For just about all of human history, foreign policy has been organized around the acquisition of resources and territory. Supposedly Europe, horrified by centuries of acquisitive warfare after WW2, decided future wars would be fought over scrupulous principle, like Saving Democracy, or Killing Commies (not that there's anything wrong with that).
It's a vision of the world which Steve and many others rightly find compelling. But it's no longer near the rallying cry it once was with Ukraine the largest money-laundering operation in human history, a pretextual war in Iraq, and the US losing its second war in my and Steve's lifetimes in Afghanistan.
Why should I buy into the neocon/neoliberal vision of idealistic versus realistic foreign policy? These are the same people whose defense of Westphalian sovereignty become strangely muted when the talk turns to immigration and industrial offshoring. Then we're all supposed to believe that nationalism is for evil bigots except Ukrainians and Israelis and everyone just needs to join the free trade open borders orgy.
American foreign policy has been framed by Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List for an overly long time.
Trump's a NYCer who works in real estate and now lives in Florida. If this guy has learned anything in life, its always support Israel. Or you're dead.
lmao. Mordecai, you seem to be very well versed on Israeli politics. I guess your hasbara handlers made sure you were educated! I'm sorry you have such an inadequate brain, and are invariably wrong, though.
One anti-war journalist recorded a story on the invasion of Iraq where a solider was bitching to him that he had to use such hackneyed empty p.c. phrases. The solider, a mega-macho dude, just wanted to scream, "We're here to conquer because we're conquerors!" and even the journalist had to admit he felt inspired by such masculine boldness and manly goals of control and subjugation of others rather than "saving democracy."
Agreed. I believe the anti-war reporter also reported the same soldier saying something along the lines of, "We should be open about conquering so we can take the oil and anything else we find valuable, like conquerors of old."
By couching things in terms of "saving democracy" we reduce morale and don't enrich ourselves fully and openly. Better to either never do it or do so openly, as with the Old West.
For most of history, the value of conquest was primarily the value of the dirt conquered: dirt that could grow crops and the occasional mineral deposit.
But the price of war kept going up, as seen in WWI, and the value of dirt for farming went down due to the Haber-Bosch process and the like, as did the relative value of minerals other than oil and gas.
So, from a hard-headed realist perspective, what's the point of going back to a world where countries fight over rare earths. If you conquered the whole planet, your take from rare earths would be ... $4 billion annually!
Reagan and Thatcher didn't want South Africa's chromium to fall into the Soviets' lap, but they only had to fight their own ruling class over it. I can't think of anything since. What can Canada do with their potash but sell it to us?
It's a shame so much oil and gas ended up under such rotten countries. And the weather!
Women. Don't forget about that major resource/reason for war historically. Sex and procreation are a huge base driver of male violence.
Call them the Incel Wars.
Many historians have written out of history the wars and invasions started because X tribe wanted wives. The Romans famously did the Rape of the Sabine Women very early on in their history, but that is largely not held up as a pattern. Likewise, the Trojan War was supposedly started because a Trojan ran off with a Greek guy's wife --- that might have been a simplification of an event where the Trojans sacked a Greek city and took the women as concubines. Still, there too historians refuse to note a pattern.
However, both the Viking and the first few generations of Muslims were men who's homelands didn't have much in the way of women at home (due to polygamy likely), and so they invaded other countries and slaughtered with abandon. Likely the Huns and the Mongols had the same problem, given how they were described historically as being similar in violence and abandon to the 1st-Muslims and the Vikings.
I will also note that Incel Wars tend to be marked by the apparent insane risks the invading hordes took, likely due to massive sexual frustration and some warped-view of peacocking for the ladies. The Vikings with their beserkers, the Mongols with their insanely brave cavalry tactics....
You can see this at any gathering of adults where the sex imbalance becomes more male than female. Suddenly the men become more roughhousing and more violent as they seek to toss out rivals and capture the attention of the remaining females.
On this note, China is primed for invading for the next century and should be carefully watched (and the Chinese government should watch for instability in their own nation based on this). The large sex imbalance their one-child/male favortism poilicy will cause them to do a lot of saber-rattling. Korea, Japan, and much of their neighboring countries are prime fodder for the repressed sexual appetites of millions of Chinese incels.
