site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   12243 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've said before that I had stopped posting here because it's a purely American Affairs Discussion community and, for a non-American, those affairs are only instrumentally interesting due to their effects elsewhere, and they become less interesting as America recedes from the world stage. The silence on the ongoing global events reinforces my impressions both of the US and of this forum. It's a pity because in terms of the culture war, it's very significant. The Red Tribe basically won politically. Nowhere has this been made more obvious than at the yesterday's session of the World Economic Forum in Davos, that hive of globalists Alex Jones warned us all about. For decades, the narrative around these parts has been that Europe has lost its way, is Communist, is being demographically replaced etc, and only the Serious Big Brother across the Atlantic can steer the ship. Lately there's even talk that Europe is basically «over», and America is what remains of the West, and so the US must take direct stewardship over the imperiled land. For example, one of the justifications for the seizure of Greenland from a MAGA loyalist Scott Greer:

Thanks to the power of anti-colonialist rhetoric over the actions of European leaders and international bodies, China gained a win in the Indian Ocean.
The Chinese could do something similar with Greenland. It’s easy to see an international uproar arising over Denmark’s “colonial” rule over the Greenlanders and the Danes face serious pressure to give up the territory. If the Chinese find a foothold in Greenland, they could manipulate independence to benefit themselves. They can make it harder for Americans to maintain a military presence and gain control over the Northwest Passage. The Danes, even more than the Brits, would be completely helpless to stop this scenario from playing it out.

(Needless to say, every accusation is a confession; very soon, Scott Bessent EXPOSED Denmark's treatment of Greenland in front of millions! – according to some Floridian patriot. This propaganda is gaining steam in conservative sources that belong to the American influence network).

I've seen that the rumors of European death are very much exaggerated. Europe very much still exists. But the sensibility of the United States of America on the world stage is now one of openly admitted exceptionalism and essentialist superiority. We've seen the birth of an assertive Judeo-Christian civilization-state with Latin American characteristics, and it's clearly separate from what can be called «Western Civilization». The focal point of the rupture was of course Greenland again.

I mainly want to get the conversaton going so I'll just share some quotes without commentary.

Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce:

HL: [Long passionate tirade against globalism] When America shines, the world shines. Close your eyes and imagine the world without America in it. It goes dark pretty darn quickly.
the moderator: Can I bring you back to Greenland?
HL: No. It's unnecessary. The Western Hemisphere is vital for the United states of America. Our national security people are on it, and they care about it, and I'll leave it to them to address with our allies, with our friends, and with everyone have it worked out. But the Western Hemisphere matters to the US of A, and the US of A as I've just articulated REALLY REALLY MATTERS to the world. When America shines, the world shines. Because they all need to make sure America is strong and powerful to take care of them, G-d forbid.

This is of course not so much Monroe/Donroe doctrine as invoking Light Unto the nations/Shining city upon a hill with some geopolitical dressing, only cruder, with more stick and less carrot than ever. The reactions are understandable.

Mark Carney, a long-term advisor to Justin Trudeau with all his disastrous policies, was projected to soundly lose the elections to Pierre Poilievre, a very US-style conservative self-identifying as a «simple goy from the prairies». What reversed their odds was Trump's tariff war on Canada plus endorsement of Pierre as his agent to make Canada the 51st state (Poilievre, being a simple goy but not insane, obviously denied any such intention).

Yesterday, Carney delivered a speech that I think ends the North American fraternal relationship and likely the entire post -WWII order. Some excerpts:

It’s a pleasure — and a duty — to be with you at this turning point for Canada and the world.

I’ll speak today about the rupture in the world order, the end of the pleasant fiction and the dawn of a brutal reality in which great-power geopolitics is unconstrained. But I submit to you all the same that other countries, in particular middle powers like Canada, aren’t powerless. They have the power to build a new order that integrates our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states. The power of the less powerful begins with honesty. […] It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim. This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition. Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.
We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for the world as we wish it to be. Canada is calibrating our relationships, so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next. We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength. … We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defence procurement arrangements. We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months. In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.
[…] Which brings me back to Havel. What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?
It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.
It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.
It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the hegemon to restore an order it is dismantling, create institutions and agreements that function as described. And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.

We are taking the sign out of the window. The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy. But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just. This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.
The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

Others are saying similar stuff, have been for a while. Merz on the end of the Pax Americana, Macron obviously.

The engagement with China is a common theme, spearheaded by Carney. His partnership with China in particular is prompting Americans to fantasize of seizing Alberta. Maybe that'll happen too.

You really should follow the WEF content on your own to form an opinion though.

The other day @TiltingGambit said:

Cultural export from China is crazily uncharismatic. And this is why, in my view, the US would end up with all the allies in WWIII and china would end up with the dregs of the international community. Nobody likes china, nobody outside of china knows what's going on in china, and nobody in china knows what's going on inside china either.

I am not sure who's going to be American ally in WWIII now. It's my impression that @TiltingGambit has been projecting, because he, as a true American, felt that there is nothing worth learning about affairs of barbarians in China, Europe or anywhere else. This is a very Qing-like attitude. Yes, there's significant consumption of MCU capeshit, we all write in English, Americans are the top content creators on Tiktok, I'm just not seeing how this translates into political loyalty.

So. The costs of winning the Culture War. Any takes on this?

I was pleasantly surprised to read a post from you that was not just more long-winded China-boosting, but you had to go and spoil it there at the end. I used to find your posts much more interesting before you developed this fixation, tbh. Do you live in China? If you do not, I strongly recommend you move there and work there. As your Carney quote points out, it's important to "name reality." The most famous Chinese sage even has a term for this, 正名. You'll love it.

Anyway, to address your main point, I don't see any rebuttal from you about why TiltingGambit is wrong, just more of your typical sneering about how Americans are arrogant and dumb. It almost seems personal. Chinese cultural output has made great strides in the last 15 or so years (when I was in college studying Chinese, China would come out with a martial arts movie that did decently in the US and the world maybe once every few years -- usually by Hong Kong directors) but it is anemic compared to that of the U.S. Now they produce web novels that are read by gray tribe weirdos (I say this with fondness) but nearly zero normal or high status people in the west consume Chinese content. An improvement but hardly a threat to American culture hegemony.

The way I see the Euro/Canadian threats to cozy up to China is that if they are still truly Western countries, they are probably bluffing. What European nation would willingly submit to Ottoman or Mongol hegemony just to spite the Pope? Overtures, sure, symbolic gestures and treaties maybe, but never submission. If the enlightenment "globohomo" religion has mutated and innovated to such a degree that it is no longer recognizably a strain of Christianity (the soil of western civilization) but some new thing that sees both the Western Christian nation state and the Chinese civilization state as equally alien and thus roughly equivalent, then, well, the threats are probably genuine and there is probably no way to stop the break up of what was once called "western civilization."

I do not care what you find interesting or not, nor do I find your attempts at psychologizing insightful. China is roughly half of effective humanity on most important metrics, so it is more rational – even for Americans, or perhaps especially for Americans – to be «obsessed» with them than with petty dramas of American social decay, like a low-IQ enforcer killing a twitchy activist or the other way around, some state-level DEI/anti-DEI regulation imbroglio, a slapfight, a shooting, a bill, a parochial religious disagreement, or any other of our usual topics. Thinking about this from first principles, American prestige is insanely inflated. At this point it's only solidly backed by the hypothetical returns on AGI.

I do not really want to debate the relative Chinese «soft power». They've made some progress; in the end, they're profoundly inferior in messaging to the US and even Japan and will continue to be inferior. I simply think it doesn't matter much, most of the goodwill America gets from other countries is based not on media exports or high-quality propaganda but on actual strategic interests and demonstrable benefits of cooperation. And American media as of now has become repetitive slop with questionable ideological payload, nobody gets inspired to defend Democracy Human Rights by Captain America, it's just (at best) neutral entertaining content, like Labubus or Funko Pops in the physical realm. Holding Funko Pop IP is not really a source of political loyalty, it's a source of Funko Pop revenue. If the ROI on continued cooperation nosedives, you still get reaction like Carney's. So my objection to TiltingGambit is just that: the US won't have «all the allies» specifically on merit of its «charismatic cultural export». It's a cute way of expressing pride in your nation's strengths but it's basically a joke, like a German saying foreigners would die for German beer and autos, or an Italian claiming there are Pasta Nationalists all over the world. (That said, he claims to not even be American, so I guess we can conclude this pride narrative also gets exported).

To have All The Allies, the US will need to continue being the version of itself that's profitable to be allied with – security guarantees, reasonable economic relations. In peacetime, this is realistic and not that expensive. For the profits to outweigh the costs of opposing Chinese industrial machine in the hypothetical WWIII, either the machine needs to be somewhat less impressive than it's shaping up to be, or America will have to be more generous than it's being under Trump. Charisma is overrated, mostly due to motivated reasoning about comparative advantages.

The way I see the Euro/Canadian threats to cozy up to China is that if they are still truly Western countries, they are probably bluffing. What European nation would willingly submit to Ottoman or Mongol hegemony just to spite the Pope? Overtures, sure, symbolic gestures and treaties maybe, but never submission.

See, ironically, this is a pretty non-Western worldview. The whole premise of the Rules-Based International Liberal Order was that you don't have to kowtow to the strong. This is the idea China espouses, too – they constantly drone on about the UN Charter and the equality of nations. It's easy to dismiss as insincere, but how exactly is it insincere? Sure, they can punish a country for crossing their «red line» with a tariff. But weaponization of tariffs is routine now. In contrast, Trump not only tariffs at will, sometimes very pettily, making up red lines on the go, but he demands precisely submission, ritual humiliations, he will even flex it by publicly leaking private conversations where he's asked not to do just this. (Or making up the whole thing to flex before his sadistic fans, which is pathetic in its own way. But he's doubling down.)

At this stage, your argument amounts to a purely racial one. Profitably working with China in a context that gives them leverage is automatically «submission» and so «unacceptable to Western countries». Working with the US is honorable alliance between Free White Peoples, reasonable submission to the primus inter pares, even as the hegemon explicitly frames it as a hierarchy where he's the lion and you're the small dog (thus getting raped). …I guess I don't know, I'm not a Western person, maybe this whole story of the Hajnal Line anti-racism was a lie, and y'all are invested in White Supremacy enough to accept such blatant gaslighting indefinitely. Maybe that's the Soft Power, the Charisma. But I'm getting the impression that this is not the case.

If the enlightenment "globohomo" religion has mutated and innovated to such a degree that it is no longer recognizably a strain of Christianity (the soil of western civilization) but some new thing that sees both the Western Christian nation state and the Chinese civilization state as equally alien and thus roughly equivalent

You've probably missed that I propose another thesis: Americans do not belong to the Western Civilization proper. They self-identify as «Judeo-Christians», they're heavily Latin American, they have unique rites and beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, they treat «the West» as adversarially and extractively as the East, and in fact Trump thinks much better of Xi than of any European leader. It's about as distant from Europe as Islam is. The «globohomo» didn't have to mutate all that far, and this year's WEF demonstrates that Americans have been making up bizarre headcanon bullshit about the «globohomo». It can judge this wholly new civilization as alien, but Christianity would concur.

Americans do not belong to the Western Civilization proper.

America is a lot like Russia. It sees itself as the defender of Europe and the bulwark of European values. Meanwhile actual Europeans see them as a bunch of borderline-savages, and as much of a threat as the are a protector.

or America will have to be more generous than it's being under Trump

Part of why America is being so miserly today though is that it genuinely doesn’t have much to give. It’s heavy industry is gone, and other countries have caught up enough on its technological edge that it can’t cruise by on fancy widgets. And the people are too pissed off and distrustful of their government and economy to eat the half a million deaths that a major war requires.

Old Scranton Joe was more generous with the aid to Ukraine than the Don, but he was being a lot more miserly than Europe and the American deep state wanted. He was a bit out to lunch, but his one real red-line policy position that he was cogent of and involved about was no American ground troops in Ukraine. And the delusional deep state flacks (who mostly happen to be butthurt belt exiles) hated him for it. That’s why they turfed him out in favor of Kamala, an out-of-her depth human hamburger that would do whatever the CIA told her to.

America is a lot like Russia. It sees itself as the defender of Europe and the bulwark of European values.

