Greenland - a geopolitical space on the global chess board?
- Thread starter thorbiorn
- Start date
I'd like to share where I'm coming from on this discussion, of how Trump is acting publicly, his foreign policy, and the reasons that some Americans are happy with what they're seeing - and why members of this forum should be held to account when they become heavily identified with things that are 'of this world'.
The lens I'm viewing the situation through is the period of German history that is now referred to as the 'Weimar Republic'. Please forgive me if I'm vague on exact details about this because precise details and a memory for them is not a strong point of mine. I just have the ability to grasp general concepts about things and understand them. So here is my version of it, like the old guy sat at the bar who knows a bit about history.
Until the end of WWI, Germany was a monarchy, with a king or 'kaiser'. When Germany surrendered, the kaiser abdicated and the political power structure of the country had to be completely revamped and reinvented. It was decided that Germany would become a republic and political parties put forward candidates and elections were held.
The voting system that was decided on was one of 'proportional representation'. Again, I'm no expert, but it basically means that there are a certain number of seats up for grabs, and depending on how many votes each party gets, that's how many representatives the parties have in the parliament. This kind of system leads to a particular problem where no single party or party leader gets full control of the country, and so instead you have multiple parties, all with a certain share of power, but all with differing views about what's best. It becomes difficult to pass laws because the parties all argue over them and no one can agree.
On top of this, the German people were angry at the government that had taken the most votes because it was they who 'negotiated' the war reparations, and basically, Germany got bankrupted by their losing the war and having to compensate all the other countries.
So you had a population that were struggling through serious economic hardship for years, lead by a government who were impotent and weak and couldn't rule the country this way or that way. The German people had enough of this and their demographic 'barren land' was ripe to be sowed by a strong and confident 'farmer'.
And along comes Adolf Hitler.
When I look at the whole Greenland thing, I see the US saying "You only have a right to territory if you can defend it and develop it. So we'll just take it for the benefit of Americans." And certain Americans are saying, "YES. Trump is great for us. I agree that he should be able to do that". Oh, okay. So I guess that means that my wife and I only have a right to our personal property if we can defend and develop it, huh?
I see Trump applying this to Venezuela (and other LATAM countries), saying that their resources are in his back yard and since he wants them, then he's going to take them, for the benefit of Americans, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And again, I see Americans cheering about this because it benefits them.
Trump's attitude towards Europe is that Europe has taken advantage of the US and it's citizens for too long, and now it's going to stop. Just like Hitler and the people of Germany were angry that Germany had been taken advantage of at the end of WWI with the deal for reparations.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Now, I'm realist enough to look at the question I asked earlier with an open mind. The question was, do my wife and I have a right to our personal property only if we can defend it from other people who wish to take it? Well, we live in an STS hellhole. And fortunately for us, we were born and raised in a relatively civilised society that has hundreds of years of laws designed to make our lives easier and better. But you can't legislate the selfishness or propensity for dominating others out of human beings. So if Trump wants to take Greenland, or kidnap people from their homes, can anyone do anything about it?
No. Not really.
So my point is this:
There's nothing anyone can do about what happens at the macro geopolitical level. But the way we interpret these events will be determined by our programming and the work that we have done on ourselves. For 41 years I have enjoyed the benefits of living in the west, but my standard of living has been stolen from all the other countries that are lower down on the pecking-order. I want the highest standard of living possible. I want to be free from the risk of being physically attacked; I want to pay fair prices for food and energy; I want adequate public services; I want to be able feel safe that my personal property is secure and won't be taken away from me.
I don't know if I'd call these 'rights'; but I firmly believe they are things that everyone should have.
Under no circumstances would I ever justify the infringement or violation or degradation of these things as they apply to other people, on the basis of making my own life better. And that is what I see in the attitudes of Americans who justify the imperialistic actions of their government on the basis of making America great again. And it just grinds my gears.
The lens I'm viewing the situation through is the period of German history that is now referred to as the 'Weimar Republic'. Please forgive me if I'm vague on exact details about this because precise details and a memory for them is not a strong point of mine. I just have the ability to grasp general concepts about things and understand them. So here is my version of it, like the old guy sat at the bar who knows a bit about history.
Until the end of WWI, Germany was a monarchy, with a king or 'kaiser'. When Germany surrendered, the kaiser abdicated and the political power structure of the country had to be completely revamped and reinvented. It was decided that Germany would become a republic and political parties put forward candidates and elections were held.
The voting system that was decided on was one of 'proportional representation'. Again, I'm no expert, but it basically means that there are a certain number of seats up for grabs, and depending on how many votes each party gets, that's how many representatives the parties have in the parliament. This kind of system leads to a particular problem where no single party or party leader gets full control of the country, and so instead you have multiple parties, all with a certain share of power, but all with differing views about what's best. It becomes difficult to pass laws because the parties all argue over them and no one can agree.
On top of this, the German people were angry at the government that had taken the most votes because it was they who 'negotiated' the war reparations, and basically, Germany got bankrupted by their losing the war and having to compensate all the other countries.
