It's complicated. NYT just wrote a series of opinion pieces about how most of the people now staffing the government, including #1, belong to the brokenist point of view.
I mean: the neo-Kantian dream of meritocracy and world government post WW2 is obviously not working. UN is useless, NATO doesn't listen to the President of the USA, the country is no longer the central manufacturing hub as one can easily see from the dearth of military supplies to Ukraine, and the University system is in shambles celebrating Hamas.
So yes, based on all this, better grab Greenland and Canadian Northern territories, and then see how one can get out of the post-cold war hole.
> what could make more sense than blowing up the Moon?
For Today, that's an important question to ponder. Forced sale of Greenland? Occupy Toronto?
For the first 22 years of the 21st Century, the answer was more obvious: urge Ukraine to join NATO. Help Ukrainians to elect governments that are hostile to their giant neighbor to the East. Belligerently inform that giant neighbor that it has no such thing as a "Near Abroad," and therefore no legitimate interests even 1 km past its post-Soviet borders.
Before Ukraine became The Most Important Country In The World, it was just another hilariously corrupt, polluted, money-laundromat and nobody cared which group of Slavic oligarchs ran it, just like nobody cares that Russia runs Chechnya.
Is this meant to justify giving the bully whatever he wants along with tolerating a massive influx of refugees into Europe and the evacuation of Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia?
Nah, taking Toronto is too much, same for British Columbia. On the other hand, Alberta is sufficiently red-state-ish.
But yes, the Ukraine adventure is blowing up in our face. When in the beginning, all Ukrainians wanted was to continue speak Russian, stay neutral and be part of the pacificist old-style EU, not NATO. And now, the Finns and Swedes are trying to convince Donald to stay in the fight and not dream about Greenland...
Obviously one can have non-LiberalDemocracies that have GoodEnoughGovernance and vice versa. In the 19th century Prussia leapfrogged Britain in science, technology and manufacturing prowess. In the 21st, China has moved ahead and Russia is by now (at least in military production) a near peer. And yet, all these US universities still try to save DEI...
Perhaps America could tear up the treaty governing Antartica and invade it. Antartica would be an excellent vacation spot for Americans sweltering through our Summers.
“The history of the present King of [Denmark] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these [drunken Eskimos]”
DJT didn't run, I am pretty sure, on a movie-villain-like platform of "Invade Greenland, dispossessing ally Denmark of the territory, for no reason; antagonize Canada, on a path to annexing it if possible; crush Panama, turning into a U.S. (or Trumpian?) protectorate among possibly others among the Loser Countries; bully-and-insult allies; dissolve NATO, in all but name; demand tribute from 'friends' from whom it might be extracted (see Steve Miller's comment about demanding European-Christians be forced to pay for the Trump war in Yemen); egg on Israel and take all Israel's wars as the USA's wars; annex Gaza and terminate the existence of the Palestinians."
These are generally such bad ideas that it's almost as if these people are following a "play-the-villain movie-script." If Steve Sailer's disapproval percolates up, he is doing a good deed.
(Explanation of this post:) Steve Sailer is against arbitrarily casting longstanding allies as really enemies, to be confronted and undermined.
The 1990s comedy-skit (Mr. Show, "Blow Up the Moon," aired Oct 31, 1997) is an allegory for 2025-USA: For the more over-the-top, aggressive-expansionist, embarrassingly-short-sighted foreign-policy pronouncements coming from the Trump White House; AND for the quality of the people with which Trump surrounds himself.
The "Blow Up the Moon" skit has people excited about an out-of-nowhere proposal by NASA to blow up the Moon. A monkey, specially trained in sign language, who is being kept at NASA HQ, one day asks one of the top scientists: “Why? Why do you want to blow up the moon?” This deflates the fervor, is taken as an affront, and shortly incites anger against the monkey.
The top brass at NASA get rid of the skeptical monkey, salvaging the situation. They replace it with a monkey straight from the circus, who knows no sign language. The new monkey asks no unpatriotic or inconveniently impertinent questions. The plan goes on.
