The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Why Does Trump Want to Buy Greenland?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Is it to have lots of new farmland in case of massive Global Warming?

Trump Greenland Greens Golf Club?

My brother-in-law played in an annual Fourth of July Air Force golf tournament at Thule Air Force Base that is played over the rocks on Mount Dundas.

Is it to terrify the Russians by being able to put American nuclear weapons at the Thule AFB in northern Greenland? Thule is only 2 hours from St. Petersburg by subsonic jetliner. Perhaps in a future world of hypersonic cruise missiles, Greenland would have some particular advantages since Russia is so far north.

The Thule AFB is only 1,400 kilometers (870 miles) from Russia’s Severomorsk naval base, home of the Northern Fleet, in the Murmansk Oblast.

 

Does the U.S. keep nuclear weapons at Thule Air Force Base presently? This Wikipedia article on the 1968 crash of a burning B-52 trying to make it to Thule for an emergency landing, in which four nuclear warheads were (hopefully only temporarily) lost, mentions:

The report also confirmed that the United States stockpiled nuclear weapons in Greenland until 1965, contradicting assurances by Danish foreign minister Niels Helveg Petersen that the weapons were in Greenland’s airspace, but never on the ground.[81][88] The DUPI report also revealed details of Project Iceworm, a hitherto secret United States Army plan to store up to 600 nuclear missiles under the Greenland ice cap.[89]

Project Iceworm is a new one for me, but it deserves a hallowed place in my list of dementedly grandiose Cold War ideas:

Project Iceworm was a top secret United States Army program of the Cold War, which aimed to build a network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the Greenland ice sheet. The ultimate objective of placing medium-range missiles under the ice — close enough to strike targets within the Soviet Union — was kept secret from the Government of Denmark. To study the feasibility of working under the ice, a highly publicized “cover” project, known as Camp Century, was launched in 1960.[1] Unstable ice conditions within the ice sheet caused the project to be canceled in 1966.

 
Hide 133 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Because he thinks big and is American. America first, everybody else second.

    • Replies: @Thomm

    Because he thinks big and is American. America first, everybody else second.
     
    Yep. That is why normal people love him while WN wiggers are dissatisfied with him.
  2. Gwern had an article about how the Danes were dumb not to sell Denmark, most of which would apply to Trump if he buys it:

    https://www.gwern.net/Greenland

    He’s just trying to distract people from his own failure to get anything done. If he wants an icebox to be his “legacy”(right now all he’ll have is the twitter archive) he should claim Marie Byrd land:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Byrd_Land

  3. This guy provided the answer a few years ago.

    He wants to raise Thule before the Chinese do.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    Hilarious. Great stuff.

    The 2016 election was monumental. Every morning I would wake up thinking 'what will happen today?' I was never disappointed.
  4. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    Project Iceworm is a new one for me, but it deserves a hallowed place in my list of dementedly grandiose Cold War ideas:

    I had been familiar with Project Orion before, but I didn’t know that the original proposal made to Kennedy was for nuclear space battleships, which would’ve been and still is an awesome idea. It’s been technically feasible for more than half a century now, and Trump is the kind of president who’d probably seriously consider it, so somebody should tell Trump about this. A fleet of nuclear space battleships would be a good way to inaugurate the Space Force.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/animated-rendering-of-space-battles-with-nuclear-orion-spaceships.html

    In George Dyson’s book, he mentioned an Orion battleship model that was shown to President Kennedy. President Kennedy chose not to develop the project. Kennedy made this choice because he did not want the arms race to go that extreme. This was not a cancellation based upon technical problems.

    Russia is now building superweapon concepts that were conceived in the 1960s that were never built.

    A technically feasible superweapon is the Project Orion Nuclear Battleships.

    Russia’s President Putin seems to making different choices in regards to using nuclear weapons into feasible superweapons.

    This video shows where this ends up with fleets of nuclear Orion Battleships fighting in our solar system.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Here's more on the project. Screw Greenland. We should be doing this instead.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/orion-space-battleships-could-still-be-built-in-a-nuclear-space-race.html

    Orion space battleships could still be built in a nuclear space race

    Nuclear bomb powered spaceships are technically feasible and could be built. The mass of the spaceships would have been like the submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers of today. 200-1000 ton spaceships would have been the small versions and 1,500 to 100,000-ton military nuclear ships would have been possible. Propulsion would have used shaped nuclear explosions. The blast of nuclear bombs can be shaped. This has been researched by the USA over the decades. Narrowing the shaped explosions further would have enabled single shot super-powerful plasma blasts.
     
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/russian-nuclear-project-orion-battleship-might-happen.html

    In the 1960s, the US Air Force believed the 4,000-ton version of the Orion would be rightsized for an interplanetary warship. It would have 500 twenty-megaton city-killer warheads, 5-inch Naval cannon turrets, six landing shuttles, and several hundred of Casaba Howitzer weapons.

