Who said we re an empire now

Is it reasonable to compare the British and Achaemenid empires with this metric? Or are we comparing apples to oranges? Related: Why did Rome fall? That's without getting into the pros and cons of the other ways to measure size: largest land mass; largest contiguous land mass; largest army; largest gross domestic product; and so on. Instead, we should use a metric to measure long-term influence and stability, said Martin Bommas, an Egyptologist and director of the Macquarie University History Museum in Sydney, Australia, because it's one thing to embark on warring campaigns to amass land, but it takes a different set of logistical skills and infrastructure to keep and administer those territories.

That prosperity can then be exploited so that resources and wealth can be sent back to the motherland, Bommas said. The growth of the principle of self-government, planted on American soil, has been the overshadowing political fact of the nineteenth century.

It has made this nation conspicuous among the nations and given it a place in history such as no other nation has ever enjoyed. Nothing has been able to check the onward march of this idea. I am not willing that this nation shall cast aside the omnipotent weapon of truth to seize again the weapons of physical warfare. I would not exchange the glory of this republic for the glory of all the empires that have risen and fallen since time began.

The permanent chairman of the last republican national convention presented the pecuniary argument in all its baldness when he said:. While we regard the welfare of these people as a sacred trust, we regard the welfare of the American people first.

We see our duty to ourselves as well as to others. We believe in trade expansion. By every legitimate means within the province of government and constitution we mean to stimulate the expansion of our trade and open new markets.

This is the commercial argument. It is based upon the theory that war can be rightly waged for pecuniary advantage, and that it is profitable to purchase trade by force and violence. Franklin denied both of these propositions. When Lord Howe asserted that the acts of Parliament which brought on the Revolution were necessary to prevent American trade from passing into foreign channels, Franklin replied:.

I consider this war against us, therefore, as both unjust and unwise. I place the philosophy of Franklin against the sordid doctrine of those who would put a price upon the life of an American soldier and justify a war of conquest upon the ground that it will pay. The democratic party is in favor of the expansion of trade. It would extend our trade by every legitimate and peaceful means; but it is not willing to make merchandise of human blood. But a war of conquest is as unwise as it is unrighteous.

A harbor and coaling station in the Philippines would answer every trade and military necessity and such a concession could have been secured at any time without difficulty. It is not necessary to own people in order to trade with them.

We carry on trade today with every part of the world, and our commerce has expanded more rapidly than the commerce of any European empire. We do not own Japan or China, but we trade with their people. We have not absorbed the republics of Central and South America, but we trade with them. It has not been necessary to have any political connections with Canada or the nations of Europe in order to trade with them. Trade cannot be permanently profitable unless it is voluntary.

When trade is secured by force, the cost of securing it and retaining it must be taken out of the profits and the profits are never large enough to cover the expense. Such a system would never be defended but for the fact that the expense is borne by all the people, while the profits are enjoyed by a few. Imperialism would be profitable to the army contractors; it would be profitable to the ship owners, who would carry live soldiers to the Philippines and bring dead soldiers back; it would be profitable to those who would seize upon the franchises, and it would be profitable to the officials whose salaries would be fixed here and paid over there; but to the farmer, to the laboring man and to the vast majority of those engaged in other occupations it would bring expenditure without return and risk without reward.

Farmers and laboring men have, as a rule, small incomes and under systems which place the tax upon consumption pay more than their fair share of the expenses of government. Thus the very people who receive least benefit from imperialism will be injured most by the military burdens which accompany it. In addition to the evils which he and the farmer share in common, the laboring man will be the first to suffer if oriental subjects seek work in the United States; the first to suffer if American capital leaves our shores to employ oriental labor in the Philippines to supply the trade of China and Japan; the first to suffer from the violence which the military spirit arouses and the first to suffer when the methods of imperialism are applied to our own government.

It is not strange, therefore, that the labor organizations have been quick to note the approach of these dangers and prompt to protest against both militarism and imperialism.