Well Russia is also clearly divergent from the «Western Civilization» the central example of which is obviously Western Europe, eg France. In the most divergent dimensions, Russians are just living the way Europeans did 200 years ago, and that's enough to be seen as basically a species of non-human vermin and infinitely more distant than the Japanese or Koreans. People are massively sensitive to morally coded deviations, but big structural differences don't necessarily register. Dealing with an «alien civilization», so long as it's at all functional, is not psychologically harder than dealing with a «wayward cousin».

'Lieber Turk als Papst'.

Yes, and also the Franco-Ottoman alliance. But neither the Dutch nor the French actually wished to dominated by Turks. It was a classic outgroup vs fargroup dynamic.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too — the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together. That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently. And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

And how many brigades is Carney raising, 'to build our strength at home'? What about H-bombs, is he making any of those? Long range missiles? Attack drones? The Canadians are buying some... from the US.

Canadian leadership is basically unserious, they're pussies and losers I think. Same with Australian leadership or European leadership with the possible exception of Poland. They talk and talk and talk about rearming but do very little. Germany raised one new brigade, Poland raised 5, France is raising 1, the British army is still shrinking. A brigade is not a very large force, roughly 3-5000 men.

Australia is buying imaginary AUKUS-class and likely-imagined Virginia class submarines from America (they probably can't be made since the US is too slack to build enough for their own needs). The Australian surface fleet is in complete shambles. There are many more pressing needs than national defence apparently, like giving enormous amounts of taxpayer money to NDIS disability scammers or propping up house prices.

These people talk about partnerships and free trade agreements (and EU integration for Ukraine) but sign no alliances. They talk about reform but do nothing substantial or make things worse in dull, boring ways. They fundamentally have no concept of what they're actually supposed to be doing as leaders, their notion of leadership is some combination of 'make people-pleasing sounds' and 'follow legalistic/moralist codes without regard for the outcome'. At no point does leadership enter the equation for them. It doesn't matter if they have to spend a fortune on welfare for tax-leeching rapey migrants, if they have to build a fish disco for a nuclear plant or wreck their energy market. They'll do all this and find some way to defend it when it's unpopular.

They have no real concept that those are bad things and should be stopped. Some of them (Denmark) have cottoned on that voters don't like the rapey migrants and moved against that particular policy. But they still aren't real leaders, real leaders would foresee this issue from a base-level understanding of reality and their national interests and never even consider it. It's the difference between retracting your hand from the stove after being burnt and not being so stupid to touch the stove in the first place. Real leaders write new laws, establish new principles and adapt their policies to the times proactively. Trump may be wrong and foolish in many respects but he is at least a real leader.

So Carney can 'stop pretending' and 'name reality' but what strength is he building? Canada has three understrength brigades and only one deployable overseas + some training/reserve forces, the whole Canadian army might easily disappear in a single battle. And acting together, what is that? More conferences and blathering? What is he going to do with one deployable brigade? Pretending is all he can do.

It's my impression that @TiltingGambit has been projecting, because he, as a true American, felt that there is nothing worth learning about affairs of barbarians in China, Europe or anywhere else

I hate embarrassing you like this, but I'm not American.

And I've been professionally and personally involved in analysing China in some capacity for 15 years.

Trump appears to have now given up on getting Greenland altogether and dropped any threats of tariffs. At this point I resent him more for his pointless unpredictability and obsession with sucking up all the oxygen in every room in the world, than for the consequences of his actual policies. What have we even been talking about?

I'll be very impressed if this gets sold to the allies as «miscommunication». It looks like he just bluffed, then took stock of the actual ROI on the attempted attack and got cold feet, as during the rare earths spat with China earlier.

No way that's gonna happen. Even the MAGA faithful are unimpressed. The Greenland thing was a big mistake even by Trump-presidency standards.

Any update on your opinion of this forum not following geopolitics?

That I, a non-American, had to make the top level post was evidence enough that it's of secondary interest at best.

Yeah, what I meant is, isn't there some wisdom to it, given how abruptly this particular drama has come to a close? I can understand the point of your other chinaposts, and find them quite interesting myself, but I don't think much will come out of analyzing the screetching of western elites in response to the latest thing Trump said will take us to any interesting conclusions.

In my opinion it has not come to a close at all. If you think Trump just gets to TACO, pretend he's always wanted a "deal" and go back to the status quo with no repercussions, you're very… optimistic. These trade arrangements with China or security ones with India are not a bluff, the entire American worldview on this is completely delusional and self-serving. The EU, just like China, isn't doing deals to posture or to impress or intimidate Americans, it's trying to improve its currently grim long-term trajectory, and American nonsense is telling them what to avoid. We have learned a useful thing, too – that Trump can be deterred with economic consequences even in the absence of any military capability.

Trump appears to have now given up on getting Greenland altogether and dropped any threats of tariffs.

"The art of the deal"

Best case, some agreement that no matter what happens to Greenland (including "independence"), the Russians and Chinese don't get in.

UPDATE: We have concepts of a deal. No tariffs.

I hope you all enjoyed this year's first production from Orange Man Theater. Personally I'm glad I mostly sat it out.

Or is this the 2nd production with Maduro's capture being the first?

He probably need to clear the news cycle for his Disclosure speech.

That one was just a trailer for another production in the works.

The only way out is through, as they say. I think Carney and co. are likely correct as a factual matter. As the United States becomes a less reliable partner countries are going to look at diversifying away from their dependence on it. Whether that is part of a process of becoming more self sufficient, making friends with other great powers, or coalitions of "middle powers" countries are going to aim to reduce their reliance on America as a friend and ally. A couple paragraphs from Carney's speech you didn't quote but that I think highlight this:

As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable. And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure. This classic risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

I, personally, think America's close integration with our allies operated to our benefit. Both economically and in terms of our ability to order the world more to our liking. A more isolationist America is going to be poorer and facing a more hostile world. Even in the event Democrats take back control of Congress and the presidency over the next several elections I expect the damage done by Trump would be generations in undoing. Other countries are not going to forget it takes one demented madman winning an election to blow up any agreements we might have.

I have takes alright. I know someone at WEF and was getting minute by minute updates on leaders storming out and heated water cooler discussions. Stayed up the whole night watching this mess. Worth it.

High level : I am upgrading "Don't put the devil on the wall" to a tier 1 quote. Trump's anxieties and reckless tantrums are creating the very conditions that the US is trying to delay.

I don't have one takeaway, but a few unconnected thoughts.

  1. Trump's cabinet doesn't have a ounce of Trump's charisma. Even at his most nasty, Trump is funny, likeable and selectively cruel. Trump's cabinet wields the same sledgehammer but reeks of resentment. I believe more than Trump, Europe is uniquely disgusted by his cabinet. The list of likeable cabinet members starts and ends with Rubio. Trump can see this, and Rubio has clearly been elevated to his 2nd in command in public appearances. I believe JD's absence was not a coincidence.

  2. Going into 2025, MAGA kneecapped ascendant right-wing movements in Canada, UK and France. As a result, Trump is now negotiating with maximally adversarial partners in Carney, Starmer and Macron. US-Canada relations appear to have taken the largest hit. In trying to secure trade-routes in the distant North, Trump may have opened the salient opening across its entire Northern frontier.

  3. Western globalists spoke with clarity. First time for everything. To collectively articulate the end of Pax-Americana is a big deal. Words need to be backed with actions, but these are words we haven't heard spoken before. Discussions around Europe's lack of NATO funding, existing as a vassal state, disinvestment from the US & reverse technology transfer were anomalously candid.

  4. India finally gets a break. Trump 2 and Ukraine-sanctions left India on a weird island by itself. Turns out, when Europe was looking for an uncontroversial partner, being unhyphenated was a perk. To match US and China, it makes sense for Europe to strike a deal with India. Back-channel oil deals have been active for a while. But the the public and enthusiastic association with India will feel new to India, especially Modi's India.

  5. I don't buy the China partnership narrative. EU's remaining industry is under grave threat from China. Canada can't onshore Chinese technology this close to the US border. The US will intervene. Appeals to China felt like boogeyman narratives meant to spook the US. That being said, if Donroe stays entangled in the Atlantic, then China may pounce on Taiwan and the conflict may end with a whimper.

  6. I am bullish on France. In the absence of NATO, it will become the de-facto leader of the EU. They have healthy fertility rates, nukes, state capacity for large infrastructure (HSR, nuclear plants), native entertainment industry and independent full-spectrum military. Macron may get kicked out soon, but ngl, the sunglasses were cool.

If Europe wanted Americans to feel a sense of extrapolitical obligation toward European interests, then it should have allocated $__,000,000,000 toward the funding of European-ancestry cultural and religious social movements. Israel is a testament to the efficacy of this strategy. As is India with its strong lobbyists in Canada and America. It failed to do this, and while it’s not too late it is running out of time to catch up.

There are many possibilities here. Your record when it comes to geopolitical forecasting is poor, after all. (So is mine.)

Europe can’t unite against America because European unity is impossible after a millennium of conflict with no resolution (the Napoleonic Wars and WW1 would have each led to a - different - resolution absent British involvement, but alas, Perfidious Albion).

Europe was never united by force. Italy is still mostly run by Italians, Spain mostly by Spaniard, Poland (newly again) mostly by Poles. The French and Germans, the two pillars, can’t even build a fighter plane together because despite each’s economic and security situation deteriorating rapidly they would rather fight over who gets to make the engines or the wings or the control panel than just agree to whatever is fastest. The Spanish and Italians too will not die over Ukraine or Greenland.

Europe cannot unite because it has no master. Everybody and their mother has a veto. It was only able to impose itself on Greece because everybody else united against it and because even Varoufakis realized the alternative was absolute ruin and anarchy. But to unite against France? No, it can’t happen.

You can humiliate them as much as they want, they cannot agree enough to do anything. Europe is not a political entity, it can’t be negotiated with, it has no agency. America can take what it wants. Maybe it should.

The silence on the ongoing global events reinforces my impressions both of the US and of this forum.

I would like to echo this sentiment. I always wait a few days after a major event to see what people in this forum would bring up for discussion and put a focus on. Admittedly, there are lots of news I would never see like the church storming in Minnesota, but the example of the Trump letter to the Norwegian prime minister was something I was itching to see a deep discussion of. But what we got was not that, just discussions around the letter, not about the letter. These events say something, they're not "thought-terminating" because I don't think these events shutdown discussions, they're more akin to "the missing missing", where the event is just so seizure-inducing, so much logic-acrobatics required, that the discussion just subconsciously avoid it.

I do have to say though that because I am not an active participant but only lurk this forum, maybe I've missed discussions before. Maybe people here are so bored of discussing Trump idiosyncrasies that there are things that are taken as a given about what a person in this forum should know.

Posting the Trumpian Letter to the Norwegian PM by itself doesn't qualify for a top-level alone. That would be no different than a Twitter repost which means you have to attach something to it. There may be other interesting things about the letter -- brevity, audacity, grammar -- but the wider context of threatening to invade Greenland does seem the most obvious place to go with a discussion.

I don't think you're expected to take anything as a given, but frequent contributors likely work through permutations and move on. Trump is one of the following: expert negotiator deal-maker, intentionally trolls for attention, or he candidly finds himself writing impromptu letters with no self-awareness of what they mean. Possibly one or all of these apply to the Trumpian antics on offer any given day. A Trumpian Letter to the Norwegian PM that opens with a mention of the Nobel prize in the midst of a peak Trump cycle is barely unexpected. I can only throw up my hands, yet again humbled by my own mundanity, and accept this force of nature for what it is. Just as I would accept a failed harvest, a bird pooping on my head, or any other act of God. The context of his actions are almost aways more novel and interesting than the routine.

You probably already know the one and only solution. More people should present their perspectives on stuff they are interested in. I sometimes notice the lack of perspectives or a topic and, if it looks like a slow week, I might do something about it. Top-levels have to meet a threshold they do not need to beat the next guy or even be long. Consider this an endorsement from the common man.

I think it cuts both ways, as someone with a foot in both continents. Americans will pay very little attention to anything that doesn't push their personal, parochial buttons, but Europeans will instantly go to DEFCON: CHIMP over anything that mentions them as relevant to global discourse. There aren't that many discussions to be had in the inbetween space in the immediate time, because the likelihood is that this will be a nothingburger. It'll move some invisible ratchets in some directions that we can speculate about, but Trump is already announcing a big, beautiful deal that will likely end with all this passing out of the news cycle as smoothly as it entered.