    Nuclear Powered Orion Would Be Able to Land Hundreds on the Moon and Mars

    A 4000-ton nuclear-powered Orion would be able to land hundreds of people on the moon and Mars and take about 1000-tons of supplies. Large fully assembled bases could be landed on the moon and Mars. Russia could use several hundred-megawatt submarine nuclear reactors to power large bases on the moon and Mars.

    Nuclear Bomb Powered Beam or Range Weapon

    The Casaba-Howitzer charges would be from sub-kiloton to several kilotons in yield. They would be launched on pancake booster rockets until they were far enough from the battleship to prevent damage (several hundred yards). They would explode and destroy targets with a spear of nuclear flame. The battleship would probably carry a stockpile of Casaba-Howitzer weapons in the low hundreds. This means an Orion Battleship would be able to destroy Naval Fleets and any massed military ground forces, military bases and devastate many cities.
     
  5. “Is it to have lots of new farmland in case of massive Global Warming?”

    In which case I hope the Danes keep it. Denmark is actually a white country, and will remain so for the forseeable future. Unlike the United States.

    • Replies: @Skyler_the_Weird
    I came into the train station in Odense in 2008 and thought I was in Marrakech or Tripoli. That area was overrun with North Africans. There was a kebab shop on every corner. Denmark is banning new immigrants only because they are full.
  6. All “asylum seekers” and illegals can be placed in the Greenland Territory.

    I like it.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    What is wrong with parking them in Puerto Rico?
  7. As memory serves a conspiracy exists that the US has an X-Files-esque deal with Australia, Argentina and Brazil to relocate tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of US citizens there in the event of Yellowstone’s super-volcano blowing up.

    Perhaps Trump wants a nice big open plot of land for some weird contingency plan like that.

    Alternatively, maybe Trump has come around on anthropogenic global warming or at least accepted that climate change is happening and has a wheeler-dealer instinct that Greenland is a nice long-term investment with lots of natural resources being increasingly freed up for exploitation with melting glaciers and a nice strategic position by a navigable North-West passage. Not to mention the warmer climate will make much more land hospitable for longer periods of the year. Greenland is surely one of the few outright winners from global warming.

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the ‘Trump’ name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it ‘Trumpland’, if only informally.

    It’s part of a long-term plan to encircle an increasingly Sinicised Canada.

    It’s all a silly part of a patented Trump troll routine to distract attention from the whole Epstein situation or something else for one reason or another.

    He wants it to trade to China as part of the trade war negotiations.

    Fuck it, if you were president you’d try to see if you could buy Greenland too.

    He want wants a place on US soil he can retire to that has lots of open, varied terrain to build gold courses on away from the large portion of the urban populace who see him as their folk devil.

    • Replies: @Alden
    The 51st state, Trumpomania.
    , @Charon

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the ‘Trump’ name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it ‘Trumpland’, if only informally.
     
    Trumpolina? Trump Dakota? Trumpletucky?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Greenland has lots of nice minerals in the bits that aren't covered in ice. If global warming continues, more of them will become available.

    Its position is also useful for getting to (or at) Russia, although that's a pointless endeavour.
    , @Don't Look at Me
    He wants to put the US Space Force Academy there.
  8. Trump loves changing the narrative and testing his power in the media.

    Remember when he was all about Obama’s birth certificate when Obama was president? It wasn’t really about the certificate, it was about Trump seeing if he had the public cultural power to force Obama to release it.

    It turns out Trump did have that power, and Obama was forced into releasing it far before he wanted to (as Steve pointed out, Obama was saving it for the eve of the 2012 election, so he could morally deflate the conspiracy guys and dishearten them without time to regroup—but Trump got him to release it well before that. ).

    That was one of a few large data points that made Trump realize he could win the presidency even in his 70s. He could make the sitting president do something—all with the power of his tweets—and meanwhile get the media to notice him and report what he wanted.

    This is largely about that. And likely a few other things.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    He also had some crafty telemarketing in 2015, designed to gage how strongly a person might support him by how strongly they objected to very negatively-slanted questions about him after the pollster had lulled the person in with several fair, impartial lead-in statements or poll questions.
  9. anon[235] • Disclaimer says:

    I think it’s some kind of legacy thing. How ironic would it be if he bought worthless Greenland but lost America? Not much of a trade off if you ask me. But it could also be a sign of things to come. I’ve long predicted as the United States descends into dysfunction due to demographic change and resultant infighting, it will look to overseas adventurism to distract the population from its problems – wars (hot and cold), terrorism, various controversies … anything to make it look like progress is being made. Buying (bullying others into selling you) worthless dirt might be one means by which this is accomplished. You’d think with American technological know-how they could just build a base around the Arctic the same way the Chinese were accused of building artificial islands … but since the US is an empire I guess they can’t do that without also encouraging the Chinese to go back to island building themselves; and there are fewer white males every day available to support such projects. Thus, the proposal to buy Greenland. Presumably those already there wouldn’t mind being inundated with the highest number of legal immigrants in history.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    worthless Greenland
     
    Greenland is not worthless. In fact, it will become more valuable in the future. Whoever owns Greenland owns the rights to the resources in the pie slice between Greenland and the North Pole. Oil drilling and who knows what else will be possible as the Arctic Ocean continues to become less and less frozen.

