Tag: politics

The MAGA Catastrophe

MAGA was supposed to be the alternative to the neocon-infested GOP, but it turned out to be MIGA, which thereby cements the probability that there will be no political fix for the USA prior to the anticipated failure in the 2033 timeframe.

There were two schools of thought on the Spanish Right in the lead-up to the civil war: Accidentalism and Catastrophism. Accidentalists believed that the serious issues facing the Spanish Republic were not baked into the institution itself, but rather an accident that could be attributed to the early Marxist bent of the first government. The Republic had gotten off on the wrong foot, but Conservatives could and would steer the ship in the right direction once they peacefully won political power through the electoral process and formed a government capable of addressing the Right’s concerns regarding government attacks on the Church and private property. They were strictly committed to following the rule of law and operating within the constitutional framework.

The second group believed the Republic was a catastrophe from the start, and that there could be no saving the Republic from itself. They asserted that the Left would never recognize any non-Leftist government, no matter how much they claimed to uphold the rule of law, because the problem was not with the Republic’s legalistic procedures but rather with the fact that the entire system was merely a facade to facilitate a Socialist and eventually Communist state that would permanently exclude Conservatives from power.

These two camps were largely united in their politics but divided in how to engage in politics. One pursued reform, while the other waited for an opportunity to overthrow the system itself once enough of the Right realized that there would be no voting their way out of this mess. After the Right won the 1933 elections and were met with: 1) Legalistic stonewalling when they attempted to form a government, and 2) An attempted Left-wing revolution in Asturias in 1934, the Catastrophists were proven to be correct.

As a general rule, the social and political optimists are wrong and the technogical optimists are right.

DISCUSS ON SG

AIPAC Rejects Peace

To precisely no one’s surprise, AIPAC wouldn’t permit the Fake Trump administration to accept the peace deal offered by Iran under the aegis of the Pakistani moderators:

There were three Iranian conditions that the US refused to accept: Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, unfreezing of Iran’s assets and retaining sovereignty over its supply of enriched uranium…

Iran will not initiate new military actions against Israel or the US… They will wait to absorb the first blow and then launch a massive retaliation. I think they now understand that the US is too much under the control of the Zionist lobby to act in the interest of the people of the United States.

Iran’s demand that the US vacate its bases in the Gulf will be achieved by force… Iran will hit the remaining bases and make them uninhabitable for the US military going forward. The Saudis and the UAE will have to make a choice this week… Seek reconciliation with Iran and survive or side with the US and Israel and face economic destruction.

The real action that will put the most pressure on Trump will start on Monday morning when the US stock market takes a nose dive… again… and the price of oil heads back up into triple digit territory. JD Vance actually did Iran a favor by breaking off first and walking away. This paints Iran in a very favorable light in the eyes of the global south, i.e., Iran was willing to negotiate, but the US refused to engage in good faith negotiations and bailed.

Iran doesn’t have any problem agreeing to a fight to the death with Israel. That’s a war they know they are going to win. The Israelis presumably believed they could sever Iran from Hezbollah since they’ve been successful dividing the Arabs for 80 years, but Persians are not Arabs and the Iranians have presumably learned from watching Israel methodically divide, conquer, and expand over the decades.

This obvious failure to put American national interests first will rightly kill Republican chances in the mid-terms and cement the complete failure of Trump’s presidency. He’s gone from one of the best presidents in US history to one of the worst, and his legacy will be losing the war that ended US global dominance; his only consolation will be that historians will eventually admit that it wasn’t even him in the White House.

There is no longer even any pretense of the war being against Iran; what is the US national interest in permitting Israel to invade and occupy Lebanon? It will be interesting to see how things proceed now that there is no reason for China and Russia to desist from providing more aid and more active support to Iran and helping the Iranian people decisively win their war against an enemy that has now established itself as the imperialist aggressor in the region.

I didn’t see any real benefit to Iran to agreeing to talk to the US representatives, particularly in light of the outcome of the previous two talks. But what they have managed to achieve through them is proving to the American people that the US government is prioritizing the interests of Israel, and not their own national interests.