Yes and I suppose this perfectly illustrates that people cares more about the things that affect them. I do understand that there is an American Main Character Energy and I suppose the Europeans rightfully (or pathetically) bristles at that.

Some of the problem's like the reason I didn't discuss Wolford's oral arguments, yesterday. They exist, they have meaning, they don't need any sort of logical acrobatics, and it's pretty easy to understand what their meanings are (Justice Jackson's embarrassments included despite her best efforts), but there's not much to discuss. They're just anti-scissors: even when people disagree, there's nothing to argue about.

Yeah I get you. It’s precisely what I mention about people get bored of discussing something. I suppose I’ll have to think deeper about whether silence or lack of a discussion signals “anti-scissor/nothing to argue” vs “because of some emotional/logic avoidance”. In a sense, I suppose if I want to get thinking and perspective contrary to mine, I have to put mine up to test and draw out those thinking and perspective as @wemptronics mentioned.

Maybe Europe and Canada should just not resist and be on the MAGA side as it is in their best interests?

This is one of the issues with population replacement. I am fairly sure you are Indian and not native. A semi-shittified formerly western nations subservient to China is just not that bad to you. To native Canadian this should be awful. Canada subservient to China is still going to be better than India as an escape route.

Honestly a very big reason why I do not believe in Democracy. Once you’ve imported different tribes with fundamentally different desires it’s mistake theory. Compromise does not work. And only one side can win. You will always have different political aims than myself. I want to basically protect the shire for myself. You want access to the shire.

  • Joined December 2025.
  • 118 comments
  • dislikes Indians
  • doesn't believe in democracy
  • is fascist

Dude slow down. TheMotte is already in a MAGA spiral. It isn't intentional, the forum is well moderated. But, the median individual is a right-wing American and left leaning non-Americans are forced to have thicker skin. We've lost enough intellectual diversity through splinter events. There's no need to make this place more hostile.

Also welcome to the forum. I am one of the Indians here. Please get better at profiling. I await a moderate amount of hate, phrased in a civic manner.

I think different political systems work for different cultures/populations. Pre-2000 USA I am 100% pro-Democracy. Saudi Arabia is an example of a country that Democracy probably would not have been successful in and the Monarchy has been a better form of government. Latam is a region where Democracy has often not been the best form of government. The US demographics have more in common today with Latam demographics than historical American demographics.

Fair. I too have concluded that democracy needs some base conditions to work.

Tribal clan systems (Arabs, Afghans) are incompatible with democracy. Pre-industrial states struggle to balance democracy and essential growth. Democracy and violent societies don't work.

He's Russian, and any idiot can see that if Canada goes through an economic crisis it will stop being a country, so Carney might talk about the Chinese, but he's not going to pivot. Alberta would leave if Trump actually for real takes the gloves all the way off in an economic war with Canada, and then Quebec, and then a country with some giant holes in it would start to shrink.

I am fairly sure you are Indian and not native.

«You are Indian» sure is a new one. I'm 100% sure you must be new here.

Maybe Europe and Canada should just not resist and be on the MAGA side

Is it the winning side though?

"Actually Indian" can be your new tag.

There is, famously, an European country that has gone gung-ho for anti-immigrant measures, not only in their country but trying to push them Europe-wide, in the recent decades. The said country is currently at the center of global politics due to being specifically targetted for Trump in this entire Greenland debacle. Clearly the whole idea that these things are somehow connected is just as much a figleaf for Trump's monkey impulses as anything else than MAGA talking heads have attempted to present in an effort of sanewashing.

Moreover, it's obvious that there's a fraction of the American right (a powerful fraction? Who knows, but it tends to become evident in times like this) that just plain hates [Western] Europe. This issue cannot be even discussed, as Euros pointing it out immediately leads to the said rightists going "you're imagining it, you're gaslighting us, nobody here even THINKS of Europe at all [post le epic Mad Men meme here], we just hate cucked European governments, Europeans have always hated us so we're only reacting now" etc etc.

If one was online 20 years ago, the same fraction was hating on [many countries of Western] Europe back then, too, for not joining the Great Freedom Crusade for Freedom, with somewhat different arguments (the word "cuck" hadn't been invented back then, after all), but clearly still similar impulses. Indeed, it seems likely that many of the warblogger readers and Bush diehards of those days are now Trump diehards, doing the same stuff as back then but believing it to be somehow different because Trump is so so different from all the preceeding libs and cucks that it's completely different when the same things happen over and over again.

The European right, or parts of it, shares a part of the blame too - there's been a veritable cottage industry of European RW grifters painting a hysterical and exaggerated image of the situation in Europe regarding immigration, specifically posting in English and not their native languages for an American audience (often since they've already tried their hand in local politics and failed to gain any traction) to get Substack subs and, if particularly successful, even appearances in popular American podcasts or pivots to the American RW think tank / media ecosystem or whatever. It's almost certain that these types and their arguments have also affected the American RW ecosphere, including it's social-media-addicted leadership, creating room for the mindset that leads to the current events happening. Some seem to now be going "C-come on, you guys... it wasn't THAT bad, we don't need all this..."

Moreover, it's obvious that there's a fraction of the American right (a powerful fraction? Who knows, but it tends to become evident in times like this) that just plain hates [Western] Europe.

Happy to be corrected, but IME this is mostly just Twitter ragebaiting and flaming. Same for the "we don't think about you at all" people. The average American likes (white) Europeans and mostly would be pleasantly surprised to meet one in America.

But there are a small but growing number of Americans who have negative of opinions of Europeans after coming into being treated rudely by European acquaintances for frankly nasty and discriminatory reasons. I count myself among this group -- I've switched from unguarded friendliness to cautious optimism when meeting a European. I'm always on guard for some unsolicited jab about "Murka," or obesity , or guns, or something the current president did. I never feel the need to comment negatively on their country, so this always feels a bit uncalled for and tasteless to me. It sometimes seems almost therapeutic, like they're finally getting some long-held grievances off their chest by being nasty to one particular person -- finally, they can settle the score by really giving it to this dumb American, who is more of a living caricature than an actual human being. Charitably, I think this sort of person sometimes just wants to signal that they are aligned with the high-status Americans (blue tribe) who they think enjoy making and hearing such remarks. But it is IMO quite tasteless nonetheless.

I lived in Europe for several years as a young child and really felt at home. I was welcomed and treated like any other local kid after I had mastered the language. And there is no denying that Europe is our spiritual and cultural parent and to this day still exerts significant cultural influence on us. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the "hate" from Americans towards Europeans is less like skin to that felt towards a rival or a foreign enemy and more akin to that felt towards a wayward family member who just can't seem to help himself. Why won't dad sober up? Why won't big brother lay off the pills? It's a sort of wounded love for the Europe they grew up reading and dreaming about as children, the cradle of the Western civilization that produced our great nation, a Europe they wanted to visit and admire, but that increasingly appears to be gone forever.

(I am fully aware of the irony. Physician, heal thyself, etc. Just trying to paint a picture of what might be going on in the Twitter Euro-hater's head.)

Moreover, it's obvious that there's a fraction of the American right (a powerful fraction? Who knows, but it tends to become evident in times like this) that just plain hates [Western] Europe. This issue cannot be even discussed, as Euros pointing it out immediately leads to the said rightists going "you're imagining it, you're gaslighting us, nobody here even THINKS of Europe at all [post le epic Mad Men meme here], we just hate cucked European governments, Europeans have always hated us so we're only reacting now" etc etc.

If one was online 20 years ago, the same fraction was hating on [many countries of Western] Europe back then, too, for not joining the Great Freedom Crusade for Freedom, with somewhat different arguments (the word "cuck" hadn't been invented back then, after all), but clearly still similar impulses. Indeed, it seems likely that many of the warblogger readers and Bush diehards of those days are now Trump diehards, doing the same stuff as back then but believing it to be somehow different because Trump is so so different from all the preceeding libs and cucks that it's completely different when the same things happen over and over again.

Are these the same groups of people? The sense I get of the type of American who really hates Europe is that they're mostly highly online Gen-Z types. Most of them weren't alive when the GWOT started.

There are many more Europeans that hate America than the inverse. Americans rightists generally feel bad for Europe.

I am fairly ambivalent on Greenland. I do think strategically it makes sense to be American since the European military has been highly degraded. With some impulse to rebuild now.

I do like yelling at Europe. And they do seem to be on the path to being a conquered people. I feel like the Ukraine War highlights this. Europe of 20 years ago the war would have been a turkey shoot for them.

I am fairly fine with the US going it alone. We can rebuild Argentina. It’s a fabulous country and Americans probably should be rerouting our vacations in that direction. Our allies should be the people who want to actually reform their countries and have the IQ to do it. If we can get rid of the ADL and political influence makes Israel a great ally too.

It’s not like MAGA doesn’t treat America the same way. Witness Minneapolis.

I am fairly fine with the US going it alone. We can rebuild Argentina

How about you rebuild the US first?

I am in Argentina now. What I see imported from the US is mainly the style of squalor. The material, artistic and civic culture of the modern US is plainly disgusting. Gigantic soda bottles, barely humanoid blobs waddling around, homelessness, trash, funko pops, capeshit comics, old gas-guzzling cars. No sense of propriety and harmony. It's Latin America, after all, but that's also America, how low-functioning America works. More money won't fix it, and it's not like you have money anyway.

More money won't fix it, and it's not like you have money anyway.

You know America has ten times the GDP per capita of Argentina and six times the GDP per capita of Russia, yes? Like there are reasoned and informed criticisms you can make of the USA. 'Doesn't have money' is not one.

There seems to be such a huge split between the left and right on this!

From the left, I hear that Americans are broke. Living with their parents, no healthcare, no job (or a really crappy job), struggling to survive. The official statistics are either made up, or highly misleading (like, a handful of billionares have all the money while the rest of us have nothing).

From the right, I hear that America is the wealthiest country that has ever existed. Way more money than China or Europe. The economy has boomed thanks to Reagonomics, the Bush tax cuts, and Trumps... tweets. We can easily spend a trillion for Greenland, or missile defense, or battleships, or whatever, because we have essentially infinite money.

I think the libertarians are the most correct on this. Whichever party is currently in power will say we have plenty of money to pursue their goals. Whichever party is out of power will say that we're broke, we can't afford it, we need to pay down the debt, etc...

That's precisely the issue. America has GDP and tries to have more GDP. It doesn't have money. It is a country with a chronically negative current account balance, literally $40T in debt, it has less money than anyone. On top of that it consistently has horrible financial discipline and vulnerability to scams and corruption at home. It can't afford to invest into shitholes with dubious ROI, so it does not invest in them and instead robs allies blind, raises tariffs, extorts investment, tries to monetize everything (eg Golden Visa, Board of Peace). Why do you think there exists BRI, but all American attempts to Build Back Better World or whatever have withered on the vine? China has money. America is broke. The main way it can share prosperity around is to deficit-spend buying Argentinian goods. And unfortunately, it already has enough beef and soy.

The American market will swallow up beef at reasonable prices. Even a mild discount vs the very high US cost of production will enable functionally infinite sales. Soy and wine(the most visible Argentine product to the US market is, far and away, malbec), maybe not, but the limitation on Americans buying steak and brisket is budgetary, not consumption ability.

Even a mild discount vs the very high US cost of production will enable functionally infinite sales.

US has been a small beef market for Argentina. 70% goes to China. I'm sure it's not because Argentinian beef is too expensive for Americans right now.

No sense of propriety and harmony.

Are there any well-functioning places left that have those?

Argentina (at least Buenos Aires) isn't cold enough for vodka and starvation. US-style squalor seems superior anyway.

Superior to certain death? For those homeless, I guess.

But hot places aren't doomed to have so much homelessness. It's mostly economic dysfunction.

Superior to certain death?

Superior to Russian-style squalor.

But hot places aren't doomed to have so much homelessness. It's mostly economic dysfunction.

Sure. When I went to Buenos Aires I stayed in Puerto Madero. The government borrowed shitloads of money to basically make a nice area of hotels and restaurants for tourists, and I doubt they're charging nearly enough to make that make any sense (though I imagine the incoming hard currency is enriching someone). I was in Argentina when they elected Milei, and the prices were still written in dry-erase marker in many places. Crazy stuff... but not surprising from a socialist (Peronist) government.

Moreover, it's obvious that there's a fraction of the American right (a powerful fraction? Who knows, but it tends to become evident in times like this) that just plain hates [Western] Europe.

