A Facebook reader offers some interesting insights about the nature of the present global empire, and empires generally. It is true that empires are often more culturally “liberal” or “progressive” than the societies that they subjugate and conquer. Alexander the Great spread the Hellenistic culture throughout the Ancient Near East. The Romans were certainly more advanced and more of a cosmopolitan culture than many of their backwater provinces. The European colonialists were frequently more liberal than the conquered peoples of their empires (for instance, the Spaniards largely put an end to the Aztec practice of human sacrifice and the British outlawed the suttee). Napoleon was something of prototype for modern liberal imperialism. It was the American empire that ended emperor-worship in Japan.
I suspect (in fact, I’m sure) that this is the reason for the ambivalent attitude of most Western liberals and leftists when it comes to imperialism. Anti-imperialism is not compatible with the universalism and do-gooder crusading mentality of most Western leftists. The only reliable political factions when it comes to anti-imperialism are the isolationist paleconservatives, the consistently anti-state Rothbardian libertarians, and the pro-Third Worldist factions of the far left.
Otherwise, we’ve had folks like the late neocon-Trotskist Christopher Hitchens talking about “bombing the Afghans out of the stone age.” We’ve had “human rights imperialists” like Samantha Power promoting the farcical concept of a humanitarian empire. William Gillis says it’s great we have a world empire (“because muh human rights”), and we have “anarchists” like Alexander Reid Ross taking the State Department-MSNBC on Syria (“because fascism!”)
“Some ideas I had about the UN:
In that sense the US being a semi-functional market economy where total despotism is not normal may actually be worse in the long run, as it makes them more powerful and able to pervert society for a longer period of time. In that sense the UN enables US imperialism and its puppets like Wahabi-Zionism, precisely because it provides a crippled and ineffectual outlet for people stating rather milquetoast versions of the obvious.
The UN is a PR-front for the United States, to let other countries feel that they totally have rights; and it also serves to ‘legitimize’ all the fake-puppet governments the US installs around the world to extort the local populance, i.e. in Africa where pseudo-states persist in metropolitan tax centers with no basis except for American provided arms and CIA funding.
As for their being more respected or better than American politicians, that is a low bar and the same can be said for certain American journalists or organizations such as Tucker Carlson or the various libertarian and other fringers who are allowed to more or less say whatever they want. It serves as an outlet; sort of in the same manner that the U.S. Constitution serves as a smokescreen and governor apparatus to prevent the USA from becoming a self-imploding dictatorship like the Russian or German models of the 20th century. It is the sort of thing that successful empires have that dipshit psycho gangster tyrannies just can’t pull off.
Empires tend to be – moderately – progressive, and this legal/economic advantage is one reason they can overrun older, more traditional societies