Rare Earth talk is not about actual foreign policies.
it is always about selling foreign policies to voters back home.
Trump wants voters to believe what he is doing in Ukraine (or Greenland) is about stealing stuff for Americans - ie Good.
Truth is that his real policies are necessarily about retreating Nato away from Russia after the massive Nato defeat and deaths of over 1 million Ukrainian troops (and likely a bunch of nato troops in Kursk).
But rare earths sounds good.
Likewise the bluff about US AI. Unless US developes strong AGI in next 3 years then Chinese superior wet ware will reach AGI much faster, and will develop sub AGI to generate real value much faster.
AI usage and reaching AGI both require large amounts of smart people with IQ over 140. This is a scarce resource China definitely has a monopoly on (half those working on AI in US are of chinese origin!)
The point of AGI is that is the point where AI can start replacing these highly talented humans.
Whoever gets to AGI wins.
3 years to strong AGI and maybe US wins. Any longer or weaker, and China definitely wins.
I'm not going to make AGI predictions here other than AGI of some sort happens in 3-10 years.
on the face of it China probably wins and the only logical US strategy is immediate acceptance of a minority role in a muli-polar world lead by China (if US psychology could permit that).
But one thing is certain, US policy IS now based on a dash to AGI where US gets there first.
That is why it brags so much about fast chip dominance and claims it can get dependence on rare earths (where China has long dominated). That is why Zuck and Bezo jumped ship to Team Trump.
China does not have a monopoly in humans with an IQ over 140.
"That is why [the US] brags so much about fast chip dominance and claims it can get dependence[sic] on rare earths (where China has long dominated)."
* independence?
The point of the Sailer post is that no one is dependent on the Chinese for rare earths. It's up to us if we want to outsource "damages [to] communities".
The Ukraine "deal" was of course just an attempt to get Zelinsky to sign onto something so that Trump could make an "Are you more Catholic than the Pope?" defense, nothing to do with rare earths at all.
I ,respectfully disagree with Steve .Rare earth minerals are important in modern weapons systems so i'm told.If this be the case then if war ensues with CHINA ,what would the USA do;ask CHINA for them so we could arm our weapons to be used possibly against them ? I think we know what their response would be .Therefore i think a responsible foreign policy would need to keep in mind the rare earth mineral aspect.
If a US war with China requires more rare earth elements then we currently mine we'll just have to mine them. The message of the article is that that's not really a problem. Meanwhile we can stock a reserve and, yes, buy them from China if that's expedient.
FWIW, investors aren't falling over themselves looking for investments in capital intensive industries that produce commodities. In fact, the either of those characteristics, 'capital intensive' or 'commodity' are toxic for investments. Everyone wants capital efficient or capital light investments in firms that have a moat or product that is protected. Cereal grains, the classic commodity still sell for $5 bushel, roughly what they did 100 years ago, in spite of massive inflation.
Last year over at Unz we had a long discussion about Lindsay Gottlieb and the USC Trojans. Well this year USC and UConn were placed in the same regional again, so if form holds they will be playing in Spokane next weekend on the 30th or 31st for the right to go to Tampa for the Final Four. I don't recall why I didn't see USC play in New Jersey on a Sunday late afternoon in early January, but the Trojan rolled the Scarlet Knights 92-42 in front of 7400. Meanwhile UConn played in New Jersey on a Wednesday night in mid-February and they rolled the Seton Hall Pirates 91-49 in front of a sell-out crowd of 1300.
I'd be more concerned about pharmaceutical chemical precursors. We stupidly rely on China and India, not only for the precursors, but the finished product as well.
It is a silly thing to organize foreign policy around, until "the Gods of The Copybook Headings with Fire and Terror return!".
For just about all of human history, foreign policy has been organized around the acquisition of resources and territory. Supposedly Europe, horrified by centuries of acquisitive warfare after WW2, decided future wars would be fought over scrupulous principle, like Saving Democracy, or Killing Commies (not that there's anything wrong with that).
It's a vision of the world which Steve and many others rightly find compelling. But it's no longer near the rallying cry it once was with Ukraine the largest money-laundering operation in human history, a pretextual war in Iraq, and the US losing its second war in my and Steve's lifetimes in Afghanistan.