Not Europe -- European Blue Tribe, which absolutely dominates European governments.

Euros are about as good at understanding how and why Americans see them through the prism of US partisan politics as Americans are at understanding the nuances of why the Christian-Socialist-Democratic-Party/Liberal-Unionist-Secession-Party/Green coalition in [Euro country] is breaking down over the question of whether state pensions should cover ceiling fans.

the Christian-Socialist-Democratic-Party/Liberal-Unionist-Secession-Party/Green coalition in [Euro country] is breaking down over the question of whether state pensions should cover ceiling fans.

I would love a full comment explaining this one.

I am British, a Reform voter, and fairly pro MAGA (you can read my other comments on here). Trust me when I say nobody wants to be on the MAGA side if it means being Trump's little bitch and giving him any territory he wants at any time in exchange for him not destroying our economies or taking it by force. People were just about okay putting up with Bush-era 'you do what we say and you buy your military stuff from us and we keep bases on your sovereign territory and you go along with our sanctions, and in exchange you get protection + access to our economy + we won't actually come over and fart on your face'.

Removing the last and a good chunk of the second-last part scraps the deal and you will need to enforce it with full coercion and foil all attempts at getting out from under the boot. Which, yes, you have the capacity to do, but it is symptomatic of Trump's foreign policy that he complains about the lack of local populism and cultural protection then immediately makes the parties that agree with him look like cucks.

(Dase is Russian btw)

Have you ever considered that you are a little bitch?

At this point in the American mind you are a semi conquered people. Besides the culture war stuff you just haven’t done anything lately. Your economy sucks. Non-culture war stuff like electricity prices from what I’ve read are double or more than American prices. It’s like being California without having the super productive regions of California that somehow work.

Poland is expected to be wealthier than the UK in 2030:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/07/poland-europe-superpower-communism-putin-military/

When I was a younger man Polish were maids in the UK and sometimes the cute 20 year old wife a balding accountant imported as a wife. UK once a wealthy nation is falling behind countries that were extremely poor in my lifetime.

I think the issue with the Uk is the country has not done anything to earn respect for a very long time. If you want a seat at the table you need to do something.

You need a leader like Thatcher who will just say the Americans are right and we need significant change instead of crying about hurt feelings.

Poland is expected to be wealthier than the UK in 2030:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/05/07/poland-europe-superpower-communism-putin-military/

Eh, I don't put much faith in such ad hoc projections. However, markets are forward looking and take into account participants' expectations. The global stock market has long priced in that the UK and EU will likely be small contributors to the worldwide economy in the future, at least by way of their publicly traded companies. And the expected UK and EU contribution has only gone down in recent years:

  • In 2014: US 37.8%, EU 11.3%, China 8.6%, Japan 6.3%, UK 5.8%, HK 4.6%
  • In 2024: US 49.1%, China 9.3%, EU 8.7%, Japan 5.0%, HK 3.6%, UK 3.5%

So not only did the US increase its financial hegemony (in what can be characterized as an inability to stop winning), China overtook the EU and Hong Kong overtook the UK in those 10 years. While these relative differences may be small in terms of the movements from 2014 to 2024 (and can change given market volatility), it does reinforce the notion that the whole city may be center when it comes to "the sick man of Europe" and has been for a while now.

Have you ever considered that you are a little bitch?

This is not acceptable. The rest of your post is fine, but you are being deliberately inflammatory.

You have no notes either way on your moderation log. I get that you are using the insult for dramatic effect, and so I am giving you a warning. Do not post like this in the future, or you will receive a ban.

Fair. Though I really liked that phrase and the flair it brought. Though I would say it’s a fair description of what the right thinks of Europe and Europe probably feels like we treat them like that.

I am making the point, which should be obvious to anybody, that even a little bitch can stab their 'benefactors' in the back and will at the first opportunity. Even dictators realise that you can't keep the boot down all the time and you have to induce some loyalty in the captured populace. Save those whose penis and need to waggle it about is larger than their brain, and they usually meet sticky ends.

You need a leader like Thatcher who will just say the Americans are right and we need significant change instead of crying about hurt feelings.

And Trump is doing his best to ruin any such person's chances of getting elected. This is why politics requires more than just "HA! AMERICA SMASH!"

I think we are past the point where being “nice” to Europe has any value. Asshole bosses often are successful by increasing pressure. I am fine with having Europe go its own way, but if they want to maintain the alliance they need rapid reform.

I think the issue with the Uk is the country has not done anything to earn respect for a very long time. If you want a seat at the table you need to do something.

America is a continent sized country bordered by two oceans, a sparsely populated tundra and a third- (although rapidly approaching second-) world country. It has the world's largest patch of arable land, mountains of natural resources, the best river network in the world, and is populated mostly by high-IQ Europeans. You (assuming you are American) are playing with cheats on.

If we're going to assign moral failings to individuals based on the countries they live in, then you are a failson being constantly bailed out by daddy's trust fund.

There's a great quote from a Tom Wolfe book along these lines...

“Like more than one Englishman in New York, he looked upon Americans as hopeless children whom Providence had perversely provided with this great swollen fat fowl of a continent. Any way one chose to relieve them of their riches, short of violence, was sporting, if not morally justifiable, since they would only squander it in some tasteless and useless fashion, in any event.”

As an American, I'm a little defensive but... there is some truth in that. I admit that we were very, very lucky with our geographically- some might say supernaturally blessed. And our foreign policy has often been naive to the point of stupidity (sending factory equipment to the USSR, or granting China trade advantages come to mind). Our intelligence operations often result in embarassing failures, and Hollywood routinely portrays ourselves as evil.

Nonetheless, we do have some strengths that aren't just luck. I won't bother to list them here, I think anyone can think of a few. The 21st century will be interesting though...

American wealth explosion hasn’t come from those advantages. Poland, Israel, Australia, Taiwan, S Korea, Japan do not have those advantages.

UK is falling behind a lot of places that lack those resources. You can’t blame the fall of say Jaguar on natural resources. Or the very high electricity prices in Uk on natural resources. The last business plan I knew of for UK was basically to run ME and some Russian wealth but then that got moved to Dubai.

Mexico is not a third world country approaching second world. It's a solid second world country with pockets of both third world conditions and modern, albeit relatively poor, first world societies. The latter are mostly the ones actually bordering the United States; the former are very far away. This isn't way back when; Mexico is a normal middle income country which has its fair share of problems but is not, like, an actual third world shithole.

Interesting take; I know you're in Texas. The last time I was in Mexico was in the 70s.

I still have unpleasant stereotypes of early 2000s drug cartel victims hung from overpasses in my mind just based on readings and media exposure.

Edit: Second sentence is worded sloppily.

Very high crime rates and an ongoing insurgency driven by organized crime using terror tactics are one of its many problems, yes. It's still far preferred to other parts of Latin America, going by revealed preferences.

Mexico is not in any way a "second world" country. Those descriptors are pretty much obsolete, but the Second World was the Communist Bloc. Mexico is an upper-middle-income country by modern classifications, same as China.

In conventional use, second world country refers to an industrialized middle income country.

Reality doesn't grade on a curve. It doesn't matter why the US is great and powerful, or whether it is fair. What matters is that it is, and the UK is not. The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must.

The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must.

It's a shame that series of books ends its coverage in 411BC. Dramatic irony like that deserves its payoff.

I think you misunderstand my (and I think Corvos') point. I wasn't arguing that the US wasn't playing fair. No country has ever played fair, but right now the US is playing stupidly by alienating its allies and neighbours.

Trump will never get Greenland, but he has managed to piss off an entire continent by acting like a petulant toddler because it hasn't simply been handed to him. And as far as I can tell, he only wants Greenland because he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize and because it looks big on the Mercator projection.

Whatever the US' strategic aims are in the future once the Mad King dies, the country's ability to achieve those aims has been, potentially, permanently damaged.

And as far as I can tell, he only wants Greenland because he didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize and because it looks big on the Mercator projection.

The Nobel prize thing is probably the most farcical part of this whole circus. If Trump thought that the Nobel Peace prize committee of all groups was going to elevate him with that sort of honour, he's a lot less bright than I thought.

Removing the last and a good chunk of the second-last part scraps the deal and you will need to enforce it with full coercion and foil all attempts at getting out from under the boot. It is symptomatic of Trump's foreign policy that he complains about the lack of local populism and cultural protection, then immediately makes the parties that agree with him look like cucks.

The UK doesn't have great alternatives just now. Any attempt to build bridges with Europe seems to run into Macron trying to cuck Britain even further. Maybe this sort of thinking is why the current government is being relatively accommodating to China's new embassy?

I would imagine so, yes. Juggling multiple 'allies' is a difficult job and I fully expect the UK to beclown ourselves trying, but we've got to.

I am fairly sure you are Indian and not native

He's Russian, with pretty strong opinions on India.

Yet another time where location flags would be helpful here.

My location flag would display 🇦🇷 (assuming no VPNs, which I often use) and I'd be accused of being a brown third worldist anyway.

tfw when you're a Russian living in one of the whitest countries in the world, but still get accused of being a brown third worldist

Yes, a Russian in Argentina, an Indian in the U.S., or a Chinese in Canada all render such a system unworkable.

🇯🇵

A user who wants to put biographical information on his profile page or in his flair can do so in his account settings.

You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

This is straightforwardly true. The problem is that it runs the other way also. The political problem facing Red Tribe has been obvious for some time:

  • We have to win a conflict against Blue Tribe, or we will be ruled for the foreseeable future by people who hate us.
  • We have to fund our side of this conflict out of our own pockets.
  • Blue Tribe funds themselves out of our tax money.
  • Blue Tribe is allied with the Blue-Tribe analogues in pretty much every Euro country, most of which are also funded to a considerable degree out of our tax money.
  • Those allied Blue-Tribe-analogues have already won their tribal fight in their home countries, so completely that their operations are effectively uncontested
  • Those Blue-Tribe-analogues interfere directly in our domestic politics in ways that give our Blue Tribe additional considerable advantages.
  • Those Blue-Tribe analogues have repeatedly and obviously broken some of the rules we care about the most, and have been openly and quite effectively coordinating to help Blue Tribe break those same rules.

As the man says, Integration became the source of our subordination. European governments have been actively cooperating with Blue Tribe to close the door on us and our values for at least the last decade. We have already been fighting them for at least the last decade. There is very little hope that this will change, and there is very little observable value in maintaining a situationship that will never, ever break to our advantage.

The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP—the architecture of collective problem solving — are greatly diminished.

Yeah, that's sort of the point, isn't it? Why do I want this "architecture of collective problem solving" stronger, when in fact a lot of the "collective problems" it "solves" appear to involve my tribe's continued existence?

I am not sure who's going to be American ally in WWIII now.

How about we sit WWIII out? I for one am not particularly interested in seeing the sons of my friends and family fed into a droneswarm Armageddon.

Five years ago, even two years ago, it was taken as obvious that we (meaning primarily the US) were going to fight a major war with China and/or Russia. How does the above shift the probabilities, in your estimation? Do you think the crackup of the previous Rules-Based order makes an imminent fight with China less likely or more?

The obvious problem is economics. Does this end the Dollar as reserve currency? Does this crash the global economy? Are we Americans going to get super poor forever? ...I've been thinking about writing a post, collecting some of the economic predictions made here in the runup to the 2024 election, and comparing them to what's happened since, with comparison and contrast to the economic predictions about Brexit. To boil it down, I note that the economic predictions and even current assessments seem fundamentally unreliable, that the previous order seemed obviously unsustainable, and that the risk is worth it given the current trajectory.

I do not want America to rule the world, especially not if the version of "America" that rules is a Blue Tribe that has secured itself permanent unaccountable power. Even if it were my tribe ascendent, the value seems quite limited. I do not want to be subjugated by the Chinese, but I do not want to fight a major war with them either, and my assessment is that as of a year ago, pretty much everyone in this forum considered such a war to be an obvious inevitability. And for what? I do not want my country to be poorer, but I note that our previous economic model seemed to have very obvious problems that only ever got worse, and the only solution anyone could even begin to imagine was to keep doing the same things even harder, as pressure built toward an inevitable blowout.

I wanted change. This is change. It is scary and somewhat horrifying change... but it's not obvious what the alternative was supposed to be, and what seem to me to be plausible guesses seem worse.

Those Blue-Tribe-analogues interfere directly in our domestic politics in ways that give our Blue Tribe additional considerable advantages.

