The empire's strongest asset, however, is cultural assimilation (assimilating the top 20-40% of each nation of the global South into the capitalist consensus of the multinational empire). When the top 20-40% of each nation "spontaneously" consent to US hegemony and run their country in accordance with it, the empire's power elites benefit the most, much more than even when they win wars against so-called "rogue states" and "terrorist sponsors." Business as usual of capitalism itself, much more so than ideological apparatuses directly controlled by the empire's power elite, helps create this "spontaneous" consent, in the quintessential Gramscian fashion.
[WS:] And how is that different from any other empire in human history?
Another point, in your attempt to whitewash the "global South" - which is one of the most idiotic concepts I've came across for some time - you seem to ignore the considerable amount of genuine local support that any imperial policies, not just those of the US, generate. This is certainly true of the conquest of America, which would not be possible without local support. This was also true of the British-style indirect colonial rule, which utilized local supporters acting as proxies for the British empire. The Nazis used a similar tactic as well.
For that matter, all politics are local, even those of foreign domination. The instance of a direct foreign rule, without any local support of local quislings is rare indeed. That is especially true of the US domination. There are many people in the under-developed countries that would love to invite US domination to their countries. If they encounter opposition, it is usually from those who would want to invite domination from some other than the US country, or perhaps want to be despots themselves.
Wojtek