The problem is the other members of the Five Eyes and NATO are no longer your allies. They are compromised by China and Muslim activism, and their governments are losing popular legitimacy. WWhen the opposition gets too many votes they just take them off the ballot or cancel the election, or form coalition governments that ignore the second-most popular party.
Apologies for the duplicate, but I wrote this last night on Steve's previous post, which is getting sort of stale. (BTW, Substack really needs to buy Ron Unz's comment system, or at least get someone competent and savvy to work on their code. Just getting to the basic functionality is tediously stupid. The system works against building a decent commenting community.)
~~
I wish someone close to Vance--Usha where are you?--would give him a slap upside the head. We need--badly need--to have some sensible nationalists around after the Trump shit show is dead and buried. Instead, of cultivating the "loyal but smart and sensible" vibe, Vance is turning out to be Trumps bitch and especially on the absolutely dumbest and most counterproductive part of the Trump II agenda.
If anyone close to Vance reads here, let me explain it. Here's what matters:
-- immigration--preserving America (and the West) from the immivasion;
and more broadly attacking all the minoritarian ideological insanity--DIE, "racism!", must have blacks, must have queers, "transgender", CRT, etc. etc. But most of all immigration, because ideology can be rolled back, but biology is forever.
-- eugenic fertility, "affordable family formation"
returning to normality--that the nation's people have families and pass the nation on down to their children, and that the quality of those children matter; immigration control will help with this, but we also need a healthy sane attack on all the ideology and policy that has young women off in looney land and has young men and young women so estranged from each other and marriage plummeting.
-- China; preserving the industry of the American/the West
this asinine idea that we can have China be the workshop of the world and we'll be find with "finance" and somehow "make it up on volume" is the dumbest economic policy imaginable; China already has absolute advantage--smart people with a lower labor cost, who knew?--in a whole bunch of sectors and nearing having it in pretty much every sector under the sun. The West--America and Europe--must all work together to protect ourselves. This is fixin' to be the Chinese Century, but the West can not capitulate. We must fight to maintain ourselves as economic--scientific, technical, industrial--leaders as well. Hurling pissy little insults at our allies is not the way to go about it.
I haven't noticed anything particularly wrong with Substack's commenting system except that you can't delve into someone's history or easily search. If this is a feature or a bug is an exercise for the reader
Even on Disqus you can block searches into your history. Unless, of course, Disqus reveals it for some ulterior reason. After all, there is a difference between users and paying customers.
The problems we face, well before a resurgence of Reagan-era jingoism culminating in the annexation of Alberta and Greenland, are 1) declining state capacity and economic recession in Canada, i.e., a declining state on our northern border in addition to our southern border, 2) lack of popular legitimacy and illiberal governments in Europem 3) the ethnic cleansing of Anglo-America, and 4) the legitimization of political violence by the Left.
This insult-the-allies stuff illuminates the reason Trump performs so poorly among college educated whites even in the midst of the Democrats/establishment embracing woke crazy. A big part of that is certainly that the college educated are more "narrative compliant". But still that still skews strongly as a "woman thing", especially a single woman thing. Clearly--at least to me--is that a huge element is that Trump's narcissistic asshole routine, violates middle class white collar norms. Trump is simply not "a gentleman".
I know if he was my employee back in the day, unless he was super-good, super-productive, I would probably have tried to get him transferred or fired. If he was scout dad back in my scoutmaster days, I might have had to ban him from outings or kick him out of the troop. (Not that Trump would ever be volunteering for anything that wasn't about Trump.)
I think part of the problem is just that. Fred Trump gave him a huge hunk of money to get started so Donald has never been someone else's employee. Fred would done his son some good if instead he had made Donald do a decent stint working for one of his business associates (or made him do ROTC and do a stint as a junior officer).
Trump just does not know how to behave very well. Compare to our first nationalist President, who was also born to a reasonably well to do family, inherited some nice property but also had to work his way up and knew how to behave.
