• 8 Posts
  • 369 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 21st, 2024

help-circle










  • I don’t think so. I think that the old MAGAts running the Pentagon think it’s a good idea and Trump is oushing the Overton window for them. I can easily see a path toward US incorporation or domination of Greenland that does from US-backed Greenland independence to strategic and economic alliance to US domination and eventual Peurto Rico kind of status. It would all be political. Denmark can’t stop that actually.

    Trump is a fucking idiot. He should just proclaim support for Greenland’s independence and offer the tiny population some great economic and diplomatic deals to get his way.


  • To play devil’s advocate: Greenland has only like 60,000 people. It’s bigger than the France, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, Belgium and Greece combined. It is also seeking independence because they aren’t interested in being ruled by a random small European country that tried to sterilize them and steal their resources. Denmark has slowly caved-in to their independence demands because it wasn’t interested in being a colonial power. Now it just holds on to it on behalf of NATO.

    From a nation-state’s point of view, this is an unihabited land with era-defining strategic and economic significance.

    The US military has an impossible nut to crack with China. It recognizes that climate change will happen, but is going to position itself to come out ahead from it (if it doesn’t destroy us all). It’s not confident that it will maintain the global relevance it has today by the mid-21st century.

    Why not smash and grab while you can? Create Greater Israel, destroy Iran, take Greenland, control the Panama canal, and most likely give Australia nuclear weapons (and perhaps Japan but not likely). Tell the UN and other international institutions to fuck off if they stop serving your national interests. Turn Europeans into vassal states.

    That’s the post-liberalism future lf America that I see.



  • A controversial aspect of A. G. Sulzberger’s vision for the NYT was reported on in a podcast deep dive into anti-trans bias at the paper by TransLash Media in 2024. TransLash reported A. G. sought to shift the paper’s reputation for being politically aligned with liberals in order to add more conservatives to the subscriber base. The link between the desire at the top to court conservative audiences and anti-trans bias in the coverage remains unproven, and the New York Times has declined to comment on the reporting about A. G.’s audience strategy, to TransLash then, or to Assigned now.

    It’s not a huge mystery. Sulzberger is an old, white, Jewish man. He has read the room and realized that the progressive movement that formed and became prominent over the Obama years is a threat to billionaires, media moguls and the racist ideology of Zionism. The three things he best represents. That’s why he filled the op-ed page with midwits like Bret Stephens.





  • It’s a win-win for them. They can let genocidally anti-Muslim rhetoric on while keeping their selectively pro-Israel content policy, getting support from the burgeoning far right in the US and Europe while suppressing the anti-establishment element of it that happens to be the most anti-semitic and anti-Israel, and avoiding the scrutiny of the AIPAC-bought Congress and White House that they’re letting hatred of Israel proliferate by letting Palestinians use the platform.