Yes. Because you use mystery meanings as a means of trolling. When you use a word, it means just what you choose it to mean — neither more nor less. You project your habit onto others, and thus you are unable to understand what they mean without asking, diverting us from the topic at hand and into a silly discussion that could have been avoided through the use of a dictionary. Your example did not contain a definition of “American, but your humble opinion redefined it to suit your purposes.

You ask so that you can troll. And here I am, falling for your bait. You could not and would not answer my questions no matter the definition of words, either yours or the dictionary’s. For you, the topic is not the point, nor is the discussion. Only the distraction and the denigration of America, or Black Rock, or empires, or whatever the next word you are going to redefine (by nebulous example), as a distraction.

Is the dictionary function on your computer broken or am I being trolled?

Finally, I would like to add one more thought to show that America is the hegemon vis-à-vis Germany and Japan. These states were given back their own freedom of choice in relative unimportant matters (even if Germany have already given most of them voluntarily to the EU), but not in the important, fundamental questions.

[Side note: Germany is one of the few countries in the world (perhaps the only one) whose globalist elite is happily promoting the dissolution of its own nation.]

My consideration: Germany and Japan (regardless of the present contractual situation) cannot freely choose their military alliances and their form of government! Both are prescribed by the hegemon. Just a thought experiment (gedankenexperiment): joining a military alliance that is dominated by China and Russia and which has intentions that are incompatible with the US position in the world would never allowed by the hegemon. Also the form of government called “liberal democracy” is mandatory for both states and cannot be changed by the states themselves. If necessary, the hegemon – America of course – would intervene militarily in these cases to prevent these developments, which are only theoretical consideration in context with the gedankenexperiment.

If Questioner looked at the way a goose runs, swims, and croaks then he would declare it a duck.

How is this different from counting angels on the head of a pin? Too many times, I have been in violent agreement with someone who insisted that a goose was a duck, even though the discussion was about aquatic foul. If only we had agreed on definitions before getting into our discussion, we wouldn’t have argued and would have stayed on topic.

Questioner and Original Mark choose to determine 21st century empire by using misleading qualities, qualities that apply to things other than what they said it is. They mischaracterize America in order to make it seem worse than it is. This is similar to when someone mischaracterizes me or my argument. Just as with the political left, redefine so that the argument cannot be lost, because the opponent cannot keep up with the continually changing rules.

Original Mark wrote: “I am struggling to present a late 20th & 21st-century picture of empire – one that I refer to as the ‘Global American Empire (GAE)’.”

Why is an earlier empire different than a 21st century empire? The definition of empire should remain the same in all centuries. Otherwise things get confusing.

In his first comment, above, Original Mark wrote: “I agree but would add that many Americans today, both young and old, are spiritually moved by achievements in Space mainly as a salve to the cognitive dissonance and daily grind we experience as the Global American Empire disintegrates right before our eyes.”

The question became, what kind of America do we want to save from the broke woke: (OS)BLM, and antifirstamendment? (“So, what is America in this century?“) I would like to save a pre-Obama America, back when we were the land of the free. But can we?

If the United States had merely become an empire, after WWII, rather than a leader of the free world, a beacon showing the rest of the world how to be free and liberated, then is it really worth saving? The French gave America the Statue of Liberty in the 19th century because they saw America as a beacon of liberty for the rest of the world to learn from. If we have become a slave driver, forcing other countries rather than allowing and assisting other countries, then we are not worth saving from the woke. We would have been as bad as the broke woke groups that we oppose.

Are we that bad, or are we better than them? Are we worth saving?

I discovered this channel. It seems to be of high quality.

Millerman Talks #19: Carl Schmitt, The Concept of The Political

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP-zZCWOXTI

Highly recommend
“A Collection of Essays by George Orwell” (1954)
-you can get the whole thing on PDF, or read on line.
https://booksvooks.com/a-collection-of-essays-pdf-george-orwell-1.html

Just a brief additional remark. Anyone who is not sovereign is a vassal. Sovereign (and therefore not a vassal) is the state that can decide on a state of emergency (i.e. war) itself (Carl Schmitt).

Neither Germany nor Japan are in fact able to declare war on another state without being a subordinate part (as an vassal) of an alliance led by the hegemon America. In fact, it is not even conceivable today, so far the subordination has already progressed.

We need to give Edward credit for correctly pointing out that there are real problems with language and definitions of terminology.

In the field of international relations between nation states, and earlier in history between empires & between empires & less powerful societies, we should acknowledge that there is a constant tension between facts and interpretation. This has always been the case. For example, looking at the Roman Empire’s relationship to its tribute state of Israel, the first century works of Flavius Josephus demonstrated that tension between facts and interpretation.

I need to note my disagreement with Questioner’s contention that Germany & Japan are currently vassal states.
We do know for a fact that after WWII Germany and Japan were previously vassal states of the US. They had unconditionally surrendered and had garrisons of occupying American troops. However over time, US foreign policy allowed Japan & Germany to reassert economic hegemony over large parts of their former empires. In my opinion there currently exists a German/ French hegemony over Europe with the French very much the junior partner. The German Economic Hegemony was laid bare for all to see in the July 2015 Euro crisis.

In the 21st Century, with the dissolution of the Soviet Empire & with the admission of China to the WTO, the rules of international trade/finance had to be modified. For this process, American Elites invited European Elites into a partnership to solidify stability. Picture a Global Law Firm / Hedge Fund / Intelligence Alliance with the US as the Senior Partners, and the Western European Elites on a fast track partner track. After the global financial meltdown in 2008, the Europeans were granted full partnership status in the Arena of economic management. However, the European elites continue to prefer having the US bear the majority of the military burdens. We can see this in today’s headlines as the US and Russia are now holding meetings in Geneva to jockey over the fate of Ukraine. We live in interesting International times. As you may know, there is the apocryphal story of the Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, globally we live in interesting times, and increasingly these are times of danger and uncertainty.