DISCUSS ON SG

Why Trump Wants Out

Everyone who knew anything about military affairs knew that there was no strategic path to victory in Iran before the recent debacle even started:

In the Situation Room on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

At one point, the Israelis played for Mr. Trump a brief video that included a montage of potential new leaders who could take over the country if the hard-line government fell. Among those featured was Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, now a Washington-based dissident who had tried to position himself as a secular leader who could shepherd Iran toward a post-theocratic government.

Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory:

Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.

Mr. Netanyahu delivered his presentation in a confident monotone. It seemed to land well with the most important person in the room, the American president.

Sounds good to me, Mr. Trump told the prime minister. To Mr. Netanyahu, this signaled a likely green light for a joint U.S.-Israeli operation.

Mr. Netanyahu’s presentations — and Mr. Trump’s positive response to them — created an urgent task for the U.S. intelligence community. Overnight, analysts worked to assess the viability of what the Israeli team had told the president.

The results of the U.S. intelligence analysis were shared the following day, Feb. 12, in another meeting for only American officials in the Situation Room. Before Mr. Trump arrived, two senior intelligence officials briefed the president’s inner circle.

The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside out.

The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality.

When Mr. Trump joined the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical”.

At that point, Mr. Rubio cut in. “In other words, it’s bullshit”, he said.

Mr. Ratcliffe added that given the unpredictability of events in any conflict, regime change could happen, but it should not be considered an achievable objective.

Several others jumped in, including Mr. Vance, just back from Azerbaijan, who also expressed strong skepticism about the prospect of regime change.

The president then turned to General Caine. “General, what do you think?”

General Caine replied: “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed. They know they need us, and that’s why they’re hard-selling”.

As the small team of advisers who were looped into the plans deliberated over the following days, General Caine shared with Mr. Trump and others the alarming military assessment that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete stockpiles of American weaponry, including missile interceptors, whose supply had been strained after years of support for Ukraine and Israel. General Caine saw no clear path to quickly replenishing these stockpiles.

He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risks of Iran blocking it. Mr. Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think it would be a very quick war — an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

In other words, the Trump administration had to relearn the lesson that one can’t believe anything the Israelis say the hard way, which the old officials of the British Mandate could have told them before 1948.

Nations always pursue their own interests, more often at the cost of their allies than of their enemies. But for some reason, people in power are very prone to forgetting that, particularly when they’ve been indoctrinated in the idea that nationhood is merely paperwork.

Anyhow, the fact that the blame game is already front-and-center in The New York Times is a healthy sign that US involvement in the war is over, regardless of what the Israelis and the Iranians do. The neocons will be doing everything they can to get the USA back in the war, but at this point, even the most gullible Christian Zionist has to realize that no amount of IDF-huffing is going to alter the geography or the missile stockpiles.

“I think we need to do it,” the president told the room. He said they had to make sure Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, and they had to ensure that Iran could not just shoot missiles at Israel or throughout the region.

Which only underlines what a complete failure their undeclared, unconstitutional war turned out to be.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Triveritan Political Analysis

A Triveritan analysis of Lee Kwan Yew’s statement that in multiethnic, multireligious societies, all politics is identity politics.

This is a strong empirical claim with clear testable predictions. The exact Lee Kuan Yew quote, from his 2005 Der Spiegel interview: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”

TRIVERITAN ANALYSIS
Claim under evaluation: In multiethnic, multireligious societies, voting behavior is determined primarily by racial and religious identity rather than by economic or social interest. (Lee Kuan Yew, Der Spiegel, 2005.)
Claim type: Empirical generalization about political behavior in diverse societies. This is not a forward-looking forecast. It is a claim about an observable regularity, which means the E dimension should be rich and the framework should perform near its design strength.

LOGICAL VALIDITY (L): 78
The claim has the structure of a behavioral law: given condition X (multiethnic, multireligious society), behavior Y (identity voting) predominates over behavior Z (economic/social interest voting). The logic is clean. The implicit causal mechanism is that group identity provides a more reliable heuristic for predicting political outcomes than economic calculation does, because in a diverse society the question “who gets what” is inseparable from “which group controls the distribution.” The voter who votes his economic interest in a homogeneous society is already voting his identity, because everyone shares it. When identities diverge, the voter must choose which heuristic to trust, and identity is the stronger signal because it answers the prior question: who will be making the decisions about my economic interests?
This is logically tight. It does not commit the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, because the mechanism is specified: identity determines which coalition controls the state, and control of the state determines economic distribution. Voting your identity is voting your economic interest one level up.