The pecuniary argument, though more effective with certain classes, is not likely to be used so often or presented with so much emphasis as the religious argument. We cannot approve of this doctrine in one place unless we are willing to apply it everywhere. If there is poison in the blood of the hand it will ultimately reach the heart. It is equally true that forcible Christianity, if planted under the American flag in the far-away Orient, will sooner or later be transplanted upon American soil.

If true Christianity consists in carrying out in our daily lives the teachings of Christ, who will say that we are commanded to civilize with dynamite and proselyte with the sword? He who would declare the divine will must prove his authority either by Holy Writ or by evidence of a special dispensation.

Love, not force, was the weapon of the Nazarene; sacrifice for others, not the exploitation of them, was His method of reaching the human heart. A missionary recently told me that the stars and stripes once saved his life because his assailant recognized our flag as a flag that had no blood upon it. Let it be known that our missionaries are seeking souls instead of sovereignty; let it be known that instead of being the advance guard of conquering armies, they are going forth to help and uplift, having their loins girt about with truth and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, wearing the breastplate of righteousness and carrying the sword of the spirit; let it be known that they are the citizens of a nation which respects the rights of the citizens of other nations as carefully as it protects the rights of its own citizens, and the welcome given to our missionaries will be more cordial than the welcome extended to the missionaries of any other nation.

The argument made by some that it was unfortunate for the nation that it had anything to do with the Philippine islands, but that the naval victory at Manila made the permanent acquisition of those islands necessary, is also unsound.

We won a naval victory at Santiago, but that did not compel us to hold Cuba. The shedding of American blood in the Philippine islands does not make it imperative that we should retain possession forever; American blood was shed at San Juan Hill and El Caney, and yet the president has promised the Cubans independence.

The fact that the American flag floats over Manila does not compel us to exercise perpetual sovereignty over the islands; that flag waves over Havana today, but the president has promised to haul it down when the flag of the Cuban republic is ready to rise in its place.

Better a thousand times that our flag in the Orient give way to a flag representing the idea of self-government than that the flag of this republic should become the flag of an empire.

There is an easy, honest, honorable solution of the Philippine question. It is set forth in the democratic platform and it is submitted with confidence to the American people.

This plan I unreservedly indorse. A European protectorate often results in the plundering of the ward by the guardian. An American protectorate gives to the nation protected the advantage of our strength, without making it the victim of our greed. For three-quarters of a century the Monroe doctrine has been a shield to neighboring republics and yet it has imposed no pecuniary burden upon us.

After the Filipinos had aided us in the war against Spain, we could not honorably turn them over to their former masters; we could not leave them to be the victims of the ambitious designs of European nations, and since we do not desire to make them a part of us or to hold them as subjects, we propose the only alternative, namely, to give them independence and guard them against molestation from without.

When our opponents are unable to defend their position by argument they fall back upon the assertion that it is destiny, and insist that we must submit to it, no matter how much it violates our moral percepts and our principles of government. This is a complacent philosophy. It obliterates the distinction between right and wrong and makes individuals and nations the helpless victims of circumstance. Destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate, who, lacking the courage to oppose error, seeks some plausible excuse for supporting it.

Washington said that the destiny of the republican form of government was deeply, if not finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the American people. The Republicans say that this nation is in the hands of destiny; Washington believed that not only the destiny of our own nation but the destiny of the republican form of government throughout the world was entrusted to American hands.

Washington was right. The destiny of this Republic is in the hands of its own people, and upon the success of the experiment here rests the hope of humanity. No exterior force can disturb this Republic, and no foreign influence should be permitted to change its course.

Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, I can never fully discharge the debt of gratitude which I owe to my countrymen for the honors which they have so generously bestowed upon me; but, sirs, whether it be my lot to occupy the high office for which the convention has named me, or to spend the remainder of my days in private life, it shall be my constant ambition and my controlling purpose to aid in realizing the high ideals of those whose wisdom and courage and sacrifices brought the republic into existence.