    This is all part of planning and preparing for "global warming," instead of destroying our standard of living in a Quixotic quest to stop the Earth from doing what it has always done.

    With those rights, the US would add significantly to what it already has dominion over above Alaska. This would make it more competitive with the likes of Russia and Canada, who own lions' shares that could make huge differences in future wealth and economic power. This is not a dumb idea if it can be pulled off. Of course, the Danes would be fools to sell -- and they won't. The US already tried this after WWII.

    , @TTSSYF
    America may (will) be lost, regardless, so we might as well have Greenland.
  10. Manifest Destiny, obviously.

  11. I have four theories –

    1) Future casinos

    2) This is part of his plan to constrain China by limiting Chinese influence in Greenland.

    3) He has to outdo his predecessors, and Thomas Jefferson has the Louisiana Purchase on the record books.

    4) He is trolling to distract his enemies from his next real move.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Trump Thule Golf Club?
  12. Here are some possibilities. It could be a combination of all of these plus some other stuff:

    As the sea ice melts, the Arctic becomes more important for shipping. Control of Greenland as well as Alaska puts the US in a better strategic position.

    Greenland will likely need far more workers. Why not have American workers? (Some skeptics may point out that the workers the US would send to Greenland might not all be native born Americans)

    As the sea ice melts, drilling for oil in the Arctic becomes far more cost effective. Control over the oil rights could make Greenland a cash cow.

    Much longer term: as the land ice melts, mining becomes far more cost effective.

    • Replies: @Peterike
    “Much longer term: as the land ice melts, mining becomes far more cost effective.”

    The land ice isn’t going to melt in your lifetime, or the next fifty generations of your descendants.
    , @TWS
    The ice isn't going anywhere. We're in the middle-end of a warm period. It'll eventually be icebound again for now it's just more manuvers with China.
  13. Personally, I think that Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland because he is a civic nationalist whose views were formed in the 50’s and 60’s. He grew up in a time when history books taught American history as the growth of the nation from the Atlantic Seaboard across a continent and beyond, and he was 12 years old when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union.

    Although Trump’s idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively. There aren’t many places in the world today where the U.S.A. can still expand, but Greenland is still a possibility.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Although Trump’s idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively.
     
    Wouldn't it be better to buy Mexico or part of Mexico? How about one or several of Mexico's northern states, including Baja California.

    If the United States is to absorb part of Mexico's population, it is only fair that it receive part of Mexico's land.

    , @Dumbo
    America wants to expand because that is what empires do. Until they can no more. It will be a great day for all other independent nations when America finally collapses under its own weight.

    What would be the point, anyway? At the rate things are going, an "American Greenland" would be swarming with Mexican workers in twenty years.
  14. @Precious
    I have four theories -

    1) Future casinos

    2) This is part of his plan to constrain China by limiting Chinese influence in Greenland.

    3) He has to outdo his predecessors, and Thomas Jefferson has the Louisiana Purchase on the record books.

    4) He is trolling to distract his enemies from his next real move.

    Trump Thule Golf Club?

    • Replies: @Stumpy Pepys
    Thule is so far north you have to look south to see the Northern Lights.
  15. Maybe it’s the Trump Ego. He may have recently learned that the US tried to buy Greenland after WWII, and he’s thinking how great it would be to have his name permanently associated with one of the biggest land acquisitions in history. Real estate.

    Either that, or his administration just realized that if the ice continues to melt, all that Project Iceworm stuff will be revealed and there will be some ‘splainin to do.

    It would be an excellent purchase if it ever happened. Greenland includes a nice slice of rights to polar resources going all the way to the pole, under current international agreements. Plus, it would look “tremendous” on Mercator maps.

    • Replies: @Don't Look at Me
    Right now China and the US are tied for third place for the largest country. Russia is number one and Canada is number two. If the US cen acquire Greenland, then it has third place all to itself and China drops to number four. China won't like that at all.
  16. @Paleo Liberal
    Here are some possibilities. It could be a combination of all of these plus some other stuff:

    As the sea ice melts, the Arctic becomes more important for shipping. Control of Greenland as well as Alaska puts the US in a better strategic position.

    Greenland will likely need far more workers. Why not have American workers? (Some skeptics may point out that the workers the US would send to Greenland might not all be native born Americans)

    As the sea ice melts, drilling for oil in the Arctic becomes far more cost effective. Control over the oil rights could make Greenland a cash cow.