How is Germany, Britain or France interfering in US politics? They're unable to do so.

Is there a single example of British government operations interfering in a serious manner in US politics since the FDR approved pro-war campaign of 1940-1941?

Another example of was the concerted push of 2024 to enact the EU Digital Safety Act and bring the EU regulatory machine to bear on US social medial platform. With the implicit, if not explicit goal of shutting down and Red Tribe speech and hurt electoral prospects. The only reason this didn’t happen was Trump getting elected and having leverage over them. I have no doubt they will try again as soon as they are able. It would not surprise me in the least bit if deep state cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy actively and publicly were involved.

US blue tribe is something like 75% of your 'intelligent' people. You can't really pin this 'interference' when 50%+ of the plot is your own representatives, and most of the people on the other side come from an environment where in some major countries, the media have been largely controlled by CIA since WW2..

deep state cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy

Mike Benz over on twitter is pretty pissed bc Trump admin didn't axe the NED but is trying to use for its own ends.

I agree with your points. And I think it supports FC’s well articulated post. Europe is a leverage point for US blue tribe. Red Tribe should not let them have that uncontested.

And while I might like to see NED go, it’s fairly remarkable things like NED and USAID are even getting news articles. There is at least one person in the administration that is clued in.

Edit:I don’t agree with the intelligent people jab, honestly. I’m born and raised in a blue area but spent a decent amount of time doing business with industry in red tribe areas. It’s actually a trope to see the junior people on my team act shocked when they realize the engineer, who they can barely understand through the southern/rural accent, is a a brilliant engineer or some other SME.

There was this story about members of the UK labour party volunteering for Harris. It probably doesn't amount to an example of the British Government getting directly involved but I'd say it's pretty poor form nevertheless.

I've said before that I had stopped posting here because it's a purely American Affairs Discussion community

That's just not true. American concerns are the super-majority of content and discussion here, but that's a consequence of local demographics. On a site that's probably >70% American, what else would you expect? That doesn't mean that other nations don't get their due, China, the Yookay and miscellaneous contenders for the lightcone show up with regularity.

At any rate, it's unfortunate that Trump's term (has it only been a year?) overlaps with modal estimates for AGI, but I doubt his cantankerous attitude towards international diplomacy will persist afterwards. I have no idea who the Democrats will dig up, but Vance, while flawed, seems more sensible. This isn't mutually exclusive with tensions with China continuing to ratchet up, but less frank retardation would be nice to see, and I do expect to see it.

Vance is being discarded in favor of Rubio. There is a reason he was absent (and it isn't the pregnancy announcement) today.

Rubio is likeable, clearly smart, kinda white and kinda hispanic. He is one of the few pre-Trump Republicans who survived the purge and doesn't have a brown wife.

Rubio is the one with a real job and specific powers. It just happens that his job is particularly in focus right now.

Vance has a very vaguely defined job and nothing much to do right now. It doesn't change the fact that he's still a very important person and the most likely next Republican candidate for president.

Rubio publicly supported Vance as Trump's successor a while ago on Fox News. Vance isn't being discarded for anything (he just isn't welcome at a European meetup.)

I do not think Vance is being discarded so much as he is serving a very specific role. He is the Sargent Major of Trump's officer corps. IE the "top-kick", the guy who's job it is to get in people's faces and say the things you can't say for reasons of diplomacy.

His altercations with Zelensky and Scholz, along with his statements in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing were all representative of this.

The bettors think otherwise, giving odds of 50 percent for Vance versus just 16 percent for Rubio—though Rubio's odds have doubled recently.

With Trump out of the picture there's going to be a brutal factional fight and such factional fights are unpredictable.

Vance has no native support base, but that might be an asset if it helps him present himself as a compromise candidate between different factions. The establishment state level GOP's are mostly lined up behind Abbott, not Rubio. And Rubio himself has the benefit of being able to run as the sane man in the Trump admin- either 'it would go better with me in charge of the same agenda' or 'I did that, brought all those victories'.

So Canada wants to become economically reliant on China instead of being economically reliant on the USA. Yes, I'm sure that will work out splendidly.

I say this as someone from a country that is so economically dependent on US multinationals that if they decide to leave, or even just scale back a lot, we're hosed.

I don't think cosying up to China is going to protect anyone; give them influence over your internal politics and you will be dancing to their tune. Remembering the fears of Japanese world domination in the 80s which didn't come true, China is a different matter. They use the West as a dumping ground for goods (Temu, Shein, every darn thing I order off UK Amazon is Made in China, Made in China, Made in China), they're expanding into Western markets with things like electric vehicles, and they haven't been shy about setting up their own darn police stations in countries around the world.

Running away from the USA to the arms of China is running from the frying pan into the fire.

Canada's position as a middling power is self-inflicted.

Post-melt, Canada's geographic position is as strong as the US. It too is a blessed land, that can sustain any level of ambition.

They can pump more oil. They can build arctic ports. They can mine rare earths. They can be agriculturally self-sufficient. They have some many options. They even have a sufficient number of elite engineering institutions to sustain local excellence. European and Asian middling-powers are constrained by what their land can support. Canada has no such limitation.

Canada does not, however, have the people for that, nor does it have the wise and reasoned management to grow their population to such a point.

Stephen Harper and his immigration system are weeping.

Running away from the USA to the arms of China is running from the frying pan into the fire.

What other options would you suggest? If you're a middle power, the only thing you can do is play the great powers off each other and hope you don't get mulched

Europe neutered itself after the war, and it turns out Fukuyama was wrong (or rather, everyone ignored his hedging at the end). They get mulched either way because they gave up any semblance of civilizational power; now, do they want to be burgers or mapo tofu?

Europe neutered itself after the war,

Well, the US had a part to play in that neutering.

Oh, we're all between the Devil and the deep blue sea, but being a little too enthusiastic about the arranged marriage (before you've even locked in the intended groom) is not a good look. "Yes, I am totally happy to be traded off with no say! Look at my wide smile, ignore my desperate eyes!"

This is either concern trolling or depressing lack of confidence.
It's fine if you accept your own subjugation, but it's not a healthy human condition. Maybe your country shouldn't exist as a nation if it's non-viable on its own, and you should apply to become a state. Would be more dignified.

Canada likely is viable. Resisting Chinese influence is significantly easier than American one – no shared language, no blood ties, no border, for starters. As can be seen, even Russia, which is constantly mocked as «Chinese resource colony», in fact is anything but and conducts whatever loony policy it wants. Canadian goal, in any case, is not «become economically reliant on China instead of being economically reliant on the USA» but to increase the share of non-US trade, principally with China, import Chinese industrial technology, become more competitive in the world that's coming, and build military deterrence and alliances. The alternative is to let the US fully dismantle your economy, complete its demoralization campaign, and then absorb your territory.

If you cannot even conceive of a nation executing this and only offer false dichotomies between patrons, then I repeat, again, you don't have what it takes to have a nation.

You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

laughs in equalization payments and election results

Projecting much, Carney?

Canadian goal, in any case, is

"try for a few years, figure out it's much harder than we thought, succeed anyway, but just as soon as we've figured it out drop the project and just let the Empire do it instead". This is the historical pattern for Canadian development- I think it's an HBD thing given it's been a near-constant over 150 years of the nation's existence.

So no, I don't think Canada (in its current form) has what it takes to have a nation, apart from perhaps a strategic location that made it quite difficult for a pre-industrial US to invade and the differing culture that grew up around that. The West might, because/but the West is not Canada.

The alternative is to let the US fully dismantle your economy, complete its demoralization campaign, and then absorb your territory.

I don't think the people of Ontario have any other realistic option considering how much of their economy depends on manufacturing for American firms. They won't be manufacturing anything for China, obviously; they might get away with it for Europe since energy is 1/10th the cost here, but that's more "competes favorably with Germany" than anything else.

Remember, Canadian politics are unique in that the nation has always been a protectorate of the dominant world empire. When that was Britain, we were a British protectorate; once they were defeated, we became an American protectorate instead. Our politics are still a mix of the two.

Maybe your country shouldn't exist as a nation if it's non-viable on its own, and you should apply to become a state. Would be more dignified.

laughs in jingoistic Boomer And to think the US thinks it has problems with this- but in the US, these guys are on the Red side, while everywhere else has them on the Blue side.

increase the share of non-US trade, principally with China, import Chinese industrial technology, become more competitive in the world that's coming, and build military deterrence and alliances

Congratulations on being absorbed like Tibet, which is now "it was always Chinese territory and has always been Chinese, apart from the time the barbarian tribes over-ran things, but then we fixed it again". The Chinese Province of Canada will excellently be part of cultural showpieces of ethnic minorities folk dance for tourism trade!

Brother/sister/sibling in Christ, it's precisely because we're a small nation with a dominant larger neighbour that I know about being eaten culturally and economically. Yes, looking for support from a larger ally (as we have done with the EU) is very good for survival, but that only works because we can cobble together common interests and heritage with the EU. If we ran off to the Chinese, I'd expect us to be not even a morsel on their plate.

What are the chances that the Canadians, Europeans, etc., actually do anything to decouple from the Americans? Zilch, I think. They’re all pretending to #resist. After all, that’s what their people demanded, no more, no less. At best, they’re hoping Trumpism will be gone in three years and they can go back to business as usual. Maybe the French actually do have a spine, idk. I guess if this trend outlasts this presidency, then we might see some actual, substantive changes in transatlantic relationships. But nothing that’s happened so far is very reassuring.

Kinda hard to blame them, honestly. What do they have against American might? Sending a platoon to Greenland is pathetic. Cozying up to China won’t help either. The Chinese didn’t care about the Syrians, Venezuelans, Iranians, or random Central American countries we’re allegedly courting. We certainly won’t care about Europe just for Europe’s sake. Then there are the Russians in the picture, and it’s pretty unclear if the Russians or the Europeans are more reliable or competent as partners for China. Unclear what benefit we might get from ditching the Russians.

Judging Europe by the last 80 years is like judging the France by its WWII performance. It's the subcontinent that started and fought in both officially recognized world wars, regularly fought each other in other world-spanning wars throughout the nineteenth and the eighteenth centuries. Oh, and they were world-spanning because in the seventeenth and the sixteenth centuries it colonized the rest of the world, genociding whatever local resistance it encountered.

You think Europeans are too weak to fight their wars, but they are pliable. They have incredible trust in their governments. A year of propaganda and they will be marching in lockstep.

I'm not European so I'm genuinely asking -- is this still true? Will all the migrants also march lockstep to government propaganda? Is there even any possible messaging that could work on both natives and migrants? Will the native populations still march in lockstep when they notice a suspicious lack of Pakistani, Afghan, Turkish or Nigerian faces the conscription office?

They have incredible trust in their governments.

True maybe of the Swiss today. The Germans used to trust their government, now that it's talking about disenfranchising 30% of the electorate, they don't do so anymore.

Neither do the French - Macron's approval rating is 11%.

At best, they’re hoping Trumpism will be gone in three years and they can go back to business as usual.

Pretty safe bet imo, good choice on civilizational time scales.

The fact that there's so little noise about Trump's external political decisions coming from the Blue tribe should be a clear sign to Europeans, Canadians, and others that they can't just weather the storm

Safe bet that trump will be gone. The bet that the next democratic administration will care about what europeans think about them like Obama is anything but safe. Whether MAGA wins or loses - Europe has lost USA respect. And it will show no matter who is in the white house.

Indeed, Newsom has almost gone full Trump on this issue.

Everyone enormously underestimates Europe. In reality American advantage is mostly psychological, just like the European disadvantage. We presume they cannot act rationally, or will only act rationally for a while, unwillingly, to snap back at the first opportunity. I think this centrist-Atlanticist regime was already pretty strained, what with the rise of right-wingers, deportation frenzy in Denmark (hilariously, a far more Aryan and National Socialist nation than the US will ever be, and yet accused by 56 percenters of demographic suicide), general Euroskepticism. If they do not course-correct and accept further open humiliation – and never before has it been more open – the whole political project of the EU just implodes, all the way to dissolution, at least we'll see unironic neonazis polling at >10%, and the center moves to the right.
And if they course-correct, then career trajectories for apparatchiks change robustly. They've already been course-correcting thanks to Russian threat, militarizing (Americans may not understand that they're both paying for the war now and ramping up production), changing attitude.