I can conceive of a national destiny surpassing the glories of the present and the past — a destiny which meets the responsibilities of today and measures up to the possibilities of the future. Behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth — a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world the self-evident propositions that all men are created equal; that they are endowed with inalienable rights; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Behold a republic standing erect while empires all around are bowed beneath the weight of their own armaments — a republic whose flag is loved while other flags are only feared. Behold a republic increasing in population, in wealth, in strength and in influence, solving the problems of civilization and hastening the coming of an universal brotherhood — a republic which shakes thrones and dissolves aristocracies by its silent example and gives light and inspiration to those who sit in darkness.

The opium dealing Taipans in Hong Kong had to do all the hard work breaking China to make the globe safe for the white race though. The Philippines is what turned the US into a Empire, officially. But when they sent the American military half way around the world to occupy a foreign nation, via a ghastly and inhuman war against the indigenous population, America became an Empire and never looked back. America never needed a war — surrounded by two oceans, America has never been in danger of a foreign invasion.

What happens to Empires? America was always one of flames of the spirit of Empire. Massachusetts Bay Colony was an armed big business venture. She first played the whore with her ancestral faith, a hundred years ago…. I wonder if the people who have lately been pushing British Israel nonsense in our spaces are organic or some kind of op.

I literally did not hear a single person in the alt-right push BI for 15 years. In the last year, it has started showing up. BI ideology was historically connected to liberalism, philosemitism, anti-Europeanism and multiracialist imperialism. Those people were already senior citizens 30 years ago getting on AOL for the first time. Go do an internet search for this stuff and you will find a some fringe websites with zero traffic and b the SPLC.

National Socialism is not a fetish, your snark is insulting and very Shitlibby. Christian Identity is the racialist Christians last gasp attempt to justify worshipping a Rabbi while being Anti-Semitic, nothing more nothing less. Deal with it, asshole. Is that true? Bryan argues well against imperialism, yet favorably refers to the imperialist Lincoln who turned sovereign American states into conquered colonies.

Bryan was not being brave or even controversial by speaking against the U. Millions of American voters were being shocked by news of the atrocities as they leaked out not through the mainstream media making the U. Bryan had little or nothing to say about the latter policy, which was popular, because White voters kept getting free land from it.

And he was not opposed to the Spanish-American war. As a lawyer and offspring of lawyers and master politician, his supports of. And about one generation later, the U. The U. Bryan held a popular political position against U. Bryan was no Eurgene Debs. He was no socialist, and definitely not an anti-war pacifist. These included massive, sometimes violent and destructive strike waves, large-scale illegal seizures of farmland in the south, a wave of arson and destruction of property, arbitrary closure of Catholic schools, seizure of churches and Catholic property in some areas, widespread censorship, thousands of arbitrary arrests, virtual impunity for criminal action by members of Popular Front parties, manipulation and politicisation of justice, arbitrary dissolution of rightist organisations, coercive elections in Cuenca and Granada that excluded all opposition, subversion of the security forces, and a substantial growth in political violence, resulting in more than three hundred deaths.

Moreover, because local and provincial governments were forcibly taken over, decreed by the government in much of the country rather than secured via any elections, they tended to have a coercive cast akin to that of local governments taken over by Italian Fascists in northern Italy during the summer of Not that any of that matters, by the way.

What is despicable about communism is the communism itself, not its atrocious concomitants. When our people and elected officials stop being Politically Correct…. Deo Vindice! As early as , John C. Calhoun called for a debt-free currency issued and controlled by the government. Such a policy would reduce the usury and speculative profits of the banks and placing risk and loses on the taxpayers bu claiming to be quasi-governmental agency.

In a passage from his book, The Harmony of Interests, Carey wrote concerning the difference between the American System and British System of economics: Two systems are before the world; … One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it.

One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace.

One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world. Two systems are before the world; … One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it.

Property as such, for to do this would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. The National solution to the debilitation of ethno-nations is seen to consist in a strengthening of the state on the basis of justice whereby the state assumes control of its economy through nationalisation of its central bank and supervised distribution of its industrial goods.

Such a state naturally also demanded the exclusion of exploitative and anti-national communities like the communistic ie. Money must be interest-free, and its use must be regulated democratically, from the bottom up, by the people, for the benefit of all. Disagree, both instances in history were strangled in their cribs… you also need to understand what Socialism really is:. There are two ways in which a monetary system can be organized: either the market chooses what is money, or the state does.

