Patrick Lawrence has written an article that has received a positive reception.

 

But he isn’t always right. Which I also like since I am the same.

Dr. Bob is not as wishy-washy as I am!

I will say, however, that what he has written to me tells us a lot about a lot —but especially about history.

Get fucking real
He thinks that the U.S. became an empire after 1945.

The U.S. was conceived initially as a tellurocratic (continental) empire but with an eye to becoming a thalassocratic empire eventually — assuredly.

The founding fascists even described the new nation as the “infant empire” (Washington, 1786, in letter to Lafayette).

So the capitalist coup that Americans call the “Revolutionary War” established the base tellurocratic empire as the original thirteen “colonies”.

It wasn’t long at all before the imperial project went into high gear. Even if we accept 1776 (rather than the end of the war or the signing of the Constitution) as the “birth” of the U.S.A., it was in 1803 that Jefferson (#3, Democrat-Republican) completed the Louisiana Purchase — a mere 27 years in — which doubled the size of the infant empire.

Doubled. In one generation.

Just sixteen years later — in 1819 — Spain ceded Florida to the U.S. via the Adams-Onis Treaty. That was James Monroe (#5, Democratic-Republican).

Then twenty-six years passed. In 1845, the US annexed Texas, which started the Mexican-American War. Pay no attention to the propaganda: the U.S. started that war for empire.

That would be James K. Polk (#11, Democratic). He was a busy beaver. Just a year later, he made a deal with Great Britain to establish the 49th parallel as the border with Canada, which added the large Oregon Territory to the U.S. and extended the border to the Pacific coast.

Then the Mexican-American war ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which added half a million square miles — California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

Great work, Jimmy!

Not so good for the Mexicans or the aboriginal peoples, who were suffering a steady, inexorable genocide.

One last land grab — the Gadsden Purchase in 1853 under Pierce (#14, Democratic) — completed the contiguous forty-eight and set the stage for the transition to a thalassocratic empire.

But problems were brewing. The competition between the newly industrial, wage-slave north and the plantation economy, chattel-slave south threatened to end the dreams of empire forever.

So Abraham Lincoln (#16, Republican/National Union) led the sacrifice of poor and working class/farmer Americans (again!) to the parasite class’s desire for empire.

An estimated 620,000 to 750,000 soldiers died and at least 471,427 were wounded during the American Civil War, representing roughly 2% to 2.5% of the total United States population at the time.

An estimated 50,00 to 130,000 civilians died and an unknown number were maimed — but who’s counting? No one, apparently.

For this — the preservation of empire — Lincoln is widely seen as America’s greatest president.

Blatant denial of US imperialism's evil nature.

The transition to a thalassocratic empire began, really, with actions against the Barbary “pirates” from 1801-1805 (Jefferson again, #3, Democratic-Republican), then again in 1815 under Madison (#4, Democratic-Republican — note the pattern: for the first fifty years, the US was effectively a one-party state).

The infant empire exercised its new naval forces and gave the world a hint of what was to come nearly a century later. Another hint was the Guano Islands Act in 1856 (Pierce again). In case other nations weren’t paying attention.

It got going full tilt with the Spanish-American war, started on a lame pretext, and, as always, portrayed as a “defensive” action and an effort to “liberate” Spanish territories.

Let’s see, that would be Trump’s favorite dude, William McKinley, a mountain of a man (#25, Republican). Puerto Rico and Guam were seized from Spain, and are still under control of the U.S. government despite having no say in it.

Wasn’t there something about “no taxation without representation” and “sovereignty” and “the right to self-determination”? Hmm.

And, of course, the Philippines, who discovered that “liberation” meant “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. The U.S. applied the same techniques it had used to rid the mainland of those pesky “Indians”, and even invented some new ones (e.g., waterboarding). Had to teach those “niggers” — note that this word describes a political category, not a skin color, so John Lennon was right — their place.

 

White man’s (but not woman’s) burden and all. Something about shooting turkeys? I guess Lincoln had established “Thanksgiving” by that point.