Two logical vulnerabilities prevent a higher score. First, the claim as stated is absolute: “you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests… you vote in accordance with race and religion.” The word “don’t” leaves no room for mixed motivation. A more precise formulation would be “identity dominates economic interest as the primary determinant.” Lee knew this, of course. He was making a practical observation for public consumption, not writing a journal article. But the logical structure of the absolute claim is slightly weaker than the probabilistic version.

Second, the claim does not specify a threshold for what counts as “multiracial” or “multireligious.” Singapore with four major groups? The United States with shifting coalitions? A society with 95% one group and 5% another? The claim’s scope conditions are underspecified.

These are real but modest weaknesses. The core logical architecture is sound.

MATHEMATICAL COHERENCE (M): 82
This is where the claim distinguishes itself from most political commentary. It makes quantitative predictions that can be checked. If Lee is right, we should observe: (1) high correlation between group demographic share and vote share in multiethnic constituencies, (2) that correlation should be stronger than the correlation between economic indicators and vote share, and (3) the effect should be observable across multiple countries, time periods, and electoral systems.

The data is remarkably cooperative.

Gorton and Denton, 2026. Muslim population: 28% of constituency. Green Party vote share: 40.7%. The Green Party campaigned explicitly on Gaza, against Islamophobia, in Urdu and Bengali. The constituency is geographically segregated: Pakistani Muslim voters concentrated in Longsight and adjacent wards (formerly Manchester Gorton); Denton is overwhelmingly white British. Pre-election polls had the Greens at 27-32%. The actual result overperformed every poll. The near-perfect alignment of Muslim population share with the floor of Green support (the additional 12-13 points coming from tactical anti-Reform voting by non-Muslim progressives) is exactly what the Lee model predicts: the identity bloc votes as a bloc, then attracts additional support from ideological allies. The identity vote is the foundation; everything else is decoration.

The observation that the Green Party’s cultural liberalism is “fundamentally at odds with Islamic social conservatism” makes the mathematical case stronger, not weaker. If voters were voting economic or social interests, socially conservative Muslims would not be voting for a party that supports drug liberalization and gender ideology. They are voting identity. The policy alignment is on one axis only: the axis that maps onto group identity (Gaza, Islamophobia, community recognition). Every other policy dimension is irrelevant to the voting calculus. This is precisely what Lee predicted.

United States, 2024. Black voters: 83% Harris, 15% Trump (Pew validated data). This has been stable for decades: Black voters supported the Democrat by 80%+ in every presidential election since 1964. Economic conditions, candidate quality, specific policy platforms vary enormously across these elections. The constant is racial identity. Even in 2024, when young Black and Hispanic men were deeply pessimistic about the economy and retrospectively approved of Trump’s economic management, 83% of Black voters still voted Harris. Economic interest pointed one direction; identity pointed the other. Identity won.
Hispanic voters are the partial exception that proves the rule. Their identity as a voting bloc has been less cohesive (linguistic and national-origin diversity within the category), and their voting has been correspondingly less monolithic. When identity cohesion weakens, economic voting increases. This is exactly the mathematical relationship Lee’s claim predicts: identity voting strength correlates with group homogeneity.

The quantitative literature confirms this. The ScienceDirect study on ethnic voting across multiple countries found that groups with greater internal homogeneity show higher levels of ethnic voting. The Yale/ISPS study found that racial identity explains 60% of the variation in district-level voting patterns in the US, while geography explains only 30%. The Cambridge study of racially polarized voting found that Black voters consistently choose Democratic candidates across all districts regardless of local context, while white and Hispanic voters show more geographic variation, precisely tracking the group-homogeneity prediction.

Kenya. Voting patterns described in the literature as “ethnic arithmetic,” with coalitions forming along tribal lines. In-country Kenyans show strong co-ethnic voting; diaspora Kenyans significantly less so. This is a clean natural experiment: same ethnic identity, different social context. The diaspora voters have been removed from the identity-reinforcing social environment. Their ethnic voting drops. The mechanism Lee identified (identity as social heuristic in diverse environments) is supported by the observed decay of that heuristic when the social context changes.