    Much longer term: as the land ice melts, mining becomes far more cost effective.

    “Much longer term: as the land ice melts, mining becomes far more cost effective.”

    The land ice isn’t going to melt in your lifetime, or the next fifty generations of your descendants.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    Are you saying NPR has been lying to us?
  17. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Project Iceworm is a new one for me, but it deserves a hallowed place in my list of dementedly grandiose Cold War ideas:
     
    I had been familiar with Project Orion before, but I didn't know that the original proposal made to Kennedy was for nuclear space battleships, which would've been and still is an awesome idea. It's been technically feasible for more than half a century now, and Trump is the kind of president who'd probably seriously consider it, so somebody should tell Trump about this. A fleet of nuclear space battleships would be a good way to inaugurate the Space Force.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/animated-rendering-of-space-battles-with-nuclear-orion-spaceships.html

    In George Dyson’s book, he mentioned an Orion battleship model that was shown to President Kennedy. President Kennedy chose not to develop the project. Kennedy made this choice because he did not want the arms race to go that extreme. This was not a cancellation based upon technical problems.

    Russia is now building superweapon concepts that were conceived in the 1960s that were never built.

    A technically feasible superweapon is the Project Orion Nuclear Battleships.

    Russia’s President Putin seems to making different choices in regards to using nuclear weapons into feasible superweapons.

    This video shows where this ends up with fleets of nuclear Orion Battleships fighting in our solar system.
     

    Here’s more on the project. Screw Greenland. We should be doing this instead.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/orion-space-battleships-could-still-be-built-in-a-nuclear-space-race.html

    Orion space battleships could still be built in a nuclear space race

    Nuclear bomb powered spaceships are technically feasible and could be built. The mass of the spaceships would have been like the submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers of today. 200-1000 ton spaceships would have been the small versions and 1,500 to 100,000-ton military nuclear ships would have been possible. Propulsion would have used shaped nuclear explosions. The blast of nuclear bombs can be shaped. This has been researched by the USA over the decades. Narrowing the shaped explosions further would have enabled single shot super-powerful plasma blasts.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/russian-nuclear-project-orion-battleship-might-happen.html

    In the 1960s, the US Air Force believed the 4,000-ton version of the Orion would be rightsized for an interplanetary warship. It would have 500 twenty-megaton city-killer warheads, 5-inch Naval cannon turrets, six landing shuttles, and several hundred of Casaba Howitzer weapons.

    Nuclear Powered Orion Would Be Able to Land Hundreds on the Moon and Mars

    A 4000-ton nuclear-powered Orion would be able to land hundreds of people on the moon and Mars and take about 1000-tons of supplies. Large fully assembled bases could be landed on the moon and Mars. Russia could use several hundred-megawatt submarine nuclear reactors to power large bases on the moon and Mars.

    Nuclear Bomb Powered Beam or Range Weapon

    The Casaba-Howitzer charges would be from sub-kiloton to several kilotons in yield. They would be launched on pancake booster rockets until they were far enough from the battleship to prevent damage (several hundred yards). They would explode and destroy targets with a spear of nuclear flame. The battleship would probably carry a stockpile of Casaba-Howitzer weapons in the low hundreds. This means an Orion Battleship would be able to destroy Naval Fleets and any massed military ground forces, military bases and devastate many cities.

    • Replies: @Don't Look at Me
    Even if technically feasible, it's way too expensive.
  18. Do we know what gave him the initial idea? Tyler Cowan jokingly claimed credit, linking to a recent blog post, but Trump doesn’t read MR.

  19. anon[586] • Disclaimer says:

    “This is part of his plan to constrain China by limiting Chinese influence in Greenland.”

    Then Australia, Canada, and New Zealand need to watch out. If current immigration trends hold, they could all fall under Chinese domination by the end of the century. Polls in the United States consistently show Asians hold overwhelmingly positive views of China (~60% the last I checked). There is no reason to believe a similar trend wouldn’t hold with Chinese immigrants into those countries as well. I could easily imagine China having military bases in all three countries and all of them abrogating alliances with the United States at some point due to Chinese immigration. What happens when Canada gets a sinophile PM like Andrew Yang? Demography is destiny, but I doubt our incompetent elites will understand that … although, perhaps they do as they’ve spent the last year tossing out Chinese scientists from the US. That won’t be nearly enough, however.

    “Trump Thule Golf Club?”

    That, honestly, was my first thought. An alternative is a concept from a martial art called drunken boxing. Supposedly, George Lucas’s Jar Jar Binks character from The Phantom Menace, portrayed as a clumsy buffoon, was supposed to have been revealed later as some kind of evil genius masquerading as a nobody; before fan outrage, that is, and the character plans were dropped. Maybe a stupid golf course idea from Trump might be used to mask some deeper reason for the proposal.