Trump isn't going anywhere within the next 3 years, most likely. Plenty of time to fix Europe.

What do they have against American might?

Trillions in treasuries and stocks, the largest American export market for high-margin goods (and good luck peddling American garbage to poorer countries who aren't ideologically opposed to China), ASML, Zeiss and a lot of other frontier technological nodes. They are militarily weak but they (well, France) have nuclear deterrence, unlike everyone the US likes to bully. They could reroute supply chains (rein in Ukrainians, accept Russian exports again, more EU-side JVs with China as Macron proposes) and kick the legs out from under the fraudulent American world-system. They are not actually obligated to just take this shit. It's a habit. So if Americans know what's good for them, they should shut Trump up and try to reinforce the habit again.

They are not actually obligated to just take this shit. It's a habit.

If NSA is blackmailing US senators to ensure they vote how it prefers them to vote, what makes you think anyone who isn't a reliable dimwit like the current Czech president or doesn't have a handle ( I dunno, a record of attending Belgian child torture parties) even makes it above regional level in Western Europe?

CIA, hand in glove with BND used to basically run German media during the cold war. Allegations that they're still doing so were levelled by Udo Ulfkotte, who spent 17 yrs as a respected journalist in a prominent newspaper, before leaving and eventually writing a book claiming CIA is basically still running German media, vetting journalists and keeping a watchful eye on the coverage of touchy topics.

I don't believe for a second American influence is just the think-tanker /overt Atlanticist circlejerk that is outwardly evident.

Everyone enormously underestimates Europe.

Importing masses of net-negative people with no interest in assimilation, no interest from above on assimilating or otherwise dealing with them (Denmark excluded, sure), and seemingly no sufficiently strong sense of a cultural mythos willing to accept the tragic mode of politics looks like a fair set of reasons to underestimate Europe. Managed decline and moral signaling was a choice, and so they can make a new choice, but is it too late?

Maybe Macron or some other French leader could step up with an iron fist and pave a new path for Europe and European identity, but it would require a lot more sacrifice and suffering than the average European has any guts for (says the American, of course).

What's the actual path from here to there that isn't just exchanged the US for China as the new boss? How do they regain a cultural attitude that actually justifies the smugness instead of running off century-old fumes?

The last time the Germans unified Europe, the Americans invaded and crushed them.

That's also part of why the Fourth Reich can't do this like the Third did, by the way- the Fourth is mostly just controlled opposition. And the Eurocrats know that, which is why they make efforts to [quite literally] cry about how unfair that is while changing nothing domestically (they're holding out hope for a Blue win in the US so things can go back to normal).

And the problem with European "progress" is just like Canadian progress- it defines itself by opposition to [things that would create competition for elites, but would make the rest of the country prosper], and their people clamor for this approach. So other than going full Nazi again- which is unlikely (migrants are HBD selected for their relative unwilling to fight for principles) there's very little hope for them.

The last time the Germans unified Europe, the Americans invaded and crushed them.

...and there are those that would say that the greatest tragedy of mid-20th century is that we (the West) didn't finish the job. We not only allowed half of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to survive, we allowed them to profit handsomely from their war of conquest, and continue to wage war against us for an additional half-century.

And if they course-correct, then career trajectories for apparatchiks change robustly. They've already been course-correcting thanks to Russian threat, militarizing (Americans may not understand that they're both paying for the war now and ramping up production), changing attitude.

Trump isn't going anywhere within the next 3 years, most likely. Plenty of time to fix Europe.

If things go as well as you say, ironically I think we'd be obligated to build a statue to Trump for waking us the hell up.

I guess I should have given the Europeans more credit. Yes, they are technologically competent, and yes, they do hold trillions of dollars in assets which, if leveraged well, could seriously challenge the Americans. But I don’t have any trust in their will. The EU is as fragmented as ever, headed by incompetent, out-of-touch bureaucrats (I’m thinking of the likes of Kaja Kallas or von der Leyen) who care more about pretending more than anything. There is a serious coordination problem in the EU, and from my limited understanding, there is no obvious solution or resolve to fix it. Maybe the European countries that are not a joke, i.e., France and Germany, plus a few more like the Netherlands (and absolutely excluding the Baltics, if they want to maintain any solidarity. Imagine letting bureaucrats from Ningxia to turn China into an Islamic state), could come together to actually reassert themselves as credible powers alongside the US, China, and (to a lesser extent) Russia. I’m not well-informed enough to see if that’s actually possible, or if anyone is pushing for it.

Also, what percentage of Europeans think of themselves as Europeans or as nationals of their own country first and foremost, as opposed to some flavor of “world citizen”? All my limited interactions with actual Europeans, inside or outside of work (heavily biased, of course; I live in a blue bubble) give off this “Civis Romanum sum” feel, even if they will occasionally say “… in GERMANY”. Do they care about their own country, let alone Europe, more than the “rules-based international order”?

They could reroute supply chains (rein in Ukrainians, accept Russian exports again, more EU-side JVs with China as Macron proposes)

Besides any fiscal issues, there's the problem of coordinating "Europeans" to do this. France may want to cool down the Ukraine thing and welcome Russia back but is it what Poland thinks is wise?

but is it what Poland thinks is wise?

Even those among us rabid enough to talk of Russians, literally and casually, as subhuman asiatic menace, see that the window of opportunity for the final solution to the Russian problem is gone.

Our situation deteriorated badly. To be an American client in a war with Russia is to be locked in a doomed meat grinder for years. Patron transactional, disinterested in direct involvement, hungry for bargaining chips; compromised weapons, compromised procurement, empty guarantees that welcome testing. We only really have the professional army and nothing else, we are not like the Fins, and not getting there either.

Also the goal of "keeping Russia outside of the European system", a staple of our strategic thought, such that it is, looks a little retarded and suicidal when it dawns on you what the trajectory of China is.

That we can only rely on regional allies is already common in our discourse. That reintegration of Russia is better than becoming hosts for the European Zone of Armed Hostilities in the eternal struggle between Greater Eastasia and United Atlantic States, I think is an easy case to make. Jokes aside, reintegration is a better shot at long term stability.

If Poland wants to sabotage strategic security of major Western European nations, they can do well without the European market. But I think it's not so hard to satisfy Poles. France should give them security guarantees, and generally expand their influence. Anyway American backing is already non-credible, and Europe is paying for its own defense. Poles will be fine with it, I think. They are not constitutional American slaves, it's always been transactional. The real problem is Baltics and American agents like Kallas.

Russia is also unnecessary in the long run, Canada can satisfy much of the European energy demand and Carney offers this openly.

People assume there will be no political will to implement reforms to resist open subjugation. I recommend you listen to how Trump is talking – if you swallow this, you might as well just apply for being a State. But they don't want that. Policies are already changing, and very rapidly. Merz talks of Russia being a «European country».

France should give Poland security guarantees

Historically that has worked out so well for Poland in deterring invasion. And for France, for that matter.

But I think it's not so hard to satisfy Poles. France should give them security guarantees

American security guarantees =/= French security guarantees, especially since you admit that European hard power is, as it stands, underbuilt. That may change faster than I imagine but it isn't the case now and that colors things.

With Americans, that sort of problem is obviously lessened which is what made their guarantees so credible. You can't necessarily crib from their notes right now

Merz talks of Russia being a «European country».

I mean, he's German. Germans have not, within my lifetime, been the Russophobic country. They're the country Russophobic countries tell not to build pipelines to Russia.

If anything Russia's forays into Ukraine are just interrupting what was a seemingly mutually beneficial relationship.

The engagement with China is a common theme, spearheaded by Carney. His partnership with China in particular is prompting Americans to fantasize of seizing Alberta. Maybe that'll happen too.

If the American-led, rules-based liberal international order is collapsing, why would Canada be allowed to sidle up to China? The assumption that that is something it can do is the ALRBLIO.

What would the US do to stop them? Mass seizure of financial assets? A blockade? Decapitation strike? Invasion?

There is still an order, which is the order of reality. And although the US is very powerful, it's not infinitely powerful. All of those would rapidly result in the whole world looking for a better deal with a new protector.

Beijing is far away. Washington is right next door, and will always be right next door. That was a lesson Caracas should have internalized prior to January 3rd, and if Ottawa doesn't realize that, they'll be in for a rough time. There's a lot of things that a sufficiently spiteful and motivated Washington can do to immiserate Canada short of an actual invasion, and the degradation of American hegemony across the planet will be very meager consolation.

Vietnam is also right next door to a regional hegemon (which has invaded it, in living memory) which also has the ability to immiserate it and militarily dominate it. And although it avoids poking the dragon when it can, it still is able to maintain real and significant independence.

I don't doubt that the US could turn Canada into a frozen hellscape if it were sufficiently motivated. But that threat isn't enough to get infinite pliability from Canadians, just as the Chinese threat of the same isn't enough to get infinite pliability from the Vietnamese. Both middle powers perceive that their respective hegemons are balancing multiple objectives and believe (correctly, in the Viet case) that the costs to other objectives prevent the maximal response.

Vietnam has a cultural identity. They have been actually resisting us, usually violently, for millennia. That resistance is part of their cultural identity too, as an antibody against being absorbed by China. Do Canadians have a cultural identity as strong as the Vietnamese, other than being Americans that also have Canadian passports?

Fun fact: the Vietnamese and the Koreans have to do this “emperor at home, king abroad” thing to avoid the Chinese messing with their country. The modern equivalent would be “the 51th state but with Canadian characteristics”. Kinda similar to what Trump wanted.

Do Canadians have a cultural identity as strong as the Vietnamese, other than being Americans that also have Canadian passports?

It's mostly that Canadians are poisonous, rather than venomous. The Son of Heaven could reasonably want the Vietnamese as his subjects, but nobody outside of DNC electoral strategists could actually want Canadians to become Americans, not without some way of restricting their franchise, their rights to speech and association, some kind of punitive regime around deodorant, and possibly executing Margaret Atwood. Alberta and Quebec are alright, though.

tbf not being American does seem to be the primary Canadian identity marker, followed by being suicidally 'nice' and saying "eh" a lot as you bathe in maple syrup.

But not nearly as long-term as the Vietnamese identity.

Even more punitive and damaging tariffs, fucking around with the upcoming USMCA negotiations, fucking with Canadians crossing the border, kicking out of Five Eyes, maybe sanctions for Canadian officials as individuals. Hell, even attempted retaliations would hurt Canada: pipelines to Eastern Canada pass through the US too .

All of those would rapidly result in the whole world looking for a better deal with a new protector.

I think it's one thing for France to try to be independent. Canada will find it hard to find anyone that could protect it from the US. Especially when there are existing issues with Chinese influence and espionage (not that China did Venezuela much good). It's a bit of a rock and hard place.

There's an irony in an American saying "just give up bro you can't do shit" when the nation was literally founded on the principle "fuck you, don't tell me what to do"

Liberty is important! And it's worth it when if it hurts

I'm neither American nor Canadian (though I have lived in the latter for a significant chunk of my life and my siblings were born and live in the US till now). Maybe that explains it.

America's jilted bitches still have a handful of trump cards up their sleeves too, like e.g. repealing the DMCA-equivalent legislation that they were treaty-compelled to pass, or, as was suggested elsewhere in the thread, giving China access to ASML's crown jewels. If the rest of the world stops honouring American copyright, what can they do? Build a great firewall of their own to stop the jailbreaks and pirate sites from washing back in, thus actually surrendering the soft power playing field to China?

Especially when there are existing issues with Chinese influence and espionage (not that China did Venezuela much good). It's a bit of a rock and hard place.

Does anyone outside of their Asian periphery actually have a problem with Chinese influence and espionage other than that it makes the Americans really unhappy?

It sounds like the US might be kicking themselves out of the Five Eyes in that scenario. Canada would have big problems, but if the remainder of our allies opt out in defiance, it's just One Eye.

Five Eyes has functionally just been Three Eyes for a long time. Canada and New Zealand's contributions are negligible relative to the contributions of the US, UK and Australia.

All of those would rapidly result in the whole world looking for a better deal with a new protector.

By their own admission, they are already doing this. American forbearance is so implicitly assumed that this is not anticipated to have any further negative consequences, I guess.

The Red Tribe basically won politically.

Oh, please. Even on the domestic front they're not really getting what was promised to them, and the international front is neither here nor there for them. They're giving Trump a permission slip to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't fuck up, but that's not the same as him implementing their agenda(plus, he's kinda fucking up).