Why should I buy into the neocon/neoliberal vision of idealistic versus realistic foreign policy? These are the same people whose defense of Westphalian sovereignty become strangely muted when the talk turns to immigration and industrial offshoring. Then we're all supposed to believe that nationalism is for evil bigots except Ukrainians and Israelis and everyone just needs to join the free trade open borders orgy.
American foreign policy has been framed by Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List for an overly long time.
My greatest disappointment in the current Trump administration is that he seems fully on board with bombing and missile strikes in the Middle East.
Trump sees Israel as the winning team so he's betting on them.
Watching Syria vanish in a puff of sectarian smoke, it's hard to argue he's wrong.
You’re likely right, but it was awfully nice having a guy in the Oval Office who wasn’t always blowing up people somewhere.
When was that?
Trump's a NYCer who works in real estate and now lives in Florida. If this guy has learned anything in life, its always support Israel. Or you're dead.
It's not Israelis who have taken pot shots at him.
And of course he imposed the Biden ceasefire on Netanyahu, over Netanyahu's objections.
You have a very inadequate brain, invariably wrong.
lmao. Mordecai, you seem to be very well versed on Israeli politics. I guess your hasbara handlers made sure you were educated! I'm sorry you have such an inadequate brain, and are invariably wrong, though.
You're deeply confused, as well as a Nazi. I'm always right, especially about the likes of you.
One anti-war journalist recorded a story on the invasion of Iraq where a solider was bitching to him that he had to use such hackneyed empty p.c. phrases. The solider, a mega-macho dude, just wanted to scream, "We're here to conquer because we're conquerors!" and even the journalist had to admit he felt inspired by such masculine boldness and manly goals of control and subjugation of others rather than "saving democracy."
How much oil did our conquest of Iraq get us?
Agreed. I believe the anti-war reporter also reported the same soldier saying something along the lines of, "We should be open about conquering so we can take the oil and anything else we find valuable, like conquerors of old."
By couching things in terms of "saving democracy" we reduce morale and don't enrich ourselves fully and openly. Better to either never do it or do so openly, as with the Old West.
For most of history, the value of conquest was primarily the value of the dirt conquered: dirt that could grow crops and the occasional mineral deposit.
But the price of war kept going up, as seen in WWI, and the value of dirt for farming went down due to the Haber-Bosch process and the like, as did the relative value of minerals other than oil and gas.
So, from a hard-headed realist perspective, what's the point of going back to a world where countries fight over rare earths. If you conquered the whole planet, your take from rare earths would be ... $4 billion annually!
Reagan and Thatcher didn't want South Africa's chromium to fall into the Soviets' lap, but they only had to fight their own ruling class over it. I can't think of anything since. What can Canada do with their potash but sell it to us?
It's a shame so much oil and gas ended up under such rotten countries. And the weather!
Women. Don't forget about that major resource/reason for war historically. Sex and procreation are a huge base driver of male violence.
Call them the Incel Wars.
Many historians have written out of history the wars and invasions started because X tribe wanted wives. The Romans famously did the Rape of the Sabine Women very early on in their history, but that is largely not held up as a pattern. Likewise, the Trojan War was supposedly started because a Trojan ran off with a Greek guy's wife --- that might have been a simplification of an event where the Trojans sacked a Greek city and took the women as concubines. Still, there too historians refuse to note a pattern.
However, both the Viking and the first few generations of Muslims were men who's homelands didn't have much in the way of women at home (due to polygamy likely), and so they invaded other countries and slaughtered with abandon. Likely the Huns and the Mongols had the same problem, given how they were described historically as being similar in violence and abandon to the 1st-Muslims and the Vikings.
I will also note that Incel Wars tend to be marked by the apparent insane risks the invading hordes took, likely due to massive sexual frustration and some warped-view of peacocking for the ladies. The Vikings with their beserkers, the Mongols with their insanely brave cavalry tactics....
You can see this at any gathering of adults where the sex imbalance becomes more male than female. Suddenly the men become more roughhousing and more violent as they seek to toss out rivals and capture the attention of the remaining females.