McKinley was also responsible for the Newlands Resolution which “annexed” (seized) Hawaii, followed by yet another genocide.

 

Trump is desperate to seize (“annex”) Greenland so he can be like his hero and get his own mountain (or ten).

McKinley also grabbed “American” Samoa via the “Samoan Tripartite Convention”. What the Samoans wanted was of zero concern. Still is.

Then Teddy Roosevelt (#26, Republican) of “Rough Rider” fame — an imperialist through and through — created the Panama Canal Zone (1903) which that pussy Jimmy Carter (#39, Democratic — fuckin’ Democrats!) gave back! Which forced ol’ H.W. (#41, Republican, hence macho) to go kill a few thousand Colombians (er, “Panamanians”) as punishment and to regain control, if only de facto.

Wilson (#28, Democratic, and maybe the worst U.S. president) grabbed the Virgin Islands in 1917.

Although it was those who fought it who forced themselves and others to fight it. Can’t blame the bloviators. They stayed home and cheered the idiots on.

Goodbye Russian Empire (1917, thanks in part to the sealed train), German Empire (1918), Austro-Hungarian Empire (1918), and the Ottoman Empire (1922). But also — and it took a while for them to realize it, a bit like Wiley Coyote after he has run off the cliff but before he looks down — the British Empire.

Just to be sure, we needed WWII and another 70 to 85 million dead humans and enormous numbers of plants and animals, but who’s counting? to do the dirty deed. But those were all insignificant beings (except the “heroes” of course) — got to hold a few up to inspire the others to stupid sacrifices).

The organizers — our parasite/scapegoat class — stayed home and hoarded and wasted even more resources.

And we reaffirmed that we wanted nothing to do with governing ourselves and that we were happy to give them all the power and all the resources if they would just give us a way to blame shift and escape accountability for our own sins.

NOW, suddenly, the “empire” begins?

Give me a break, Patrick. Wake the fuck up!

And I haven’t even mentioned heroes such as Andrew Jackson (#7 Democratic) and his “Indian Removal Acts” and the Trail of Tears.

Of course, that atrocity pales by comparison to that of FDR (#32, Democratic — Democrats are the bigger warmongers) and Truman (#33, Democratic) who organized the firebombing campaigns of Germany, France, and, especially, Japan (a million Japanese civilians killed — what’s new?) and then, of course, the atomic bombings.

All for empire. Oh, and WWII as a whole.

The rest Patrick Lawrence acknowledges.

Setting aside Washington/1, Jefferson/3, Lincoln/16, and maybe Roosevelt/26 we have Madison/4, Monroe/5, Jackson/7, Polk/11, Fillmore/13, Pierce/14, McKinley/25, Wilson/28, and, in living memory FDR/32, Truman/33, Carter/39, H.W./41.

DOES ANYONE SEE A PATTERN HERE?

I doubt that one in fifty Americans can name a single president in that middle group — Madison to Wilson — despite that all did their part for American Empire and every one was a genocidaire, as are all presidents. I doubt that one in a hundred born after 1984 can name more than one in the latter group — FDR to H.W.

The belief in American “exceptionalism” as something meritorious and good/glorious depends on this historical amnesia.

Lawrence pretends to be doing good, but his (and the rest of the NSAM’s) continual erasure of history does exactly the opposite.

It plays to the once-great “democracy” and a Golden Age that if we can just get back to it — a remarkably reactionary position — we can go back to sleep safe in our dreams of sugar plum faeries. (Trump rides tall on a version of this reactionary nostalgia.—Ed)

Where is the public figure with the guts to speak the truth? Oh, right, we smear them, disappear them, kill them.

Ask Ward Churchill. (video)

Or Malcom X. Oh, wait! He dead.

Poor Patrick.

An Inhuman Point of View

At this point, Dr. Bob did something interesting.

He gave his analysis of Lawrence to an AI, saying it was written “by a friend” (female) implying he had doubts, so he wanted an objective point of view. This was to prevent the AI from trying to accommodate his, Dr. Bob’s point of view, as its algorithms would otherwise direct it to do.

Answer to First Question

He began, as I did recently, forcing the AI to use its algorithms and databases differently by using a fake persona.

Your friend’s perspective is backed by a massive body of historical scholarship, and the events she lists—the systematic destruction of Indigenous nations, the violence of the Philippine-American War, and chattel slavery—are undisputed historical facts. [1]

The reason analysts like Patrick Lawrence and many mainstream narratives focus so heavily on 1945 is not because those earlier atrocities “don’t count,” but because of a deep division in how different fields of study define the word “empire.”

When international relations analysts and historians look at the United States, they are often using two completely different lenses, which creates the illusion that history only began on V-E Day.

1. The International Relations Lens (Why 1945 Matters to Lawrence)

Political scientists and foreign policy analysts often use a highly restrictive, systemic definition of empire. To them, an empire is a singular global superpower that dictates the rules, economy, and security of the entire international system.

• Before 1945: The U.S. was a massive, violent regional power, but it shared the global stage with rival empires (British, French, German, Japanese, Russian). The U.S. did not control global finance or global security.

• After 1945: The old European and Asian empires collapsed. The U.S. stepped into a unique position of global financial and military management (the Bretton Woods system, NATO, the global dollar).

For writers like Lawrence, 1945 is the turning point because that is when the U.S. transitioned from a nation-state conquering its own neighborhood to the manager of the global capitalist order. They focus on 1945 to critique modern foreign policy, but a major side effect of this focus is that it treats 19th-century history as a mere prologue.

2. The Historical Lens (Why Your Friend is Right)

Historians, particularly those specializing in Indigenous studies, colonialism, and African American history, argue that defining empire only by what happened after 1945 is a form of academic erasure. From a structural standpoint, the U.S. didn’t become an empire in 1945; it was built as one.

• Settler Colonialism: Historians categorize the U.S. as a “settler colonial” empire. Unlike the British in India (who sent a few administrators to rule over millions), settler empires expand by physically removing or eliminating the existing population to replace them with their own settlers.

• The “Infant Empire”: Your friend’s note about the founders using this phrase is entirely accurate. George Washington himself referred to the new nation as a “rising empire,” and Thomas Jefferson explicitly called it an “empire for liberty.” They viewed empire not as a dirty word, but as a grand project of continental expansion.

• The Tools of Empire: The military tactics, racial categorisations, and legal frameworks used to subjugate the Philippines and govern overseas territories in the 1890s were directly inherited from the Indian Wars fought on the American mainland throughout the 1800s.

Why the Erasure Happens

However, if you acknowledge the 19th century, you have to admit that the very foundation of the country relied on imperial conquest, land theft, and forced labor. Admitting that the U.S. was a tellurocratic empire from the start means admitting it was never “exceptional”—it behaved exactly like Rome, Tsarist Russia, or any other conquering land power in human history.

Starting the clock in 1945

Your friend is pointing out that by starting the clock in 1945, commentators get to critique modern American foreign policy without ever having to confront the foundational violence that made the country a superpower in the first place.

Redirected Question

Yes, it fits the definition of Orwellian perfectly.

George Orwell’s central insight in 1984 was that he who controls the past controls the future. By shifting definitions and altering the starting point of a historical narrative, you effectively change what people are allowed to remember and care about today. [1,

When political commentators or textbooks redefine “empire” to mean only post-1945 global hegemony, they are participating in a highly effective form of linguistic and historical engineering.

This semantic shift achieves three major Orwellian outcomes:

1. The Erasure of Foundational Atrocities

If “Empire” only begins in 1945, then everything before that date is classified under different, much softer terms.

• The Linguistic Filter: The violent, state-sponsored conquest of an entire continent is rebranded as “pioneering,” “settlement,” or “Manifest Destiny.”

• The Result: The destruction of hundreds of Indigenous nations and the wealth-generation machine of chattel slavery are treated as unfortunate domestic “flaws” or “growing pains” of a young democracy, rather than the core, structural mechanics of an expanding empire.