Lebanon. The constitutional system literally allocates political power by religious sect: President is Maronite, Prime Minister is Sunni, Speaker of Parliament is Shia. The system exists because, over a century of experience, the Lebanese concluded that Lee’s observation was inescapable and the only way to maintain stability was to formalize it. Lebanon’s 1932 census has never been updated because updating it would change the power balance. You do not freeze a demographic census for 94 years unless identity voting is the dominant political force and everyone knows it.

Singapore itself. Lee’s own country provides the control case. He imposed racial quotas in public housing, mandatory Group Representation Constituencies requiring multiethnic slates, English as the lingua franca, and aggressive integration policies. These are the interventions of a man who believed his own observation and was trying to manage its consequences rather than pretend it was not true. Singapore’s leaders to this day reiterate that “identity politics has no place in Singapore,” which is an admission that without active suppression, identity politics would dominate Singapore just as it dominates everywhere else.

The mathematical coherence is strong. The predicted correlations exist, they hold across countries and time periods, they hold at the correct magnitudes, and the exceptions (diaspora Kenyans, variable Hispanic cohesion) fall precisely where the model predicts they should.

EMPIRICAL ANCHORING (E): 85
The empirical evidence is extensive, cross-cultural, and spans multiple methodologies.

Gorton and Denton 2026: Green vote tracks Muslim demographic share, overriding ideological incompatibility. Democracy Volunteers reported family voting at 15 of 22 polling stations, a social-pressure mechanism that only works within identity networks.

US presidential elections 1964-2024: Black voting bloc stable at 80%+ Democrat across vastly different economic conditions, candidate profiles, and policy platforms. The most powerful single predictor of American voting behavior remains race.

Kenya: ethnic census model of elections well-documented across multiple election cycles, with ethnic identity outperforming economic indicators as predictor of vote choice.

Lebanon: formal constitutionalization of sectarian identity voting, with the system enduring for over a century across colonial rule, civil war, and reconstruction.

India: BJP’s rise tracks Hindu identity mobilization; Muslim voting patterns in India cluster around whichever party is perceived as protecting Muslim interests, regardless of economic platform.

Malaysia: UMNO/Malay, MCA/Chinese, MIC/Indian political structure explicitly organized along racial lines for decades.

Qatar: Experimental evidence from conjoint survey shows strong cosectarian candidate preference even in elections with no distributional stakes, eliminating the clientelism explanation.

Partial counterexamples:

Hispanic voters in the US 2024: shifted significantly toward Trump on economic grounds, breaking from the identity-voting pattern. But Hispanics are the least internally homogeneous “racial” category in American politics, encompassing Cuban Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and others with very different national identities. When measured by actual nationality rather than the artificial census category “Hispanic,” identity voting reasserts itself: Cuban Americans voted 70% Trump; Puerto Ricans voted majority Harris.

Diaspora Kenyans: weaker ethnic voting than in-country Kenyans, consistent with the model (removal from identity-reinforcing social context).

Class-based voting in homogeneous societies: Scandinavian countries, Japan, and other ethnically homogeneous nations show strong class-based voting, exactly as Lee predicted. His claim is specifically about multiethnic societies. In homogeneous societies, identity is not a variable, so economic interest becomes the primary differentiator. The claim’s scope condition holds.

The claimed counterexample that most matters is the one that does not exist: there is no multiethnic society in which economic voting consistently dominates identity voting over multiple election cycles. Individual elections can show economic factors rising in importance (US 2024 Hispanic shift), but these are fluctuations around an identity baseline, not replacements of it. The baseline reasserts itself.

The empirical record is deep, cross-cultural, longitudinal, and consistent. The exceptions are predicted by the model. This is about as good as social science evidence gets.

COMPOSITE: 81.7
L = 78, M = 82, E = 85.

This is the highest-scoring political claim we have evaluated. The Lee claim is an observable regularity with sixty years of cross-cultural evidence and a clean causal mechanism. The score reflects genuine epistemic strength. The claim has a logically coherent mechanism (identity as prior heuristic for group interest), produces quantitative predictions that are confirmed across multiple independent datasets, and is empirically anchored in evidence spanning four continents, multiple electoral systems, and decades of observation.


