The difference between people who supported the British Empire and people who support the US empire is that those who supported the British Empire knew they were supporting an empire.
Someone who supported the British Empire’s acts of mass military slaughter around the world did so because they supported the Crown and wanted His Majesty to civilize the godless savages and turn the whole world into his royal subjects. Someone who supports the US empire’s warmongering thinks they are doing so because Saddam is an evil dictator, because Gaddafi is an evil dictator, because Maduro is an evil dictator, because Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis are terrorists, etc.
Supporters of the British Empire understood that the enemies of the Empire were being killed because they refused to adequately subject themselves to the King and his demands. Supporters of the US empire think the US and its allies are always attacking Evil Bad Guys in the name of spreading Freedom and Democracy, and if this happens to advance pre-existing geostrategic agendas and/or resource interests then it is purely by coincidence.
Supporters of the British Empire understood that they were living under an actual empire: a power umbrella comprised of colonies, protectorates, dominions, mandates and territories which spanned the globe. Supporters of the US empire think it is entirely by coincidence that there is a giant cluster of nations which happens to move in near-perfect unison on all foreign policy agendas and continually wages war upon nations which are not part of that cluster.
The British Empire was entirely open about what it was. It would conquer a place, tell its inhabitants that they are now British subjects, and make them raise the Union Jack on their flag pole. The western empire which is loosely structured around Washington lets its member states keep their own flag and pretend they’re sovereign nations, while behaving in ways that are not significantly different from the subjects of the British Empire.
I feel like figures like Caitlyn fall moreso into anticapitalism than a real ideology. I like these types of articles for showcasing a different side of the story but while I can endorse this content I do not endorse everything they stand for.
Secondly journalists like Jeremy Scahill report on events but they also do great work on humanizing resistance to the empire and bringing out their point of view. It is pretty ludicrous to view that as a negative solely because they don’t endorse certain different economical systems. They work plenty to defame the current one and have people search alternatives… However Ryan Grim has been extremely disappointing recently endorsing mass murderer Graham Platner.
All in all I think a single journalist is not responsible for both reporting on events and then also providing the reader with the entire correct course of action to fix said events.
They’re definirely useful, don’t get me wrong. I subscribe to literally every one of them I see. They just become far more useful when we understand what makes them tick. The structure of the alt media as he explains it just perfectly encapsulates their shortcomings and “sudden betrayals” e.g. Ryan Grim who has been saying suspicious things for a while. Thanks for laying out your view of this I was wondering.
Let me give you a quick example, Seth Harp. He seems like he makes the US armed forces look bad with his reporting on Bragg, but he sensationalizes it and makes it about rowdiness rather than systemic problems. He kept insisting that “the Houthis” were engaging in global piracy and not a targeted blockade. Aaron Mate also refuses to accept LHO had a 201 file and was on a CIA assignment in Russia and was probably the JFK patsy. Like they always cleave back towards the intellectual apparatus since it’s their meal ticket and class interest. Seymour Hersh has tried to make the Nord Stream bombings out to be an independent rogue project of the Ukrainian and British security state - as if those operate independently from the CIA-run intl intelligence racket that grew from the OSS and its nazi connections. Back when he wrote about the Phoenix Program he tried to make My Lai seem like a one-off atrocity driven by soldiers’ bloodthirst, and not the standard procedure for medium long-range targets beyond the grasp of frogmen. Just obliterating everyone. We know that, so why is it hard for us to see how Hersh is subverting our understanding of it? I find his writing annoyingly persuasive. It’s because he has a lot of resources and time to put it all together. There is some use value embedded in these intellectual products, as Rockhill explains, it would be insane if there weren’t considering their wealth and education or at least connections. Klippenstein gets handed a monopoly on some pretrial documents leak and it makes him a star. These ops are very profitable it’s not a drag on CIA resources at all it’s probably one of their most effective ways to convert money into social capital, and it can even make money itself when they strike gold. Which they have unlimited time to do, just like the French theory philosophy bros
Sorry if this is a bit slapdash I’m trying to cover these points so I can go back to sleep. Will try to write a larger thing about this so don’t feel the need to pry apart every vague thing in here
The idea of any of you needing to spend the amount of time I did stumbling across this information just makes me ill. Take the rare pdfs oomphies pls