The thing that stands out for me in the UK is how we do not hear about anyone in America either opposing or really supporting Trump in this course of action. It seems it's up to him to turn a nation of 350 million people into a territorial aggressor, and few others can or will make themselves heard above his incredible attentional monopoly.

From afar it reads as Americans not caring either way, though I know this isn't actually the case. It makes me question why the US system doesn't feature an official leader of the opposition. There is a voice missing in this conversation that such a role would help to fill.

I think it’s useful to model the average American voter as not caring about foreign policy. The stances of the two major political parties are best read as coalition management tactics to keep specific demographic groups aligned. There is no pro or anti rules-based international order constituency.

Reuters/Ipsos poll:

QuestionYes (%)Not sure or skipped (%)No (%)
Do you think Greenland is territory that is strategically important to US interests?333532
Overall, do you approve of US efforts to acquire Greenland?173647
Do you think it would be a good idea for the US to use military force to take possession of Greenland from Denmark?42571
Do you think it would be a good idea or a bad idea for the US to build additional military bases on Greenland under an existing agreement?333729

I don't know whether that supports your claim.

It's funny because anyone who answered not sure or no to the first one should be disqualified in having an opinion about the whole thing to begin with; it's a question with an answer about as close to an objective factual answer in military and geopolitical terms (which of course is yes), as it's one of the boundaries of the crucial GIUK gap, control of which limits Russian access to the Atlantic. If someone doesn't think it's strategically important to deny Russian warships access to the Atlantic, then I really wonder WHAT they consider strategically important!

3rd question is missing important context (instead of purchasing it? if purchasing it fails? if Russia or China gain influence or control of part of the island?)

4th question is doing the opposite, it's typical media bullshit of using the poll as diffusion of information rather than measurement, the pollster is more interested in telling people that the US is allowed to build military bases on Greenland by an existing agreement than taking proper measure of public sentiment.

I'm also baffled by the 3% who don't think it's strategically important, but aren't sure the US shouldn't build more bases there.

Not that, as the majority of people failing on the first question shows, public sentiment on it can be expected to be very sophisticated.

If Trump said, “we have too many McDonald’s restaurants in this country. We should close some down and replace them with Burger King,” and then a poll came out that said only 4% of Americans support decreasing the number of McDonald’ss and increasing the number of Burger Kings, this would not indicate that Americans care deeply about fast food policy.

Before Trump started going off about Greenland, I'd be very surprised if a significant share of those respondents even knew that there was such a place, let alone finding it on a map.

The first game in the US remake of Squid Game could just be "Name three countries".

why the US system doesn't feature an official leader of the opposition

Notionally, this would be the House and Senate minority leaders (or majority if they held the houses). It's less-clear who "opposition" is than the UK system in some cases, though not at the moment since the House, Senate, and President are all red.

I don't have a good answer as for why they are being so quiet, though. Obvious candidates are recent leadership turnovers, ongoing great political realignments and internal party schisms (who are the base we're representing anyway?), and letting the Republicans make a mess of things that's clearly their own fault.

On the opposition side, I think the big problem is that they've realized Trump is a much better politician than anyone on their team. And much as when I roll in BJJ with an upper belt and he starts to do something I don't understand, my first instinct is to stop him from doing it because I'm sure it will be bad for me, the Democrats don't want to fight Trump on ground that Trump has chosen. They don't want to fight over Greenland because they can't even tell if he is serious about Greenland, and he might have abandoned the idea this morning and then where are they? A lot of anti-Trumpers think it's a distraction, though with Trump it is impossible to figure out what the distraction is and what we are being distracted from exactly.

I think there's a transition from the old guard that means a huge lack of leadership. There's no presidential nominee to act as party head and people like Pelosi who were, if nothing else, competent are gone.

Seriously, who is the boogeyman for right wingers right now?

Seriously, who is the boogeyman for right wingers right now?

Gavin Newsom and Tim Walz get a lot of air-time as the presumptive democratic nominees for 2028 but internally most of the concern is focused on liberal AGs like Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and Jay Jones, along with the various PAC, NGOs and non-profits that back them. The lawfare against Trump during his four years in the wilderness was something of wake-up call/radicalizing moment for a lot of mid level Republicans, and I don't think that anyone in the Democratic party has really grasped just how bad a look the liberal reaction to the Charlie Kirk and Annunciation Catholic Church shootings was for them.

Tim Walz.

Seriously, who is the boogeyman for right wingers right now?

Depends on which set of "right wingers" you're talking about. But in the context of my more "normal Republican voter" acquaintances, with respect to Democratic Party politicians, I'd say Gavin Newsom.

AOC and Zohran are the current guys getting the Terrible Photograph treatment in my parents mailboxes.

Which kinda proves your point. A Housemember and a Mayor from NYC.

But it's not so much the old guard transition as that Trump is just really good at politics. Whether he is really good at policy is a separate point, he is a world-historically talented politician. Look at all his knockouts on the way to belt, he's the Ali of POTUSes: ended the Bush dynasty, knocked out Rubio, Christie, Cruz, Kasich to get the nomination, then Clinton to get the belt, a close loss to Biden with weird circumstances around it (COVID), then wins the R nom so easily in 2024 that it never really got off the ground, DeSanctimonious was bodychecked and Rubio never even started his engines, and murders Biden and Kamala on his way to another title.

At this point Dems don't want to play his game. If they respond on Greenland, then they are letting Trump set the terms and pick the battle.

Trump's approval ratings are relatively low. Democrats' are apparently even lower.

I don't think it's just that Trump is good at politics, though he is. Democrats need to decide where to hold on and where to give ground policywise. And no one has the authority or charisma to do so right now (especially because I suspect part of the cope is "he's unpopular and will lose midterms and then be term-limited so I don't want to fuck anything up and stand out")

Not just because of Trump. Because their own party will rip them apart for picking wrong. Dean Phillips and Seth Moulton faced serious criticism for breaking early on certain matters. Ezra Klein was basically put in a struggle session with the anointed black prophet for daring to suggest Charlie Kirk wasn't the devil. Why is this even seen as a "black" thing? Because Kirk said some things about affirmative action? It seems to be the least interesting or dangerous thing about him. Imagine trying to take any position when dealing with this sort of thing.

I think when there's a nominee there will be someone with both an interest and ability to decide, to pick targets.

When democrats lost big in 2024, the head of the Texas Democrat party tweeted out something to the effect of 'we should be more willing to accept that most Americans do not agree with us on trans issues'. He was pressured into resigning within 24 hours. Gino Hinojosa is somebody that insider dems know about, even if the man on the street does not. Democrats are structurally incapable of moderating their ultra-unpopular positions, and they're structurally incapable of attempting to present them in more delicate ways.

On the American side, I just see everyone is dumbfounded. There's plenty of people who are just attacking Trump as being Trump, saying he's going after Greenland to make a name for himself, because Denmark slighted him, idk. The right is mostly in shock, with everyone scrambling to figure out how this makes the least bit of sense. There are plenty of people who trust Trump enough to wait for a higher strategy to emerge. But I've seen plenty on the right just confused, upset, weirded out.

As an American I can't help but feel Greenland is the biggest blunder of the Trump admin. We already have access to the Arctic via Alaska.

If shipping is going to go through those waters, it would be with the countries we are alienating with the Greenland takeover shit. Russia can already trade with Europe. I suppose Canada and Russia could start trading through that zone, but they are both Arctic north countries that export the same kinds of things, fuels raw resources, etc. they have little to offer each other.

We already have access to Russia via Alaska. Same trade issue as Canada though.

The Alaska to Europe trade route will be new, but again that is who we are pissing off. I suppose Europe has demonstrated a willingness to trade oil with countries they hate (like Russia). But we could likely do the trade without taking Greenland.

This seems so weird and out of left field. My main hypothesis:

  1. Trump is losing it. Old age caught up and this dumb idea of territorial expansion got stuck in his head. Canada expansion failed so now he is going after Greenland. If this failed to would he start suggesting conquering Mexico to end the drug cartels?
  2. Deep state shenanigans. They decided to cut Europe off as allies and figured out a way to get in Trump's ear to do something that would end Europe alliance.
  3. Something truly weird. There is some strategic resource in Greenland. And America wants it. Information is being kept classified in the hopes no one fights too hard for Greenland. Maybe alien base.

Those are in order of what I think is most likely. Still I have "aliens" on my list for why a geopolitical event is happening. I'm truly confused.

#3: Trump knows about the Geophysical Event, where the Earth does a Dzhanibekov flip and Greenland ends up on the Equator until it flips back.

Yeah, I have no idea what he wants with Greenland. But I'm hesitant to say it's dementia. He clearly has some reason, because this isn't something he just pulled out of thin air yesterday, and though I hate to sound like the fevered mania of the Yellow Peril, maybe it's not totally nuts to wonder if China would try to sneak in influence there somehow.

There's room for a new global superpower. Russia has slipped from that position, and if the USA is also slipping, China wants to take over. Imagine for one moment the huge influence the USA has on the rest of the world - economically, culturally, every other way. The fact that non-Americans are on here talking about it demonstrates such reach. Now imagine China in that role. And I don't think "oh well they're not really Communists, Xi is a different type of guy, they're just as interested in capitalism when it comes to trade and economics as anyone" is going to work as "business as usual, guys, they'll fall in line with Western Liberal Values and we'll all just go along as before" shield. China will want to be a cultural influence as much as anything else, and that includes having the rest of us aligning with Chinese values (and what those are, we can argue about).

The land has pretty significant military relevance in a situation where the United States and Russia (or the United States and China) get any more unfriendly, military analysis looking at demographics expects any such efforts to happen in <20 years if it can happen, and there's a lot of benefits to making a war expensive even if you never intend to fight one for Schelling Reasons. Trying to work within Danish rule has caused friction points dating back to the 1960s, Euro and NATO unwillingness to shit or get off the pot in Ukraine has lead to much greater skepticism that this would change in response to external military force, and all the relevant countries are actively flirting with China even well before COVID.

It's not, say, Panama. But it's still pretty important.

Meanwhile, the dollar cost of the entire country's subsidies from Denmark, and a sizable incentive for every single person in the country, is dwarfed by a single (smaller!) state's hilarious set of fraud scandals, and is significantly dwarfed by what California has used to not build a train.

The goofy part's the military threats and not modeling why the entire process is pissing off the Danes. Maybe there's some 5D Chess, or anti-Trump groups (and Trump's natural inability to post in any way but the most Boomerish possible) are highlighting military options that aren't being seriously considered, or maybe it's just trying to Good Cop Insane Cop the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the dollar cost of the entire country's subsidies from Denmark, and a sizable incentive for every single person in the country, is dwarfed by a single (smaller!) state's hilarious set of fraud scandals

Kill two birds with one stone: get Minnesota to take over administering Greenland! 🤣

This seems so weird and out of left field. My main hypothesis:

  1. Trump is losing it. Old age caught up and this dumb idea of territorial expansion got stuck in his head. Canada expansion failed so now he is going after Greenland. If this failed to would he start suggesting conquering Mexico to end the drug cartels?
  2. Deep state shenanigans. They decided to cut Europe off as allies and figured out a way to get in Trump's ear to do something that would end Europe alliance.
  3. Something truly weird. There is some strategic resource in Greenland. And America wants it. Information is being kept classified in the hopes no one fights too hard for Greenland. Maybe alien base.

It's probably some combination of all of the above. Asserting dominance over the Western Hemisphere is one thing, but I'm pretty uncomfortable with the posturing and aggression if this leads the world into a US vs. everybody dynamic. The US can't win that. There will be no bullying in that scenario, and if that plays out I envision some version of true isolation and sanctions out the ass that will make things very difficult. I don't think that is politically survivable, even with an all hands on deck propaganda campaign. Canada and South America would be caught between a rock in a hard place, and it sounds like the Canadians, with their openly voiced displeasure at US aggression, would not make things easy even if they don't stand a chance militarily. All of this sounds like a very expensive price to pay for taking Greenland, unless of course the infinity gauntlet is there in which case I say go for it.

A theory I played with was that it was intended as a distraction from Venezuela. Greenland is far more ridiculous than Venezuela, so you make a bunch of noise about it and then later walk it back, and everyone's forgotten about Venezuela.

The issue with that theory is that... Venezuela seems like a success? Why would you want to distract from it? It can be a feather in your cap, not something to bury with the next noise cycle.