In any case, this nonsense has nothing to do with Trump's charter. I know the average America, doesn't quite have the same focus as I do. But still pretIy clear, Trump was elected to:
-- fix the border and stop the immivasion; deport the garbage Biden waved in
-- do some magic to get the economy humming without inflation
-- stop the woke (ie. minoritarian) crazy--tranny mania (QWERTY++), DIE and CRT, especially having that shit shoved at kids in schools
-- rein in the Washington super-state blob--"drain the swamp"
Foreign policy had almost nothing to do with the election. And I'm positive Americans did not elect Trump to acquire Greenland nor insult Danes and Canadians. (Or repair the electoral fortunes of the Canadian Liberals.)
The point is - Danes (or French, British and Germans) would help zero with Donald's home policy either. But try to prevent, yes. So they are not allies in Carl Schmitt's sense. Enemies, rather.
That's an intetesting idea - that single women just can't allow themselves to go along with an unreconstructed male. But what if the same bundle of policies was presented to them in a candidate with a less macho and more indirect delivery? Say, Chris Hitchens? I wonder.
Single women that know they won't start a family are a class for themselves. They don't respond to the same cues that women who know they'd like to start a family do.
It's complicated. NYT just wrote a series of opinion pieces about how most of the people now staffing the government, including #1, belong to the brokenist point of view.
I mean: the neo-Kantian dream of meritocracy and world government post WW2 is obviously not working. UN is useless, NATO doesn't listen to the President of the USA, the country is no longer the central manufacturing hub as one can easily see from the dearth of military supplies to Ukraine, and the University system is in shambles celebrating Hamas.
So yes, based on all this, better grab Greenland and Canadian Northern territories, and then see how one can get out of the post-cold war hole.
So, therefore, what could make more sense than blowing up the Moon?
> what could make more sense than blowing up the Moon?
For Today, that's an important question to ponder. Forced sale of Greenland? Occupy Toronto?
For the first 22 years of the 21st Century, the answer was more obvious: urge Ukraine to join NATO. Help Ukrainians to elect governments that are hostile to their giant neighbor to the East. Belligerently inform that giant neighbor that it has no such thing as a "Near Abroad," and therefore no legitimate interests even 1 km past its post-Soviet borders.
What could possibly go wrong?
When does "give the bully what he wants" ever work out as a good strategy?
Before Ukraine became The Most Important Country In The World, it was just another hilariously corrupt, polluted, money-laundromat and nobody cared which group of Slavic oligarchs ran it, just like nobody cares that Russia runs Chechnya.
Ukraine is the breadbasket of near Ukraine
Is this meant to justify giving the bully whatever he wants along with tolerating a massive influx of refugees into Europe and the evacuation of Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia?
> justify giving the bully whatever he wants
Eisenhower, East Germany, 1953
Eisenhower, Hungary 1956
Johnson, Czechoslovakia 1968
Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden/Trump, Belarus 1991-2025
Is foiling the neo-Czars the only thing, or should the foreign policy of the U.S. also take other factors into account?
My God I hadn't thought of that. They would compete for precious refugee resources for illiterate Africans and Arabs.
It’s working fine for Israel.
Nah, taking Toronto is too much, same for British Columbia. On the other hand, Alberta is sufficiently red-state-ish.
But yes, the Ukraine adventure is blowing up in our face. When in the beginning, all Ukrainians wanted was to continue speak Russian, stay neutral and be part of the pacificist old-style EU, not NATO. And now, the Finns and Swedes are trying to convince Donald to stay in the fight and not dream about Greenland...
Obviously one can have non-LiberalDemocracies that have GoodEnoughGovernance and vice versa. In the 19th century Prussia leapfrogged Britain in science, technology and manufacturing prowess. In the 21st, China has moved ahead and Russia is by now (at least in military production) a near peer. And yet, all these US universities still try to save DEI...
Best to take off and nuke Copenhagen from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
That's a good one.
For context, there's a 10-second YouTube clip of Ripley's version.
To " www.youtube.com " append " /watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q ".