So you had a population that were struggling through serious economic hardship for years, lead by a government who were impotent and weak and couldn't rule the country this way or that way. The German people had enough of this and their demographic 'barren land' was ripe to be sowed by a strong and confident 'farmer'.
And along comes Adolf Hitler.
When I look at the whole Greenland thing, I see the US saying "You only have a right to territory if you can defend it and develop it. So we'll just take it for the benefit of Americans." And certain Americans are saying, "YES. Trump is great for us. I agree that he should be able to do that". Oh, okay. So I guess that means that my wife and I only have a right to our personal property if we can defend and develop it, huh?
I see Trump applying this to Venezuela (and other LATAM countries), saying that their resources are in his back yard and since he wants them, then he's going to take them, for the benefit of Americans, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. And again, I see Americans cheering about this because it benefits them.
Trump's attitude towards Europe is that Europe has taken advantage of the US and it's citizens for too long, and now it's going to stop. Just like Hitler and the people of Germany were angry that Germany had been taken advantage of at the end of WWI with the deal for reparations.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Now, I'm realist enough to look at the question I asked earlier with an open mind. The question was, do my wife and I have a right to our personal property only if we can defend it from other people who wish to take it? Well, we live in an STS hellhole. And fortunately for us, we were born and raised in a relatively civilised society that has hundreds of years of laws designed to make our lives easier and better. But you can't legislate the selfishness or propensity for dominating others out of human beings. So if Trump wants to take Greenland, or kidnap people from their homes, can anyone do anything about it?
No. Not really.
So my point is this:
There's nothing anyone can do about what happens at the macro geopolitical level. But the way we interpret these events will be determined by our programming and the work that we have done on ourselves. For 41 years I have enjoyed the benefits of living in the west, but my standard of living has been stolen from all the other countries that are lower down on the pecking-order. I want the highest standard of living possible. I want to be free from the risk of being physically attacked; I want to pay fair prices for food and energy; I want adequate public services; I want to be able feel safe that my personal property is secure and won't be taken away from me.
I don't know if I'd call these 'rights'; but I firmly believe they are things that everyone should have.
Under no circumstances would I ever justify the infringement or violation or degradation of these things as they apply to other people, on the basis of making my own life better. And that is what I see in the attitudes of Americans who justify the imperialistic actions of their government on the basis of making America great again. And it just grinds my gears.
John G
The Living Force
Trump fans in the U.S. kind of laugh at Trump's opening bids cause they are so unlike any other president's operating style. Trump has the nickname of TACO from his critics (Trump Always Chickens Out) but it's all just his art of the deal operating style. Even Putin sees nothing wrong with the U.S. buying Greenland and I'm sure the current NATO facilitated deal being negotiated is probably OK with Putin too (buying-wise it may have some patches of land sold to the U.S.). Trump should just target recent border crossers and criminals which is what I think Obama did. Obama did have the advantage that recent crossers probably lived nearer the border back then. Trump is getting much larger deportations (75% of them) voluntarily via buying the ticket home plus some cash.
For Venezuela, Trump is probably overly mad about past taking of oil company assets by Venezuela. He still didn't do any long term boots on the ground (Trump genuinely doesn't like to pay for wars but will let others buy from the U.S. if they really want to fight). He genuinely likes onshoring over offshoring and has for decades aka he is anti-globalist. He is under threats to his family as the Cs said so anything the deep state really wants Trump is likely going to do. Trump also falls for tech people talking so an even more high tech surveillance state could certainly be on the way. He's a mixed bag that gets more negative with threats to his family.
ApotheosisMMC.
Dagobah Resident
In other words, he is currently largely powerless and at the mercy of the deep state and those who know how to whisper in his ear (who, in turn, are aligned with the STS agendas, whether they know it or not).
Ultimately, he has some room to maneuver, but only on specific issues that are sold as great achievements and that won't cause a major change in the destiny of the USA. He is naive and arrogant enough not to see that his actions to force economic deals give his country a bad image, and others seek to distance themselves if their elites aren't as stupid or equally powerless. I wonder what will happen when the deep state clashes with the increasingly harsh reality.
I guess things won't change much from how they are now, and Trump will be forced, as he already has been, to launch military operations. Granted, we can give him credit for trying to do them quickly (even so, what happened in Venezuela was pure dirty imperialism), but that may not last forever, and things could escalate, he could underestimate certain targets, and in the end, things could fall apart.
It's bad simply because the deep state, if it so desires, will find a way. Trump may have delayed certain specific things, but overall, things remain the same, and his own illusory vision of things means that the type of actions he chose to use to achieve this objective, although focused on the economy, don't ultimately stray too far from the interests of the deep state. He could have chosen a path of integration with other powers, and to a certain extent, he sees feasibility in that, but he hasn't abandoned the methods of the deep state, whether he believes it or not.
At this point, I think perhaps he does see it, but he continues trying to achieve something because of his illusions, despite having his hands tied. He wouldn't be entirely to blame in some respects because of this, but pitying him has nothing to do with the fact that his actions continue to keep the USA on a karmic path that may end fatally.
Trending content
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