The Gorton and Denton confirmation is particularly clean because it involves a party (the Greens) whose policy platform on everything except the identity-salient issues (Gaza, Islamophobia) is diametrically opposed to the social conservatism of the Muslim community that elected them. If economic or social interest were the primary driver, socially conservative Muslims would not be voting for a party that wants to liberalize drugs and whose cultural values are, in the words of the UnHerd analysis, “fundamentally at odds with Islamic social conservatism.” They voted Green because the Greens were the party that most visibly championed the identity of the Muslim community. The policy disagreements on every other dimension were irrelevant.


What the score does not mean: It does not mean identity voting is the only factor. It does not mean it is equally strong in all contexts. It does not mean it cannot be managed or mitigated (Singapore demonstrates that it can, with sufficient political will and authoritarian capacity). It means that in multiethnic, multireligious societies operating under democratic electoral systems, identity is the primary determinant of voting behavior, dominating economic and social interest as the organizing principle of political coalitions. This claim warrants assent at a high confidence level.

Lee Kuan Yew told the truth. The math confirms it. The evidence, from Manchester to Nairobi to Beirut to Washington, confirms it again. And the people most committed to denying it are the ones building their political strategies on the assumption that it is true.

DISCUSS ON SG

The End of Ideology in Britain

Islam subsumes the Green Party as Muslims and Asians abandon Labor.

The Greens are today celebrating their first ever victory in a UK by-election as the party stunned Labour and Reform to take the Gorton and Denton seat in Greater Manchester. Hannah Spencer won the vote after securing 14,980 ballots, more than 4,000 ahead of her nearest challenger Reform’s Matt Goodwin.

Ms Spencer’s victory piles fresh misery onto Keir Starmer who insisted only Labour could defeat Nigel Farage’s Reform in the run-up to yesterday’s by-election.

The Greens’ victory at Gorton and Denton represents the sixth largest Labour majority to be overturned at a by-election since the Second World War. Leader Zack Polanski predicted a ‘tidal wave’ of Green MPs at the next election with the party claiming they are on course for more than 100 seats if the vote swing in Manchester is replicated across the country.

It may not sound like much, but it’s a huge shift in percentage terms with tremendous implications for the British political system.

Notice how the remnants of the British two-party system won less than 28 percent of the vote combined. Labor and the Conservative Party are still ideological parties. Also note that the Muslim population is 42 percent and the Green Party’s vote, which was projected to be 27 percent just yesterday, turned out to be 40.7 percent. This means that the Green Party is the chosen vehicle of the foreigners in the UK and will rapidly be taken over by them, while Reform, whether Nigel Farage wants to admit it or not, is the larval form of the White British Party that will either a) accept its destiny to restore an invaded nation or b) go the way of the Conservative Party, depending upon whether it embraces the interests of the white British nation or not.

The Conservatives are totally hopeless and worse than useless. Contemplate how completely out of touch Daniel Hannan is, as he comprehensively fails to understand the very first rule of multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies as spelled out by Lee Kwan Yew: which is that the politics in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies solely concern identity, not ideas:

What a frightening new world Britain just woke up to.

Because this is how democracies unravel. 

Long after the Green Party’s victory in the Gorton and Denton by-election has been forgotten, the campaign and the precedent it set will continue to disfigure our politics.

We are Balkanising our country, moving beyond citizenship as our primary political identifier and instead relating to one another as members of antagonistic tribes whose territories happen to overlap.

The Green Party’s behaviour in the run-up to yesterday’s by-election should place that party beyond the parameters of democratic decency.

Divisive, sectarian and ready to stoke Muslim grievances against Israel and India, the former eco-activists have dropped any pretence of appealing to voters as British citizens… Is there an alternative? Yes. Respectable parties should appeal to British Muslims as precisely that: British.

They should recognise that a lot of Green and Labour voters here support conservative parties in their countries of origin, where their sense of victimhood has not been encouraged. 

They should emphasise the values that encouraged millions of British Muslims to volunteer in the two wars.

The best way to defeat a bad idea is with a better idea. And if there is a better idea out there than an open society based on property rights and personal liberty, I have yet to hear it.