  20. Anon[254] • Disclaimer says:

    Why the heck not? We bought Alaska, didn’t we?

    I think the main reason is because of the untapped mineral and oil potential. In the next 100 years, owning Greenland may be a big deal because of vanishing oil reserves. I bet some oilmen had a talk with Trump and laid out the situation to him.

  21. Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn’t build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    So does that mean that we can buy it directly from the Greenlanders themselves? Because that would make it a lot easier. There's only around 50,000 Greenlanders, and most of them are Eskimos. We can trade them some cheap whiskey for the place.
    , @Daniel H
    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer,

    Britain should have kept Newfoundland. Huge, unspoilt, clean, forests, farms, spectacular sea coast, has some charming towns. Could have been a safety valve for heritage Brits who wanted to escape the multicultural cesspool that is Britain today. Yes, I know, the migrants would have followed over, but still, there is a lot of space in Newfoundland to de-stress. Now Brits, are cooped up on an increasingly crowded and exhausted island and they get no privileged consideration from either the Canadians, Zealanders, Aussies or Americans.

    Lesson: never yield your land. Never. Not friggin ever. Hah, I wish we could follow this advice.

    Funny about white people. Promiscuous with their own patrimony but they will fight to the death (literally) to help others (not their kin) keep theirs.

    , @Cato
    Back in the 1970s, when I spent a summer in Newfoundland, I met plenty of people who had hoped that the former colony would join the US, rather than Canada.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn’t build the wall, but he bought Greenland!
     
    A better legacy would be unloading Puerto Rico. He wouldn't even have to sell it. Just give it away.
    , @James Braxton
    What about England giving Hong Kong to China?

    Only the New Territories was subject to the 99 year lease. The Brits just threw in Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula for no good reason.
    , @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale.
     
    Which International Court of Law has jurisdiction over the real estate dealings of the United States of America? Will this Court send its Marshals to enforce its Orders?
    , @James N. Kennett

    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands.
     
    The USA purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. What it bought, it can sell, notably because the territory has not been admitted to the Union.

    You are right however that the partial autonomy of overseas possessions would be an obstacle to their sale. But it is probably not an insuperable legal barrier, especially if that autonomy were preserved, along with private property rights, when the ownership changed.

    A more practical obstacle is that the inhabitants of most overseas territories have citizenship of the sovereign country, and would be free to leave for the "mother country" if they did not like their new "owners". In most places, mass emigration would destroy the economic value of the territory; but not in Greenland (population 56,000) whose attractions to the USA are presumably its mineral wealth, its strategic value, and its claim on the Arctic.
    , @ScarletNumber

    Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer [New Foundland to Canada], but it still had to be approved by a referendum.
     
    Looking back at it, that election may not have been all on the up-and-up. Also, New Foundland was once its own country and gave itself back to the UK after WWI. When they wanted independence again after WWII the UK held the referendum so that they could be given to Canada instead.
  22. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    So does that mean that we can buy it directly from the Greenlanders themselves? Because that would make it a lot easier. There’s only around 50,000 Greenlanders, and most of them are Eskimos. We can trade them some cheap whiskey for the place.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Don’t forget the trinkets.
    , @Bill Jones
    Of maybe A few smallpox saddled blankets.
  23. He’s preparing blitzkrieg three-front attack on Canada.

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    You weren't supposed to post that! Like Buck Sexton said,"It's time to quit pretending Canada's a real country".
  24. … there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    Seriously, Greenland has a Parliament? OK, then, do it in the winter when everyone is frozen solid and can’t say “nay”. We could also potentially buy off a lot of votes with space heaters.

  25. Are we sure this isn’t just some lame joke or media troll on Trump’s part?

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  26. I for one, welcome our future Inuit overlords. Iirc they have quite high genetic potential.

  27. Greenland has the highest suicide rate in the world. Trump could publicize that through his Twitter feed to embarrass the Danes and twist their arms into selling the place cheap:

    https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/21/474847921/the-arctic-suicides-its-not-the-dark-that-kills-you

  28. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer,

    Britain should have kept Newfoundland. Huge, unspoilt, clean, forests, farms, spectacular sea coast, has some charming towns. Could have been a safety valve for heritage Brits who wanted to escape the multicultural cesspool that is Britain today. Yes, I know, the migrants would have followed over, but still, there is a lot of space in Newfoundland to de-stress. Now Brits, are cooped up on an increasingly crowded and exhausted island and they get no privileged consideration from either the Canadians, Zealanders, Aussies or Americans.

    Lesson: never yield your land. Never. Not friggin ever. Hah, I wish we could follow this advice.

    Funny about white people. Promiscuous with their own patrimony but they will fight to the death (literally) to help others (not their kin) keep theirs.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Funny about white people. Promiscuous with their own patrimony but they will fight to the death (literally) to help others (not their kin) keep theirs.
     