My theory was that it was a distraction from Iran, but it looks like the other shoe is not going to drop there.

Something truly weird. There is some strategic resource in Greenland. And America wants it. Information is being kept classified in the hopes no one fights too hard for Greenland. Maybe alien base.

Maybe the USG has proprietary information on natural resources? Public knowledge is that 25 of the EU’s 34 “critical raw materials” have been found in Greenland. Maybe that's already enough? Maybe someone found some more deposits closer to the coast, under thinner ice?

The know deposits are extremely expensive to develop and mine, especially if you care as much about the ecosystem and indigenous opposition as most EU states do, but that might change. Maybe making sure the EU (and/or China) can't ever access those has long term benefits for the US?

Still I have "aliens" on my list for why a geopolitical event is happening. I'm truly confused.

Total aside, but assuming there are no aliens, I'm having a hard time explaining the behavior of certain elements of the American defense establishment on this subject, and I think other people are too. When you see discussion of why they might want us to think there are aliens, you hear a lot of what amounts to "CIA doing drugs again? IDFK" which... sure, but you can say that about any weird happening, and the effort involved here is more than casual.

If there is not something big that we don't know then their behavior often looks outright stupid. I am pretty sure these people aren't stupid. Therefore...

If we do find out there is something big later I hope we also find out who didn't know and still supported the seemingly dumb thing.

The Bank of England also recently made some weird comment about how the government needs to prepare to take actions to prevent economic collapse if the US government disclosed the existence of ayylmaos.

This plus some random literal who leaker saying that Trump has written his disclosure speech and is just trying to time it right - and avoid China or Russia beating him to the punch.

And the classified congressional briefing last year after which half of congress was openly shitting bricks.

I will grant Mark Carney that his assessment of the IRBO is correct. The US was always the one animal which was more equal than other animals. The difference of international reaction when W did with Iraq what Saddam had tried with Kuwait is pretty obvious.

However, US hegemony in North America, Europe and Asia was heavily reliant on soft power, so that the IRBO was at least a plausible fiction there. Compare and contrast with Empires before. Nobody could say with a straight face that the Roman, British, or Soviet empire was based on respecting the autonomy of nations and the right of self-determination of peoples.

All abstract ideals, like the IRBO or human rights, are what our caps-heavy Pratchett character would label BIG LIES. They never describe exactly what it, but are essential to coordinate on what ought to be for anyone interested in crawling out of 'inadequate' equilibria. Presumably after WW2, what preserved the borders in Western Europe (say between Belgium and the Netherlands) was less a deep respect of the IRBO learned overnight and more the fact that everyone knew that if they tried to make war the US would come down on them like a million pound hammer. Today, the specter of US retribution is not required any more to keep Western Europe in line, the IRBO is firmly alive in our heads. Anyone who proposes that perhaps we should move a border by a few dozen kilometers by just sending a conquering army (a behavior which was totally normal for almost all of the time since humans first settled down) will be treated like they had gone fucking insane. "You want to wreck European trade which has made us more prosperous than we were ever before and instead go back to the old days when significant fractions of whole generations died in ditches just because you don't like the way the border runs? Have you lost your mind?"

Presumably after WW2, what preserved the borders in Western Europe (say between Belgium and the Netherlands) was less a deep respect of the IRBO learned overnight and more the fact that everyone knew that if they tried to make war the US would come down on them like a million pound hammer.

What about Eastern Europe? The notion that the US was truly interested in the principle of national self determination is difficult to credit in light of the enormous support they offered the Soviets in conquering half the continent. America was the world's sole nuclear power for years after the war; didn't do Poland or Czechoslovakia or Karelia any good. They said they'd keep the borders right where they were... while simultaneously allowing Stalin to redraw them as he pleased in the areas he controlled. Why would anyone take those commitments seriously?

I would argue that the IRBO only really emerged during the cold war.

America was the world's sole nuclear power for years after the war

Contrary to common belief, nukes are not the "I win" button. Japan's war had gone very badly and they were facing an invasion, getting nuked was simply the last straw. "The killed 100k Russians when they nuked Leningrad, better make peace before they kill another 100k of my poor countrymen" would not have persuaded Stalin out of all people.

If the US could have defeated the USSR by prolonging WW2 for a year or so, I think they would have done so, not for the right of self-determination of anyone but because any fool could see that the USSR would become their rival superpower. But they had just spent a lot of lives and productivity on winning a big war. Telling the Americans "change of plans, you already freed France from the Nazis, no you get to free Poland from the Soviets" would not have been popular, especially if you consider that plenty of intellectuals were leaning communist.

I would argue that the IRBO only really emerged during the cold war.

The Atlantic Charter, signed 1941, called for:

[N]o territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned

(It called for several things that didn't happen, actually, but if we're looking for the emergence of the principle, I think this counts.)

Now, the USSR didn't sign it (not that version, anyway), but America did (before actually entering the war, even). Most of the involved parties decided they didn't really mean it within the next few years (it didn't go over terribly well in Britain's colonies, for one), but that kind of makes my point that such promises were hard to take seriously. The UN Charter, 1945, expressed the same sentiment, but of course was careful to grandfather in the allies' recent conquests, and in fact would compel the signatories to condemn e.g. Finland trying to take back the territory the USSR stole in the unprovoked Winter War.

Contrary to common belief, nukes are not the "I win" button. Japan's war had gone very badly and they were facing an invasion, getting nuked was simply the last straw. "The killed 100k Russians when they nuked Leningrad, better make peace before they kill another 100k of my poor countrymen" would not have persuaded Stalin out of all people.

This is true, especially for fission bombs, especially given the very tight production bottlenecks they had at the time. It would still have been a huge advantage -- less so for bombing cities than for discouraging any concentration of force, I would think. MacArthur was general then, too. It'd have certainly been expensive in blood and treasure, but it's hard to imagine it's a fight the US actually loses, provided they had the will to see it through. It certainly didn't get any cheaper for the next 40 years.

(The USSR did ultimately dissolve without a fight, but not before doing an enormous amount of damage around the world. Their efforts to undermine Western dominance were quite successful in tying anti-imperialism to socialism in the public imaginations of much of Africa and South America, arguably immiserating those nations to this day and for who knows how long to come. You could fairly blame that on the Western Imperialism too, but the British and French colonial empires would have dissolved regardless; there's no USSR making Britain pay Mauritius a fortune to rent islands Mauritius never actually occupied today.)

If the US could have defeated the USSR by prolonging WW2 for a year or so, I think they would have done so, not for the right of self-determination of anyone but because any fool could see that the USSR would become their rival superpower. But they had just spent a lot of lives and productivity on winning a big war. Telling the Americans "change of plans, you already freed France from the Nazis, no you get to free Poland from the Soviets" would not have been popular, especially if you consider that plenty of intellectuals were leaning communist.

My point is not that it would have been easy or even smart (though I not-very-confidently believe it would have been), just that it casts a lot of doubt as to just how committed the US (or anyone else) really was to the principle.

Could some American enlighten me about this obsession with Europe's demographic replacement when US white population is dropping off the cliff even faster? VP with pajeet wife? Not to mention the diversity and multicultural shit has always been product of US intellectuals first and foremost.

Europe is way further on this road than US, and Americans who worry about it are worrying that what already happened to Europe will happen to America too. It's not even about demographic replacement per se - as a genetic makeup - people who worry that Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are not "white" are deep fringe - but a cultural shift. In Europe, being a national patriot, relating in any way to traditional European culture and values is passé and very suspect. In the US it is the case too, but in much narrower context, not society wide. Basically, in the US there's still red tribe and blue tribe, the Europe is mostly just various shades of blue tribe. Of course red tribers are worried it will happen to them too, since their cultural values are the same values that used to exist in Europe and are now mostly extinguished.

Europe totally has a red tribe, it's just far more marginalized than the US one.

This is the problem with discussing large-scale trends - whatever statement you make, there's always "well, akshually" about it. Yes, there are red-tribers in Europe, technically speaking. But they are mostly powerless, feckless and nowhere nearly at the level of influence that red tribers in the US have.

Could some American enlighten me about this obsession with Europe's demographic replacement

As is often the case, I find myself pointing to Noah Smith's read on the situation:

The U.S. as a whole was never racially homogeneous. Black people were always there, and they never dipped below 10% of the population. Americans in the North had frequent contact with Native American populations. California and Texas had Hispanics before they had Anglos. But in the American mind, Europe stood across the sea as a place of timeless homogeneity, where the native white population had always been and would always remain. In the 20th century, as American consciousness of ethnic differences between Poles, Italians, Germans etc. faded, perceptions of Europe as homogeneously “white” grew stronger.

In the mind of many Americans, Europe thus stood as both a refuge and a reservoir. America itself was a rough, contested frontier, but Europe would always be white and Christian. If you ever felt the need to live around a bunch of white people of Christian heritage, you could always go “back”, but for most that wasn’t necessary — just knowing that the Old World was somewhere out there was enough.

...

Anyway, in the 2010s, it dawned on those Americans that this hallowed image of Europe was no longer accurate. With their working population dwindling, European countries took in millions of Muslim refugees and other immigrants from the Middle East and Central and South Asia — many of whom didn’t assimilate nearly as well as their peers in the U.S. You’d hear people say things like “Paris isn’t Paris anymore.”

California and Texas had Hispanics before they had Anglos.

This is one of those oft-repeated claims that is really tenuous at best: the number of Mexicans living in all of Texas (with drastically larger borders than the current state) in 1824 was under 8000, and likely much smaller than the number of Native Americans in the region at the time. The Spanish (and then Mexican) claims on the region were pretty sparse to begin with, which is part of why they were so interested in importing settlers under their flag. That the Anglos would eventually push for independence is a more complicated story (yes slavery, but also yes Mexican imperialism) for another post.

We don't talk about how Nebraska and Oklahoma were French before they were Anglo because despite being ceded in the Louisiana Purchase, actual French influence on the ground there was quite limited, unlike, say, New Orleans.

To be even more fair, Mexican-Texans who trace their ancestry to pre-Texas independence settlement are a recognizable social group in current day Texas which is politically important and regionally predominant enough to be visible far in proportion to their actual numbers. That's what 'tejano' actually means.

It's a Noah Smith quote, you should assume he's making up the history (and most of the other factoids) as he goes along.

Additionally, the entire Mexican population of the territories ceded to the US after the Mexican-American War (i.e. California and most of the modern Southwest and Mountain West) was only about 100,000. They were offered US Citizenship under the terms of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and roughly 80,000 of them took the opportunity.

Latin American America will resemble America a lot more than Muslim Europe will resemble Europe. Like, a fucking lot more.

So basically a shithole vs an even worse shithole? I guess I can understand.

Yeah I'll take a beer-and-titties loving Hispanic shithole over whatever the fuck Europe is turning itself into, no question.

beer-and-titties loving Hispanic shithole

A little blunt for a resort name, but at least you know what you're getting.

That's the capsule description; I believe the name is "Mar a Lago".

I'll enjoy my 98%+ white country, cheers.

No doubt. Good luck keeping the rest of it out, unironically.

Not to mention the diversity and multicultural shit has always been product of US intellectuals first and foremost.

That makes it less mysterious? MAGA loathes those sorts of people.

It's an extension of the culture war, Europe is focused on because they function as a proxy for America (well, the white Americans) and is seen to be suffering from being ruled by the same sorts of people MAGA considers its foremost enemies in the US.

"I'm so enlightened I don't even care about my people's extinction" is what the kids would call "a weird flex". Also, it's not just an American phenomenon, or else there wouldn't be so much gnashing of teeth over "misinformation", the rise of the far right, etc.

I think I care a lot more about my people's extinction than you think, but I don't consider current foreign policy approach from US towards Europe being anyhow helpful towards any sort of solution regarding it and as I said, it becomes laughable when it is so vocally espoused by people in the administration who in real life procreate in polar opposite fashion.

But I think another comment was helpful in illuminating that it could be a proxy way to communicate something about US itself, but doesn't make the likes of JD less hilarious.

Whites are "indigenous" to Europe, so one of the biggest social checks on expressing concern about demographic replacement in the US doesn't apply there, making it simultaneously safer for people so inclined to express and a convenient retort to those who would criticize them.

I am not sure who's going to be American ally in WWIII now.

Well it was going to be a bunch of dying welfare states with no militaries where like 51% of the babies born are foreign, but now I don't know what we'll do.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats