They have the basic groundwork laid years ahead of time, just ready to begin implementation at which point it’s probably a matter of months and the important thing is neither we nor these countries generally see the ramp-up happening until it’s too late and the machine is running.

So yes it’s easy and it’s hard to counter without something like the great firewall and extensive laws controlling foreign NGOs, and even an extensive, well-funded, ideologically loyal intelligence apparatus to root out traitors and foreign agents.

Again, this does not make sense as phrasing though. Laying groundwork for years ahead of time is not, by any meaning of the word, "easy".

This is frankly a short-sighted way of looking at things that I think shows you’re probably on the younger side as many of us are. The 1930s were awful and they pulled through. without a revolution There were real winds of change after WW2 that the US successfully defeated.

The 1930s are not the same conditions as right now. Post WW2 is not the same conditions as right now. But if you want to compare, that period had FDR and the closest thing to that today as a reformer is Bernie Sanders, who the established party elites resoundingly rejected. In place of having a real reformer, they are saying Biden is doing meaningful work when he's doing tweaks. Meanwhile, we have climate change and its consequences increasingly bearing down on the world, which the US is woefully unprepared for and continues to drag its feet on addressing.

Eh. It’s not practical to war with the entire world and too unpopular domestically. They keep their hegemony and power using economic coercion and various historical and material inertia around those (colonialism and taking over from Europe after rescuing them from communist take-over at the end of WW2 being a primary one).

Not what I meant. Economic might is unenforceable without military might behind it. Look at what the Houthis have done, for example.

Failing infrastructure doesn’t matter.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/02/1242327964/the-economic-impact-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse

the U.S. secretary of transportation, said last week that, normally, between $100 million and $200 million in cargo moves in and out of the port in Baltimore each day. And that affects $200 million in wages, he said. He said there's 8,000 jobs directly affected by the port's activities. But I want to note there's still some business happening at the port. There's one part of it that's called Tradepoint Atlantic. That's beyond the Key Bridge. But of course, the biggest business is from the really big ships, and those still can't get in or out via the main shipping channel.

This was from April 2, 2024, mind you. The situation may have changed by now, but the point is, it can impact a lot.

I see hope on the horizon but nothing like certainty.

Well then you've been arguing against someone who isn't here. I'm arguing about trends here, not something set in stone. Primarily, I'm arguing against this tone I see that comes across to me as something like: "have some hope if you want, but the empire is mega mega mega powerful and it's going to get you in your sleep if you don't stay constantly anxious about it 24/7." Maybe that's an uncharitable way to put it, but you are putting so much focus on the empire in isolation with little on what anyone else is doing and downplaying the empire's failings (such as in infrastructure). Don't eat the onion on believing it to be more powerful than it actually is. Furthermore, you want to push back on the details that's perfectly valid, but bringing age into it is silly. It is not out of reach to examine the conditions back in the 1930s and living through them doesn't guarantee anyone being more politically literate about the empire's power.