    This is recent--minoritarian brainwashing.

    Did not used to be this way.
  29. @Altai
    As memory serves a conspiracy exists that the US has an X-Files-esque deal with Australia, Argentina and Brazil to relocate tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of US citizens there in the event of Yellowstone's super-volcano blowing up.

    Perhaps Trump wants a nice big open plot of land for some weird contingency plan like that.

    Alternatively, maybe Trump has come around on anthropogenic global warming or at least accepted that climate change is happening and has a wheeler-dealer instinct that Greenland is a nice long-term investment with lots of natural resources being increasingly freed up for exploitation with melting glaciers and a nice strategic position by a navigable North-West passage. Not to mention the warmer climate will make much more land hospitable for longer periods of the year. Greenland is surely one of the few outright winners from global warming.

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the 'Trump' name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it 'Trumpland', if only informally.

    It's part of a long-term plan to encircle an increasingly Sinicised Canada.

    It's all a silly part of a patented Trump troll routine to distract attention from the whole Epstein situation or something else for one reason or another.

    He wants it to trade to China as part of the trade war negotiations.

    Fuck it, if you were president you'd try to see if you could buy Greenland too.

    He want wants a place on US soil he can retire to that has lots of open, varied terrain to build gold courses on away from the large portion of the urban populace who see him as their folk devil.

    The 51st state, Trumpomania.

  30. A member of the Danish Parliament replied to Trump’s alleged offer to buy Greenland by joking “Maybe we should buy California.”

    Yes, yes. I would take that deal in a heartbeat. Especially if the treaty or bill of sale said Denmark had to take and grant citizenship to all of the current California population.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  31. He’s taking Chuck Berry’s advice, via George Harrison:

    Well, if you feel you like it
    Go get your lover to the Greenland market
    Roll it over and move on up just
    A trifle further to the Greenland market
    Roll it over
    Roll over Beethoven rockin’ in two by two

  32. @TWS
    Because he thinks big and is American. America first, everybody else second.

    Because he thinks big and is American. America first, everybody else second.

    Yep. That is why normal people love him while WN wiggers are dissatisfied with him.

  33. @Anonymous
    So does that mean that we can buy it directly from the Greenlanders themselves? Because that would make it a lot easier. There's only around 50,000 Greenlanders, and most of them are Eskimos. We can trade them some cheap whiskey for the place.

    Don’t forget the trinkets.

  34. Getting our hands on those hot sexy Greenland babes!! Lets do it!

  35. God, if this is really how Trump thinks, what a moron! The world has not worked this way since maybe the sale of Alaska (1867 or so). Greenland has 50,000 people, who are in charge of their own country, and they have no desire to become our next Guam — so how does this hare-brained scheme become NYT fodder?

  36. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    Back in the 1970s, when I spent a summer in Newfoundland, I met plenty of people who had hoped that the former colony would join the US, rather than Canada.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    There's a suspicion that the referendum on joining Canada was rigged, in order to prevent that.
  37. Part of me thinks it would be cool to add Greenland because it would put us ahead of China and Canada in land area, and only behind Russia. But actually, I think Greenland would have to be a state to count as part of the “official” US land mass, by whoever it is that keeps track of such things. And I doubt anyone in the US would be enthusiastic about Greenland, with its population of 57,000, getting 2 seats in the US Senate.

  38. @anon
    I think it's some kind of legacy thing. How ironic would it be if he bought worthless Greenland but lost America? Not much of a trade off if you ask me. But it could also be a sign of things to come. I've long predicted as the United States descends into dysfunction due to demographic change and resultant infighting, it will look to overseas adventurism to distract the population from its problems - wars (hot and cold), terrorism, various controversies ... anything to make it look like progress is being made. Buying (bullying others into selling you) worthless dirt might be one means by which this is accomplished. You'd think with American technological know-how they could just build a base around the Arctic the same way the Chinese were accused of building artificial islands ... but since the US is an empire I guess they can't do that without also encouraging the Chinese to go back to island building themselves; and there are fewer white males every day available to support such projects. Thus, the proposal to buy Greenland. Presumably those already there wouldn't mind being inundated with the highest number of legal immigrants in history.

    worthless Greenland

    Greenland is not worthless. In fact, it will become more valuable in the future. Whoever owns Greenland owns the rights to the resources in the pie slice between Greenland and the North Pole. Oil drilling and who knows what else will be possible as the Arctic Ocean continues to become less and less frozen.

    This is all part of planning and preparing for “global warming,” instead of destroying our standard of living in a Quixotic quest to stop the Earth from doing what it has always done.

    With those rights, the US would add significantly to what it already has dominion over above Alaska. This would make it more competitive with the likes of Russia and Canada, who own lions’ shares that could make huge differences in future wealth and economic power. This is not a dumb idea if it can be pulled off. Of course, the Danes would be fools to sell — and they won’t. The US already tried this after WWII.