Perhaps Google dislikes links from deep within the comments of a Substack post?
Appears to be the wrong link.
Thanks. I couldn't fix the link, misdirection happens afresh each time.
We could flatten Denmark conventionally, but it already is.
I don't know about you, but I've had it up to here with tides. Enough already! We get it! Water go up/water go down.
Perhaps America could tear up the treaty governing Antartica and invade it. Antartica would be an excellent vacation spot for Americans sweltering through our Summers.
“The history of the present King of [Denmark] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these [drunken Eskimos]”
The bizarre foreign policy decisions of this administration made me update my priors on Trump.
DJT didn't run, I am pretty sure, on a movie-villain-like platform of "Invade Greenland, dispossessing ally Denmark of the territory, for no reason; antagonize Canada, on a path to annexing it if possible; crush Panama, turning into a U.S. (or Trumpian?) protectorate among possibly others among the Loser Countries; bully-and-insult allies; dissolve NATO, in all but name; demand tribute from 'friends' from whom it might be extracted (see Steve Miller's comment about demanding European-Christians be forced to pay for the Trump war in Yemen); egg on Israel and take all Israel's wars as the USA's wars; annex Gaza and terminate the existence of the Palestinians."
These are generally such bad ideas that it's almost as if these people are following a "play-the-villain movie-script." If Steve Sailer's disapproval percolates up, he is doing a good deed.
Moi Aussi
(Explanation of this post:) Steve Sailer is against arbitrarily casting longstanding allies as really enemies, to be confronted and undermined.
The 1990s comedy-skit (Mr. Show, "Blow Up the Moon," aired Oct 31, 1997) is an allegory for 2025-USA: For the more over-the-top, aggressive-expansionist, embarrassingly-short-sighted foreign-policy pronouncements coming from the Trump White House; AND for the quality of the people with which Trump surrounds himself.
The "Blow Up the Moon" skit has people excited about an out-of-nowhere proposal by NASA to blow up the Moon. A monkey, specially trained in sign language, who is being kept at NASA HQ, one day asks one of the top scientists: “Why? Why do you want to blow up the moon?” This deflates the fervor, is taken as an affront, and shortly incites anger against the monkey.
The top brass at NASA get rid of the skeptical monkey, salvaging the situation. They replace it with a monkey straight from the circus, who knows no sign language. The new monkey asks no unpatriotic or inconveniently impertinent questions. The plan goes on.
The problem is the other members of the Five Eyes and NATO are no longer your allies. They are compromised by China and Muslim activism, and their governments are losing popular legitimacy. WWhen the opposition gets too many votes they just take them off the ballot or cancel the election, or form coalition governments that ignore the second-most popular party.
USA is compromised by China activism too. But Muslim activism in the UK and France is much, much stronger.
Yes. See Marine LePen being blocked from the ballot in France. The same playbook they tried against President Trump.
Apologies for the duplicate, but I wrote this last night on Steve's previous post, which is getting sort of stale. (BTW, Substack really needs to buy Ron Unz's comment system, or at least get someone competent and savvy to work on their code. Just getting to the basic functionality is tediously stupid. The system works against building a decent commenting community.)
~~
I wish someone close to Vance--Usha where are you?--would give him a slap upside the head. We need--badly need--to have some sensible nationalists around after the Trump shit show is dead and buried. Instead, of cultivating the "loyal but smart and sensible" vibe, Vance is turning out to be Trumps bitch and especially on the absolutely dumbest and most counterproductive part of the Trump II agenda.
If anyone close to Vance reads here, let me explain it. Here's what matters:
-- immigration--preserving America (and the West) from the immivasion;
and more broadly attacking all the minoritarian ideological insanity--DIE, "racism!", must have blacks, must have queers, "transgender", CRT, etc. etc. But most of all immigration, because ideology can be rolled back, but biology is forever.
-- eugenic fertility, "affordable family formation"
returning to normality--that the nation's people have families and pass the nation on down to their children, and that the quality of those children matter; immigration control will help with this, but we also need a healthy sane attack on all the ideology and policy that has young women off in looney land and has young men and young women so estranged from each other and marriage plummeting.