The money of the free market, of capitalism, has always been commodity money that is outside of political control.

Wherever the trading public was free to choose, it picked commodities of fairly inelastic supply as monetary assets. Almost all societies, throughout all cultures and civilizations, have come to use precious metals as money.

Commodity money is apolitical money. Nobody can create it at will and use it to fund himself or to manipulate the economy. Crucially, human cooperation via trade does not stop at political borders, and commodity money has always transcended such borders. If gold was money this side of the border, it was usually equally money on the other side, regardless of whose image was printed on it. By contrast, complete paper money systems that have no link to an underlying commodity are always creations of politics.

But not by everybody. Money printing is the privilege of the state and its central bank or even delegated to a private inter supra national anything Supra a nation is globalist communism cartel.

Money, in this system, is entirely elastic. But it is political money and closely linked to political authority. The fate of the two regions diverged greatly over the next several centuries. In the west, constant attacks from German invaders such as the Visigoths broke the struggling empire down piece by piece until Italy was the only territory left under Roman control.

In , the barbarian Odoacer overthrew the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus , and Rome had fallen. The eastern half of the Roman Empire proved less vulnerable to external attack, thanks in part to its geographic location.

It also benefited greatly from a stronger administrative center and internal political stability, as well as great wealth compared with other states of the early medieval period. As a result of these advantages, the Eastern Roman Empire, variously known as the Byzantine Empire or Byzantium, was able to survive for centuries after the fall of Rome. Though Byzantium was ruled by Roman law and Roman political institutions, and its official language was Latin, Greek was also widely spoken, and students received education in Greek history, literature and culture.

In terms of religion, the Council of Chalcedon in officially established the division of the Christian world into separate patriarchates, including Rome where the patriarch would later call himself pope , Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Even after the Islamic empire absorbed Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in the seventh century, the Byzantine emperor would remain the spiritual leader of most eastern Christians. Justinian I, who took power in and would rule until his death in , was the first great ruler of the Byzantine Empire.

Many great monuments of the empire would be built under Justinian, including the spectacular domed Church of Holy Wisdom, or Hagia Sophia. Justinian also reformed and codified Roman law, establishing a Byzantine legal code that would endure for centuries and help shape the modern concept of the state. Debts incurred through war had left the empire in dire financial straits, however, and his successors were forced to heavily tax Byzantine citizens in order to keep the empire afloat.

During the seventh and eighth centuries, attacks from the Persian Empire and from Slavs, combined with internal political instability and economic regression, threatened the vast empire. A new, even more serious threat arose in the form of Islam , founded by the prophet Muhammad in Mecca in In , Muslim armies began their assault on the Byzantine Empire by storming into Syria.

During the eighth and early ninth centuries, Byzantine emperors beginning with Leo III in spearheaded a movement that denied the holiness of icons, or religious images, and prohibited their worship or veneration. Though it stretched over less territory, Byzantium had more control over trade, more wealth and more international prestige than under Justinian. The strong imperial government patronized Byzantine art, including now-cherished Byzantine mosaics.

Rulers also began restoring churches, palaces and other cultural institutions and promoting the study of ancient Greek history and literature. Greek became the official language of the state, and a flourishing culture of monasticism was centered on Mount Athos in northeastern Greece.

Monks administered many institutions orphanages, schools, hospitals in everyday life, and Byzantine missionaries won many converts to Christianity among the Slavic peoples of the central and eastern Balkans including Bulgaria and Serbia and Russia.

The end of the 11th century saw the beginning of the Crusades , the series of holy wars waged by European Christians against Muslims in the Near East from to As armies from France, Germany and Italy poured into Byzantium, Alexius tried to force their leaders to swear an oath of loyalty to him in order to guarantee that land regained from the Turks would be restored to his empire.

After Western and Byzantine forces recaptured Nicaea in Asia Minor from the Turks, Alexius and his army retreated, drawing accusations of betrayal from the Crusaders.