  39. @Paleo Liberal
    Here are some possibilities. It could be a combination of all of these plus some other stuff:

    As the sea ice melts, the Arctic becomes more important for shipping. Control of Greenland as well as Alaska puts the US in a better strategic position.

    Greenland will likely need far more workers. Why not have American workers? (Some skeptics may point out that the workers the US would send to Greenland might not all be native born Americans)

    As the sea ice melts, drilling for oil in the Arctic becomes far more cost effective. Control over the oil rights could make Greenland a cash cow.

    Much longer term: as the land ice melts, mining becomes far more cost effective.

    The ice isn’t going anywhere. We’re in the middle-end of a warm period. It’ll eventually be icebound again for now it’s just more manuvers with China.

  40. It’s just Trump’s media strategy. Suck all the air out of the room. Prevent any of the Democratic candidates from setting the agenda.

    The Dem candidates are veering farther and farther left to make Twitter happy.

    Their nominee will end up going into the 2020 election with policies built around open borders and trans kids.

    Also it’s possible that his long term strategic plan is to surround and contain Canada.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    Why don’t we just invade Canada?
  41. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Indiana Jack
    Personally, I think that Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland because he is a civic nationalist whose views were formed in the 50's and 60's. He grew up in a time when history books taught American history as the growth of the nation from the Atlantic Seaboard across a continent and beyond, and he was 12 years old when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union.

    Although Trump's idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively. There aren't many places in the world today where the U.S.A. can still expand, but Greenland is still a possibility.

    Although Trump’s idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively.

    Wouldn’t it be better to buy Mexico or part of Mexico? How about one or several of Mexico’s northern states, including Baja California.

    If the United States is to absorb part of Mexico’s population, it is only fair that it receive part of Mexico’s land.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Wouldn’t it be better to buy Mexico or part of Mexico? How about one or several of Mexico’s northern states, including Baja California.

    If the United States is to absorb part of Mexico’s population, it is only fair that it receive part of Mexico’s land.
     
    Baja would be nice.

    It's crappy agricultural land because of the lack of water--it's a desert. So it never acquired much of a population for it's area. (Though now Tijauna has become a decent sized metro.) It's a place that doesn't naturally acquire population in a ag or industrial economy, but is a perfectly reasonable place for people in tech-service economy to live and enjoy life. (Think San Diego.)

    But as a result it's 10X to 100X more valuable to the US--under US law with Americans able to live there--than it is as a Mexican backwater.

    But Mexicans have pride. They aren't ceding anymore of Mexico to the gringo.

    We could tell them they owe it to us for taking in so many of their people ... but even better would be telling Mexico if they don't take their people back, we're just taking it. Of course that requires ... will.
    , @TTSSYF
    Well, of the two -- buying Greenland or buying Mexico -- which do you think is more likely?

    Maybe we should make an offer to buy Poland or Estonia if we can't get Mexico.

  42. What is the elevation of the land beneath the ice? I believe I read somewhere that a large portion is below current sea level.

  43. @Steve Sailer
    Trump Thule Golf Club?

    Thule is so far north you have to look south to see the Northern Lights.

  44. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:

    This actually strikes me as BOTH ingenious media trolling AND as a possibly brilliant gamble on the future.
    As far as trolling goes… I never used to get it, but now I see that Trump does it all the time, and this is one of the best…
    And yet it could work… does anyone really lose? Perhaps a few Danish “elite” opinionmakers….
    Denmark saves money in the long run. And in any case the current EU mentality is that “owning” “colonies” vastly YUGER than the homeland proves you are WRONG….
    The “native” population of Greenland wins, by gaining citizenship in a more powerful country with greater perks. They can still run their own affairs, like Guam, but will have more options. Why would they want to be “independent”? It is just a cost with few benefits except for the “rulers”…. Those yearning for another life can just go to the mainland….
    And the US wins… 50,000 people is a rounding error when it comes to illegal immigration. Count the wins! Who knows what rewards might come of such vast territory? Environmental destruction via crony capitalism is very bad, I think, but intelligent and thoughtful use of natural resources can be very good.
    I never saw this one coming, but I like it…..

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
  45. @Peterike
    “Much longer term: as the land ice melts, mining becomes far more cost effective.”

    The land ice isn’t going to melt in your lifetime, or the next fifty generations of your descendants.

    Are you saying NPR has been lying to us?

    • Replies: @peterike

    Are you saying NPR has been lying to us?

     

    It's not a lie if you believe it.
  46. @International Jew
    He's preparing blitzkrieg three-front attack on Canada.

    You weren’t supposed to post that! Like Buck Sexton said,”It’s time to quit pretending Canada’s a real country”.