-- China; preserving the industry of the American/the West
this asinine idea that we can have China be the workshop of the world and we'll be find with "finance" and somehow "make it up on volume" is the dumbest economic policy imaginable; China already has absolute advantage--smart people with a lower labor cost, who knew?--in a whole bunch of sectors and nearing having it in pretty much every sector under the sun. The West--America and Europe--must all work together to protect ourselves. This is fixin' to be the Chinese Century, but the West can not capitulate. We must fight to maintain ourselves as economic--scientific, technical, industrial--leaders as well. Hurling pissy little insults at our allies is not the way to go about it.
I haven't noticed anything particularly wrong with Substack's commenting system except that you can't delve into someone's history or easily search. If this is a feature or a bug is an exercise for the reader
Even on Disqus you can block searches into your history. Unless, of course, Disqus reveals it for some ulterior reason. After all, there is a difference between users and paying customers.
The problems we face, well before a resurgence of Reagan-era jingoism culminating in the annexation of Alberta and Greenland, are 1) declining state capacity and economic recession in Canada, i.e., a declining state on our northern border in addition to our southern border, 2) lack of popular legitimacy and illiberal governments in Europem 3) the ethnic cleansing of Anglo-America, and 4) the legitimization of political violence by the Left.
You know what’s up.
The political elite have convinced themselves that voting must not be allowed to change the government. This is not a sustainable state of affairs.
I think it was Burke that said, “If the law is set against the people, then the people will set themselves against the law.”
This insult-the-allies stuff illuminates the reason Trump performs so poorly among college educated whites even in the midst of the Democrats/establishment embracing woke crazy. A big part of that is certainly that the college educated are more "narrative compliant". But still that still skews strongly as a "woman thing", especially a single woman thing. Clearly--at least to me--is that a huge element is that Trump's narcissistic asshole routine, violates middle class white collar norms. Trump is simply not "a gentleman".
I know if he was my employee back in the day, unless he was super-good, super-productive, I would probably have tried to get him transferred or fired. If he was scout dad back in my scoutmaster days, I might have had to ban him from outings or kick him out of the troop. (Not that Trump would ever be volunteering for anything that wasn't about Trump.)
I think part of the problem is just that. Fred Trump gave him a huge hunk of money to get started so Donald has never been someone else's employee. Fred would done his son some good if instead he had made Donald do a decent stint working for one of his business associates (or made him do ROTC and do a stint as a junior officer).
Trump just does not know how to behave very well. Compare to our first nationalist President, who was also born to a reasonably well to do family, inherited some nice property but also had to work his way up and knew how to behave.
In any case, this nonsense has nothing to do with Trump's charter. I know the average America, doesn't quite have the same focus as I do. But still pretIy clear, Trump was elected to:
-- fix the border and stop the immivasion; deport the garbage Biden waved in
-- do some magic to get the economy humming without inflation
-- stop the woke (ie. minoritarian) crazy--tranny mania (QWERTY++), DIE and CRT, especially having that shit shoved at kids in schools
-- rein in the Washington super-state blob--"drain the swamp"
Foreign policy had almost nothing to do with the election. And I'm positive Americans did not elect Trump to acquire Greenland nor insult Danes and Canadians. (Or repair the electoral fortunes of the Canadian Liberals.)
The point is - Danes (or French, British and Germans) would help zero with Donald's home policy either. But try to prevent, yes. So they are not allies in Carl Schmitt's sense. Enemies, rather.
That's an intetesting idea - that single women just can't allow themselves to go along with an unreconstructed male. But what if the same bundle of policies was presented to them in a candidate with a less macho and more indirect delivery? Say, Chris Hitchens? I wonder.
Single women that know they won't start a family are a class for themselves. They don't respond to the same cues that women who know they'd like to start a family do.
TODAY GREENLAND, TOMORROW SVALBARD!!!
this is a superb all-purpose post on the Trump 2.0 admin in general