It's not like they're the controlling power behind the scenes of the international hedgemon. They're a person commenting on HN. Calm the drama.

I don’t get your point. Should Americans not want to improve the position of America? Make America Great, so to speak?

I believe this poster is viewing this statement by another Hn poster as official confirmation that US foreign policy has been driven a single mission of subjugating other countries. I disagree with this view.

The US is powerful on the international stage because the US is not an empire. US global power is based on the US being a mostly fair dealer. This is extraordinarily rare in world history and extremely powerful because it transforms a zero sum international competition game into a game where most countries are invested in the success of most of other countries.

Most of human history follows the logic of "The further off from England the nearer is to France" and that is why most of human history is soaked in blood.

Until this year, Europe didn't worry about war with the US. This meant that Europe didn't have to consider the risks that trading with the US or buying US weapons would weaken them relative to the US in a future conflict.

----

Melians: "And how pray, could it turn out as good for us to serve as for you to rule?"

Athenians: "Because you would have the advantage of submitting before suffering the worst, and we should gain by not destroying you."

Melians: "So [that] you would not consent to our being neutral, friends instead of enemies, but allies of neither side?"

Athenians: "No; for your hostility cannot so much hurt us as your friendship will be an argument to our subjects of our weakness and your enmity of our power."

> The US is powerful on the international stage because the US is an empire.

There, I fixed that for you.

I suggest you avoid using words that you do now know that meaning of if you want to be able to add anything meaningful to a discussion

Care to provide any evidence for your claim? At the very least put in the work to redefine the word empire to have such a broad and expansive definition that the US would qualify

Multiple definitions I guess. NATO countries are very much part of the US empire but pretty much all the countries that we have military bases in would be part of a looser definition of the US empire.

We can control international relations that most of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea have to a fairly strong degree.

I would say this along with us having had fairly strong influence in the economies of these countries historically and our ability to easily coordinate military operations with them make these countries part of the US empire.

And yet NATO countries can leave NATO. Until subject states in an empire countries want to join NATO, not exit it.

But sure, that is the expansive redefinition of the word I was looking for.

Maintaining an empire will destroy your society in the long run. What’s good for America in the long run is a country populated by americans, producing and consuming goods and services made by other americans within the umbrella of the same democratic polity.

“ a country populated by americans, producing and consuming goods and services made by other americans within the umbrella of the same democratic polity.”

Which is a fine vision. Of course, Americans will have to consider why the goods on our shelves are so plentiful and so cheap.

All we are doing is making America weaker on the global scale while you cling to this fantasy.

But to be clear, in this fantasy, do you acknowledge and accept that costs for Americans are going to up? Things are going to get more expensive across the board for Americans?

Do you trust that this administration is competent enough to protect American companies?

are you including immigrants from africa in your def of who these "americans" should be?

What's good for Americans (everyone really) is easy, open access to huge global markets, where economies of scale and differentiation can bring the most prosperity. There's no reason Americans, Brits, Swedes, Italians, Singaporeans and so on can't do this. The handful of bad (albeit powerful) actors shouldn't stop this.

Is that from the protocols? What would you know about society and empire? You’re just some dork on the internet too much.

The premise is the leaders of America since WW2 have been focused on things outside America for too long, hence "America First" and "Make America Great Again."

Sorry bud, I think that's just your tinnitus, not a dog whistle.

They were no need to play the antisemite card. Nothing in the original comment suggests it.

Few people use “globalist” in the 1940s sense these days, but it is widespread among far-right conspiracy theorists, many of whom use it to refer to Jews while leaving room to claim they weren’t - similar to how often Soros is mentioned in contexts he has no other connection to. That doesn’t mean that anyone who uses it is definitely engaged in anti-semitism but it forces the reader to have to question whether it’s being used for multiple reasons.

The point of dog whistles is that most people can't hear them.

"Globalists" is a dog whistle. But sometimes people do also literally mean "people in favor of globalism".

Massive over reaction here

In all current discourse, unironic use of the term "globalist" means jew. That's not a supposition or an overreaction. The terms are used interchangeably by the only group of people who actually says "globalist" with any regularity.

I think sir, you need to “touch grass” as the kid’s say.

You could have picked up any poli sci book or audited any international-focused poli sci class any time in the last... I dunno, a bunch of decades, and there'd have been a lot of talk about American hegemony, how maintaining that drives a ton of her actions, and what benefits that hegemony brings to the US or others (and the costs). It's, like, a central topic of the whole field, and unipolar hegemony has been the basic framework of contemporary international relations study since the USSR collapsed (with a side-topic of "what about China?" rising in prominence over the years, and their struggle to bring a return to a dual-power system becoming a major topic in the last couple decades)

This isn't secret knowledge, it's like the first thing covered after "what even is International Relations?" It's the 2+2=4 of the topic.