi-decade global campaign to stomp out white nationalism? Nope. But it has waged a century-long campaign against communism, socialism, and anarchism. It has surveilled, entrapped, prosecuted, or murdered black liberation activists.

None of the ideas that circulate in right-wing ideologies pose this sort of challenge to empire. They may be enormously harmful to individuals, communities, and national security. But even their most extreme ideas serve only to reinforce the Empire's structure of power.

Only leftists are advocating for expanded voting rights that might give the people power over their government, economic policies that offer more choices than motherhood, low-wage labor, or military service.

Only in leftist ideologies do we find ideas truly threatening to Empire. Ideas that might take control over geopolitical decisions out of elite hands. Ideas that challenge the existing class- and racial-hierarchies empire relies on for a steady supply of "cheap" labor.

Anything that endangers this industrial capacity or the Empire's ability to exert its dominance internationally, represents an existential threat to the Empire's operations that must be eradicated.

This is why we are constantly involved in warfare, that justifies the budget expenditures on weapons, that justifies the production of weapons. It's also why our government seems to always prioritize the welfare of certain business sectors above the needs or desires of the public.

Specifically, this level of preparedness means more than a big military budget for equipment, facilities, and soldiers. It means artificially ensuring that the industries which produce war-necessary goods maintain a high enough production capacity that they can fulfill war-time needs at all times.

Maintaining global dominance comes with some other effects. For one thing, it means functionally being prepared to wage war anywhere in the world at any time. And that requires control over the money, people, and industries necessary to maintain preparedness for total war at all times.

But the US doesn't want to rely on trust. It doesn't want to negotiate or be judged on its reputation: it wants to force countries into exploitative deals under the shadow of our gunships and the ability to break its deals with impunity whenever its advantageous. So America chooses dominance.

In theory, there are two ways to approach geopolitics: diplomacy and dominance (though in practice it's usually a mix). The first relies on negotiation and requires trust. And trust - e.g. that a nation will stick to the terms of an agreement - means vulnerability.

What is its agenda? To grossly oversimplify, it's agenda is geopolitical domination or what they'd call "national security." What they actually mean by this isn't security from external threats, but the ability to impose its will on the world and act with impunity at a geopolitical scale.

Rightwing ideologies certainly threaten individuals and communities. But even their most extreme ideas pose no risk to the Empire's function or agenda.

It's actually quite simple: one type of ideology incorporates ideas that pose a threat to the American empire. The other type reinforces it.