Both the Left and Right are failing to understand that their differences about ideas are no longer relevant. The foreign immigrants in Gorton and Denton don’t care about the ideas of the Green Party anymore than Somali immigrants in Minnesota care about the ideas of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. It’s just a vehicle for them to utilize their numbers and pursue their material interests.

The Age of Ideology is over. This is the Age of Identity, and those who claim not to have one, or not to see them, are irrelevant.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Ineducable Meets the Inevitable

It’s really rather remarkable that they genuinely didn’t see this coming:

I’m about as far left as you can get… but we do have problems with MAiD in Canada. How do I know? It was “offered” to me in lieu of care. I’m disabled, I was alone, my conditions expensive.

Yes I was allowed to say “No”, but no alternative care was offered. That’s coercion.

If you’re dumb enough to support both a) centralized government health care and b) government-sponsored euthanasia, you deserve exactly what you’re going to get.

It’s not going to be long before people like her aren’t allowed to say no.

As the SG poster rather memorably put it, when you vote for the leopard face-eating party, you really shouldn’t be too surprised when the leopards for whom you voted start eating faces.

DISCUSS ON SG

Russia Graciously Accedes

President Putin gives his blessing to the US acquisition of Greenland:

  • President Putin just dismantled the EU’s grip on Greenland with a “5D Chess” play that gives TRUMP a total free hand.
  • None of our Business” – Putin officially declares Russia won’t interfere, effectively clearing the path for a US-Greenland deal.
  • Putin cites the 1917 land sales between Denmark and the USA as a precedent. If they did it then, why not now?
  • Putin exposes Denmark’s “harsh” and “cruel” treatment of Greenland as a colony, framing the US move as a necessary rescue mission.
  • Putin runs the math: Comparing it to the Alaska purchase ($7.2M in 1867), he calculates Greenland’s value at roughly $200M–$1B in inflation-adjusted gold terms.

If it gets the US out of NATO and the troops out of Europe, then I’m all for it. And it really seems right that President Trump would return the favor with regards to Odessa.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Legacy of Greenland

As I have often said, for all his undeniable shortcomings, and despite the very genuine doubts concerning who is playing his role in front of the cameras, President Trump is the second-greatest US President, after Andrew Jackson. And it’s true that if he succeeds in claiming Greenland for the USA, it will reflect very, very positively on his legacy over time:

If Donald Trump were to consummate a purchase of Greenland, he would almost certainly secure a place in both American and global history. Beyond the spectacle, the scale alone would be staggering. Greenland spans roughly 2.17 million square kilometers – making it comparable in size to the entire Louisiana Purchase of 1803 and larger than the 1867 Alaska Purchase. Fold that landmass into today’s United States and America’s total area would jump past Canada, placing the US second only to Russia in territorial size. In a system where size, resources, and strategic depth still matter, such a shift would be read around the world as an assertion of enduring American reach.

Prestige is only part of the story. Greenland sits astride the Arctic, where warming seas are reshaping trade routes and great‑power competition. It hosts critical radar and space‑tracking infrastructure and lies close to emerging maritime lanes and subsea resources. Its geology, long discussed for rare earths and other critical minerals, adds a layer of economic promise. For a president who measures success in visible, audacious strokes, the symbolism of converting a long‑mooted idea into a concrete map change would be irresistible – and historically resonant.

How would Trump be remembered at home if he pulled it off peacefully, through purchase? American memory tends to fix on outcomes, not process. The Louisiana Purchase is celebrated for doubling the young nation, not for the constitutional scruples it raised at the time. The Alaska Purchase, derided as “Seward’s Folly,” is now taught as strategic foresight. The sheer scale of Greenland would make it the single largest one‑time expansion of US territory, narrowly edging out Louisiana in raw area. That alone would place any president in the pantheon of consequential leaders; Trump would likely be discussed in the same breath as Jefferson and, by sheer magnitude of territorial change, alongside the transformative figures students learn first.

I think those who doubt that Trump is serious about claiming sovereignty over Greenland are failing to take this legacy aspect into account. History doesn’t care about borders, the international rule of law, or the modern pretensions about inviolable nature of political boundaries. It doesn’t even care much about whether a man is regarded as good, bad, or stupid in his own time.