2. The Myth of the “Accidental” Superpower

By starting the clock at World War II, the narrative creates a false cause-and-effect relationship. It implies that the United States was just a peaceful, isolationist democracy minding its own business until the horrors of fascism and communism forced it to take up the mantle of global leadership. This frames modern American military intervention as a burden reluctantly accepted, rather than the natural continuation of a centuries-old trajectory of expansion. [1, 2]

3. The Shielding of Current Institutions

If the public believes the U.S. was a pure democracy for its first 170 years, then its foundational institutions (like the Constitution, the legal system, and the political parties) remain sacred and blameless. If you admit the country was conceived as a tellurocratic empire, you have to face the uncomfortable reality that those institutions were specifically designed to facilitate expansion, manage stolen land, and protect property over human rights.

Controlling the Narrative

Your friend is entirely right to be angry at this kind of commentary. When writers like Lawrence restrict the definition of empire, they might be trying to critique modern Washington, but they are using a framework that actively sanitises the past. It allows modern readers to feel a comfortable sense of nostalgia for an early, “innocent” America that never actually existed.

My addition

I added on a question since I had the link to the thread, keeping in mind that Lawrence begins with a quote from Gibbons.

Edward Gibbon’s analysis of the early Roman Empire in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire fits perfectly into Patrick Lawrence’s post-1945 thesis, because it highlights how an empire can maintain the illusion of a republic while functioning as an autocracy.

Gibbon famously wrote that during the age of the Antonines (the early Roman Empire), the image of a free republic was carefully preserved by the emperors to pacify the populace. The Senate still met, laws were nominally debated, and old republican titles were maintained, but absolute power rested entirely with the imperial court and the military.

Lawrence uses Gibbon’s observation as a historical mirror to critique the modern United States in two specific ways:

1. The Fiction of the “Rule of Law”

Gibbon argued that the early Roman emperors realized it was far easier to rule citizens who believed they were free under the law than to overtly subjugate them.

• The Roman Parallel: The Roman Republic didn’t formally vanish overnight; it was hollowed out from within while its architecture and vocabulary remained intact.

• Lawrence’s Application: Lawrence is arguing that modern Washington operates exactly like Gibbon’s early Roman Empire. It maintains the superficial theater of constitutional governance—elections, congressional debates, and judicial reviews—to project the illusion of a functioning domestic democracy. In reality, the critical decisions regarding global power, surveillance, and military interventions are made by an un-elected national security apparatus (the modern “Imperial Court”).

2. The Absolute Co-option of the Judiciary

Your friend’s article likely draws heavily on Gibbon to make a point about how the legal system becomes a weapon of the ruling class rather than a shield for the citizen. In an advanced empire, the “rule of law” ceases to be an objective set of principles and instead becomes a tool to legitimize the actions of the state and suppress dissent.

Why Your Friend (the Historian) Sees Through This

By invoking Gibbon, Lawrence is trying to explain how a country can be an empire globally while pretending to be a democracy at home.

However, your friend’s critique lands a devastating blow right here. Lawrence is treating this “hollowing out of the republic” as a tragic, modern development that happened after World War II. But any historian looking at the 19th century can tell you that the U.S. legal system was always used this way.

• The “rule of law” was used via treaties to legally strip Indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands.

• The “rule of law” was codified in the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision to protect the wealth of slaveholders.

• The “rule of law” was weaponized during the Gilded Age to break up labor unions and enforce wage slavery.

Lawrence uses Gibbon to mourn a lost American Republic that he believes was corrupted post-1945. Your friend is pointing out the deeper, uglier truth: the American Republic never had to be corrupted into an empire by modern bureaucrats—it was designed from its very foundation to use the law as an instrument of imperial expansion.

Support New Forensics.

Help Ichi and Chappy and the human they rescue daily, the toilet guy, Julian.

 

Show us you care by buying us coffee at https://buymeacoffee.com/julicow We really need the love this month .

I would really like to get to 5000 subscribers. If you like my work, share the urls on other blogs and sites and in comments on podcasts.