Afrasianet - Mazen Al Najjar - Supporters of the British Empire realized that the enemies of the Empire were being killed because they refused to fully submit to the king and his demands. Supporters of the American Empire believed that the United States and its allies always attacked the bad guys. 

The European rise took the claims of "geographical discoveries", the principle of just war, the legitimacy of the Roman conquest and conquest, and the white man's burden towards the advancement of primitive and backward peoples, as a pretext for legitimizing conquest and occupation, and as a justification for the permissibility of the world's continents, the extermination of their populations, the displacement of their wealth to the European metropolitan, and the establishment of European settlement entities overseas. 

European imperialism divided the continents of the world, forming empires and enormous wealth, which resulted in the accumulation of the Industrial Revolution and the establishment of capitalism in its systems and chronic crises, accompanied by the establishment of political, legislative and constitutional systems to sustain the capitalist imperialist project, some of which are not in essence far removed from totalitarianism and fascism.

Thus the international order was formed on the basis of colonialism, settlement, violence, continuous plunder, and the permissibility of the world, and thus the pillars of the Western project: imperialism, capitalism, racism, and fascism were explicitly and latently completed. 

Colonialism and colonization

In this context, Australian freelance writer Caitlin Johnston recently questioned the difference between the nature of the American empire and the nature of the British Empire, to provide an important comparison between the two empires in fundamental matters that distinguish well between the characteristics and mechanisms of (old) colonialism and (new) colonialism, or rather "imperialism", as the late Iranian thinker Ali Shariati called it.

One difference between supporters of the British Empire and supporters of the American Empire is that the supporters of the British Empire knew that they were supporting an outright empire.

The supporters of the British Empire also support the mass military massacres it has committed around the world, and they have supported it because they support the British Crown and want His Majesty to bring these atheist savages and elevate them to become worthy subjects of His Majesty, and even to turn the whole world into His subjects. 

Those who support the U.S. empire in its wars around the world believe it is doing so because Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, Muammar Gaddafi is an evil dictator, Carlos Maduro is an evil dictator, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are evil terrorists, and so on.

The supporters of the British Empire realized that the enemies of the Empire were being killed because they refused to fully submit to the king and his demands. While supporters of the American empire believe that the United States and its allies are always attacking the bad guys in the name of spreading freedom and democracy, and if this is done with the aim of advancing pre-existing geostrategic agendas or resource interests, it is purely a coincidence!

Early on, supporters of the British Empire realized that they were living under a real empire: an umbrella of power consisting of colonies, protectorates, spheres of influence, mandates, and territories that stretched across the globe. Supporters of the American Empire believe it is entirely a coincidence that there is a huge bloc of states that moves in near-total harmony on all foreign policy agendas, waging constant wars against countries that are not part of that bloc.

The British Empire was quite frank about what it was. It would invade and occupy any place, inform its inhabitants that they had become British subjects, and force them to fly the British Union Jack flag on the bracelet. The U.S. empire, with its loose, Washington-centric structure, allows its member states to keep their own flags and pretend to be sovereign states, while behaving in ways that are not fundamentally different from the subjects of the British Empire. 

The British Empire was frank and unapologetic about plundering the resources of the dark-skinned peoples it conquered and using those resources to improve the lives of the people at the center of the empire. In the American Empire, however, these resources are extracted in the same way, but under slogans such as "opening markets," "free trade," "globalization," "development," and "investments."

The British Empire was maintained by brute force and public indoctrination. People were subjugated by force, and then educated over the years to believe that living under the British crown served their interests; and if they tried to become independent, special military red vest troops would be sent to remind them of His Majesty's generosity.

The U.S. centrist empire maintains its position with much brute force as well, but its main weapon is psychological manipulation. It possesses the latest propaganda machine that humanity has ever known, and trains the minds of its subjects to support all its diverse agendas of capitalism, militarism, imperialism, and global hegemony, under the guise of news media, Hollywood productions, and Silicon Valley technology services. 

Colourful Revolutions

Here, it is important to remember the American thinker, Joseph Nye, and his 1990 book on the future of American power, "The Determinism of Leadership: The Changing Nature of American Power." Joseph Nye presents his vision of American power and proposes a theoretical framework that distinguishes between two types of power: hard power, i.e., brute force, coercion, and crude indoctrination such as the British Empire, and soft power adopted by the American empire and its elements of propaganda or propaganda, manipulation of minds and hearts, the American dream, and films Hollywood, luxury cars, and Coca-Cola products. 

Ironically, despite the fact that the American empire has fought the largest number of wars, conflicts, and annihilations in the history of the world's empires, Nye believes that American power does not always manifest itself as a hard power, and that soft power, such as diplomacy, alliances, mutual dependence, and broad cultural influence, is enough to sustain American power, and that it remains the dominant global power!

Countries rebelling against imperial control find their information systems overwhelmed with the National Endowment for Democracy's re-education media, which tell them why their current government is not serving their interests, and if that doesn't work, there will be a "revolution" — or rather, "color revolutions," orange or purple greens — that the CIA may admit decades later that it instigated, organized, and financed.

Johnston sees the American Empire as a larger, stronger, more cunning, deceitful, less honest, and more manipulative version of the British Empire. The British Empire informed its subjects that they were the king's property and that they had to obey His Majesty's orders, while the American Empire subdued the people into believing that they were free. 

The Fate of Empires

In 1988, the British historian Paul Kennedy, a professor at Yale University, published his most important work, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," in which he concluded that an economic and political equation that governed the course of the great powers from the sixteenth century to modern history: the great powers and their imperial projects begin to decline or decline when the costs of the empire's projects exceed their military and economic capabilities and realized returns. I recall at the time that Time magazine published a brief story about the book and its thesis in its issue issued a few days after the publication of Kennedy's book Signification: "Warning! Bad news for the great powers." 

It is against this backdrop, in an article two decades ago, that Kennedy invokes the experience of Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister of the British Empire in the era of Queen Victoria. When a country's foreign policy diverges or diverges from its military capabilities, Salisbury warns that it must be careful! When a country's foreign policy goes one way, while its strategic circumstances and practical capabilities go another, it inevitably leads to "disasters, humiliation, and distortion of national reputation." 

These words apply to what American foreign policy has faced in the last two decades, and to what British foreign policy has faced in the nineteenth century.

The United States currently has a declared foreign policy and many major commitments: the new Cold War, the dual containment of China and Russia, the prevention of their alliance and the pursuit of their influence in the world, the protection of Taiwan from Chinese invasion, the attempt to change the ruling regime in Venezuela, the continued attrition of Russia by supporting Ukraine militarily and preventing its defeat, controlling the Levant and the Gulf, deterring Iran and its regional allies following the Israeli-American aggression against it, dismantling Iran's nuclear program, imposing the Trump plan in the Gaza Strip, and controlling insurgency Netanyahu and his disgrace.

Needless to say, these goals are greater than the capacity of the American Empire, and if presented to Lord Salisbury or his great contemporary, the German Chancellor von Bismarck, the first question that comes to the minds of the two men would be: Are there sufficient capabilities to deal with these enormous challenges?!