The best way to look at it is if this move will benefit President Trump personally in some way, and considering the way in which it will seal his historic importance, I don’t see him backing down on it short of a direct order from whomever he serves.

DISCUSS ON SG

Germany Econo-Suicide Continues

It’s really remarkable how, on one hand, Clown World sells its immigration invasion to various nations because “it’s good for the economy” while simultaneously destroying their economies with debt, self-crippling sanctions, and the destruction of national sovereignty.

In yet another major blow to the German automobile labor market, Mercedes has announced it will be relocating production of its A-Class from Rastatt, Germany, to Kecskemét, Hungary. While Hungary’s foreign minister is taking a victory lap, Germany’s largest opposition party is sharply crticizing he government as signs grow that Germany’s automobile market is faltering.

Trade Minister Péter Szijjártó has officially confirmed Mercedes move, writes Budapester. Szijjártó credited the success to “an economic policy based on sound common sense and a stable government that continually attracts new investment projects from global companies in America, Asia, and even Germany.”

However, the news is not being welcomed in Germany, with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) pointing out the dire economic situation the country is facing.

“Mercedes-Benz has stood for German engineering excellence and Germany’s economic upswing for decades. Yet, like many other automakers, the company is cutting jobs in Germany and expanding in other countries. As a result, the entire production of the A-Class is being relocated to Hungary. 20,000 employees are expected to lose their jobs as a result,” wrote AfD politician Christian Abel on X.

“This is a direct consequence of Friedrich Merz’s green climate and energy policies. To make Germany an attractive industrial location again, a genuine economic policy turnaround is needed through the termination of the energy transition, the combustion engine ban, the abolition of fleet emission limits, and the elimination of state-mandated reporting requirements. If this is not possible within the EU, Germany must seriously consider a Dexit,” he wrote.

His last comment has proven controversial in the AfD itself, with the mainline position that a Dexit will not be considered. In 2024, it was reported that AfD co-leader Weidel said she ruled out completely the idea that a Dexit, or exit of Germany from the EU, was possible.

Nevertheless, in 2023, the country lost a staggering 120,000 manufacturing jobs, highlighting serious problems.

It’s unfortunate that the AfD is unfit for purpose, but we knew that when they turned to a lesbian foreign resident for “leadership”. Alternative political parties always turn toward female leadership because it’s more superficially palatable, but they fail to account for the way that women always gravitate toward the sweet spot of their current influences.

So a Margaret Thatcher or a Sanae Takaichi is always going to sound great as long as she’s operating within the limited influences of the alternative party. But the moment she’s exposed to the media, the general public, and the broader political discourse, she’s reliably going to abandon the very positions that secured her ascendance and leadership in the first place.

Which is why neither AfD nor National Rally in France are going to be able to do what is necessary. Given that AfD under Weidel can’t even openly push for DExit, then it’s not even an alternative.

DISCUSS ON SG

Replacement 3.0

Americans haven’t been in control of New York City for a long time. Once you start letting immigrants run things, you can’t be surprised when the process continues considerably further than you’d originally imagined and declared would be just fine:

Zohran Mamdani has been sworn in as New York City’s 110th mayor, the first Muslim and African-born person of Indian descent to hold the position. The 34‑year‑old took his midnight oath on a centuries-old Quran in a long‑closed subway station beneath City Hall on Thursday.

At a public inauguration speech outside City Hall later in the day, Mamdani leaned heavily into his democratic socialist ideology, vowing to “govern expansively and audaciously.”

“My fellow New Yorkers – today begins a new era!” he declared in a nearly 25‑minute address before a crowd of about 4,000 people. I was elected as a Democratic socialist and I will govern as a Democratic socialist,” he said. “I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.”

It doesn’t really matter at this point. New York was lost in the early 20th century, it was just disguised by the redefinition of “American” under the immigrants’ civic nationalist propaganda. All of the various political moves now are just laying the stage for the shape of the eventual breakup.

What does Mamdani have to offer, and how can he represent heritage Americans in any way when he stands against everything that they stand for? He can’t, of course, nor does he wish to do so. Which is why dissolution is now not only inevitable, but obvious.

It’s the gates of Toledo redux.

DISCUSS ON SG