A contribution to the empire discussion: when I see a bird that runs like a duck and swims like a duck and croaks like a duck, I call that bird a duck (although Edward likes to call that bird a dog).

Modern empires no longer require the massive troop presence in the conquered states as in the past. Control is exercised by the modern means you have described. Nevertheless, the American empire has an enormous network of military bases around the world and received a troop potential in its most important dependent vassal states (Germany, Japan and South Korea), which can be expanded very quickly if necessary. All states dependent on the American empire are also characterized by the fact that they are not really sovereign and cannot do without America’s military protection.

However, you have used a few examples that are outside of leadership and domination, such as a brain drain from other countries. This example implies that the U.S. actively seeks the smarter citizens of the counties that it leads (or dominates), but this does not seem to be the case, as we take pretty much anyone who crosses our border (not always legally), whether or not from the free world. There may be other or additional words that would add to your version of a description of America in the twenty-first century.

“So what is it? I am struggling to present a late 20th & 21st-century picture of empire – one that I refer to as the ‘Global American Empire (GAE)’.”

A good question. For nine of the past thirteen years, the United States has led from a behind. For eight of them, Obama was leading from his behind, and for a year it was our current White House (as it is unknown who is in charge). During these years, the world saw an Arab Spring that resulted in the loss of freedoms, along with a fundamentally transformed America, which resulted in lost American freedom and liberty. ISIS, (Only Selected) Black Lives Matter, and anti-firstamendment were spawned under Obama and are once again growing in strength. The Taliban was given close to a hundred billion dollars worth of weapons, last year, which we can expect to be used against freedom loving nations in the coming few years or decades. Our entire citizenry is mandated to use experimental medications (illegal aliens exempted, of course), the effectiveness and safety being in doubt.

So, what is America in this century? Certainly it is not the same free country of our youth, and only a fool would follow its leadership from someone’s behind.

(audio-version, the PDF print copy freely available)

To you that may seem fine. Instead of a definition that takes a sentence or two, you have your own definition that goes against convention and takes half a page to vaguely define by example. How can you express reality when the language that is used is unclear?

Some commenters on BtB have expressed appreciation for the discussions, but a discussion at cross purposes due to misuse of the language is not worth the time to have or to read. The English language is vast, and you should be able to find words or phrases that already mean what you want to say, rather than use the political left’s tactic of changing the language and the meaning of words. This tactic may be double-plus-good for the left, but not for the rest of us.

When communicating to an audience, it is the writer’s or speaker’s responsibility to be clear and to ensure the audience understands. This is why it is difficult to have discussions when words have nebulous, mutable, mystery-meanings — my original and current point. When you go down Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass path of “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less” then confusion rains. You’re reeder falls two no at you mean an it’s hardwood tutu bee fight information technology van ugh.

Negativland
“Time Zones” (2012)
https://youtu.be/QDmWYVdN8ug
5:26

“Do you know how many Time Zones there are, in the Soviet Union?”

In preparation for the continuation of our discussion and the response to your list, I am sending the link to an interview in which the contrasts between the American-ruled western liberalism and the anti-liberalism of Dugin come to light. That should be the core of our discussion.. With A. Dugin, of course, I feel that I am in better hands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiKiDnMSFw

Dwayne Bernard Hickman
(May 18, 1934 – January 9, 2022)

“The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis”
Season 1 Episode 1 (1959)
https://youtu.be/ZGi9OZrhx94
26:01

America (defined here as a collective of American institutions) controls the value of the Dollar, the defacto currency of the world’s economy. This can be historically viewed as an economic tyranny, rule by appealing to profit and greed. America in turn has been charged with keeping the flow of energy secure. The word secure can be interpreted as predictable. The whole world runs on “cheap” energy and getting it to where it makes things happen unless you are a subsistence dirt farmer.

America has historically interceded in places where people can not behave in the collective best interests of maintaining the status quo i.e., a predictable manner, which can be perceived as being in America’s best interests. All of those remaining bases are just a reminder of what happened the last time people started acting out and what can happen the next time. An insurance policy.

The control of these institutions has always been the goal of the political classes.

Is this “Empire”? It depends on how you define Empire. I’m thinking “Empire” is not a political system in itself. Being a rebel doesn’t automatically put you on the right side of history or humanity.

I really hardly feel like reading Edward’s texts anymore, also because his sophistic way of “criticizing” and his struggle about the formulation of sentences are so boring and predictable. It also reminds me a lot of the political left, who believe that use of language is more important than reality.

Edward’s refusal to recognize America’s undoubtedly imperial status is a new example and, to me, borders on madness nearly. Thank you for clarifying the facts to him so clearly. I will get back to you in the next few days.

TUCKER CARLSON: What issues did they think were important?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: I don’t know, I think there’s an image that a lot of Republicans have, both in politics and they sort of represent a sober and judicious way of looking at the world, and we are the adults in the room.
And it’s more about a culture than it is an ideology.
The original Republican conservative movement, I thought, was going to go back and look at the Constitution, when Jefferson said it won’t work if you pile up everybody in the cities because they will be subject to mass hysteria. Or de Tocqueville, and you look at certain ideas, I thought that’s what we were.
I thought they would be champions of the middle class, but I don’t think they were. I don’t think they wanted to be.

I’m following your thought-track, I also understand where Edward is coming from as well.

Debate: “War and Empire”
Hillsdale College Event 2014
Victor Davis Hanson – Arianna Huffington
https://youtu.be/g_qOVTzHX8c
1:47:06