On this note, China is primed for invading for the next century and should be carefully watched (and the Chinese government should watch for instability in their own nation based on this). The large sex imbalance their one-child/male favortism poilicy will cause them to do a lot of saber-rattling. Korea, Japan, and much of their neighboring countries are prime fodder for the repressed sexual appetites of millions of Chinese incels.
Don't miss this crybaby whine in NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/us/politics/trump-gridiron-club-dinner.html
Trump team skips Gridiron Club.
Rare Earth talk is not about actual foreign policies.
it is always about selling foreign policies to voters back home.
Trump wants voters to believe what he is doing in Ukraine (or Greenland) is about stealing stuff for Americans - ie Good.
Truth is that his real policies are necessarily about retreating Nato away from Russia after the massive Nato defeat and deaths of over 1 million Ukrainian troops (and likely a bunch of nato troops in Kursk).
But rare earths sounds good.
Likewise the bluff about US AI. Unless US developes strong AGI in next 3 years then Chinese superior wet ware will reach AGI much faster, and will develop sub AGI to generate real value much faster.
AI usage and reaching AGI both require large amounts of smart people with IQ over 140. This is a scarce resource China definitely has a monopoly on (half those working on AI in US are of chinese origin!)
The point of AGI is that is the point where AI can start replacing these highly talented humans.
Whoever gets to AGI wins.
3 years to strong AGI and maybe US wins. Any longer or weaker, and China definitely wins.
I'm not going to make AGI predictions here other than AGI of some sort happens in 3-10 years.
on the face of it China probably wins and the only logical US strategy is immediate acceptance of a minority role in a muli-polar world lead by China (if US psychology could permit that).
But one thing is certain, US policy IS now based on a dash to AGI where US gets there first.
That is why it brags so much about fast chip dominance and claims it can get dependence on rare earths (where China has long dominated). That is why Zuck and Bezo jumped ship to Team Trump.
China does not have a monopoly in humans with an IQ over 140.
"That is why [the US] brags so much about fast chip dominance and claims it can get dependence[sic] on rare earths (where China has long dominated)."
* independence?
The point of the Sailer post is that no one is dependent on the Chinese for rare earths. It's up to us if we want to outsource "damages [to] communities".
The Ukraine "deal" was of course just an attempt to get Zelinsky to sign onto something so that Trump could make an "Are you more Catholic than the Pope?" defense, nothing to do with rare earths at all.
I ,respectfully disagree with Steve .Rare earth minerals are important in modern weapons systems so i'm told.If this be the case then if war ensues with CHINA ,what would the USA do;ask CHINA for them so we could arm our weapons to be used possibly against them ? I think we know what their response would be .Therefore i think a responsible foreign policy would need to keep in mind the rare earth mineral aspect.
If a US war with China requires more rare earth elements then we currently mine we'll just have to mine them. The message of the article is that that's not really a problem. Meanwhile we can stock a reserve and, yes, buy them from China if that's expedient.
I like 'I Just Want to Celebrate', but I was never much of a fan, otherwise.
That song is probably peak Cocaine-Rock, along with Jump Into The Fire.
FWIW, investors aren't falling over themselves looking for investments in capital intensive industries that produce commodities. In fact, the either of those characteristics, 'capital intensive' or 'commodity' are toxic for investments. Everyone wants capital efficient or capital light investments in firms that have a moat or product that is protected. Cereal grains, the classic commodity still sell for $5 bushel, roughly what they did 100 years ago, in spite of massive inflation.
O/T
Last year over at Unz we had a long discussion about Lindsay Gottlieb and the USC Trojans. Well this year USC and UConn were placed in the same regional again, so if form holds they will be playing in Spokane next weekend on the 30th or 31st for the right to go to Tampa for the Final Four. I don't recall why I didn't see USC play in New Jersey on a Sunday late afternoon in early January, but the Trojan rolled the Scarlet Knights 92-42 in front of 7400. Meanwhile UConn played in New Jersey on a Wednesday night in mid-February and they rolled the Seton Hall Pirates 91-49 in front of a sell-out crowd of 1300.
I'd be more concerned about pharmaceutical chemical precursors. We stupidly rely on China and India, not only for the precursors, but the finished product as well.