  47. Trump probably hoped to locate a training facility for the Space Cadets there.

  48. @Daniel H
    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer,

    Britain should have kept Newfoundland. Huge, unspoilt, clean, forests, farms, spectacular sea coast, has some charming towns. Could have been a safety valve for heritage Brits who wanted to escape the multicultural cesspool that is Britain today. Yes, I know, the migrants would have followed over, but still, there is a lot of space in Newfoundland to de-stress. Now Brits, are cooped up on an increasingly crowded and exhausted island and they get no privileged consideration from either the Canadians, Zealanders, Aussies or Americans.

    Lesson: never yield your land. Never. Not friggin ever. Hah, I wish we could follow this advice.

    Funny about white people. Promiscuous with their own patrimony but they will fight to the death (literally) to help others (not their kin) keep theirs.

    Funny about white people. Promiscuous with their own patrimony but they will fight to the death (literally) to help others (not their kin) keep theirs.

    This is recent–minoritarian brainwashing.

    Did not used to be this way.

  49. That golf course reminds me of Trona:

    https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/trona-california-golf/

    Trona High School bears the distinction of being the only high school football field in the US with a dirt field. Grass won’t grow and AstroTurf blows away in that company town.

    The golf course looks like fun being a dirt/rock course. Beware of the rattlesnakes, which I’m sure they don’t have in Greenland.

    Definitely on my bucket list. $5 for 18 holes? Grab a score card and a pencil! You bring the beer Steve.

    Usually there is a bar every nine holes but not in this instance.

    But they have golf carts, which makes 3,000 yards bearable.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    There was an earthquake in Trona, CA a few weeks ago. A golf course, even the Trona Golf Course, such as it is, would be a good place to be during an earthquake.
  50. Annexation of Greenland is a great idea for the reasons mentioned above, plus, “Because it’s there”.

  51. All the Gulf sheikhs building islands shaped like palm trees are feeling quite nonplussed right about now.

  52. My guess is he’s done with all this bullsh** and just wants a nice place to play golf after he throws the fight in 2020.

  53. The scramble for the Arctic, those Soviets, I mean Russkies, are well ahead. I suspect the Arctic will remain as inhospitable and cold as it always has been, and thus worthless to all but the polar bears.

  54. @Cato
    Back in the 1970s, when I spent a summer in Newfoundland, I met plenty of people who had hoped that the former colony would join the US, rather than Canada.

    There’s a suspicion that the referendum on joining Canada was rigged, in order to prevent that.

  55. @Anonymous

    Although Trump’s idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively.
     
    Wouldn't it be better to buy Mexico or part of Mexico? How about one or several of Mexico's northern states, including Baja California.

    If the United States is to absorb part of Mexico's population, it is only fair that it receive part of Mexico's land.

    Wouldn’t it be better to buy Mexico or part of Mexico? How about one or several of Mexico’s northern states, including Baja California.

    If the United States is to absorb part of Mexico’s population, it is only fair that it receive part of Mexico’s land.

    Baja would be nice.

    It’s crappy agricultural land because of the lack of water–it’s a desert. So it never acquired much of a population for it’s area. (Though now Tijauna has become a decent sized metro.) It’s a place that doesn’t naturally acquire population in a ag or industrial economy, but is a perfectly reasonable place for people in tech-service economy to live and enjoy life. (Think San Diego.)

    But as a result it’s 10X to 100X more valuable to the US–under US law with Americans able to live there–than it is as a Mexican backwater.

    But Mexicans have pride. They aren’t ceding anymore of Mexico to the gringo.

    We could tell them they owe it to us for taking in so many of their people … but even better would be telling Mexico if they don’t take their people back, we’re just taking it. Of course that requires … will.

    • Agree: Prodigal son
  56. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn’t build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    A better legacy would be unloading Puerto Rico. He wouldn’t even have to sell it. Just give it away.

    • Agree: Corn
    • Replies: @Barnard
    If only that were possible. A few years ago I proposed paying Spain to take it back.
  57. I think at this point Trump knows his presidency is meaningless, anything he tries to do will be blocked by Hawaiian Federal Judge. I think he just spends his days watching TV and saying kooky things on Twitter. President Kushner probably gave him the Greenland project just so he’d have something to occupy his utterly useless time.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
  58. @petit bourgeois
    That golf course reminds me of Trona:

    https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/article/trona-california-golf/

    Trona High School bears the distinction of being the only high school football field in the US with a dirt field. Grass won't grow and AstroTurf blows away in that company town.

    The golf course looks like fun being a dirt/rock course. Beware of the rattlesnakes, which I'm sure they don't have in Greenland.

    Definitely on my bucket list. $5 for 18 holes? Grab a score card and a pencil! You bring the beer Steve.

    Usually there is a bar every nine holes but not in this instance.

    But they have golf carts, which makes 3,000 yards bearable.

    There was an earthquake in Trona, CA a few weeks ago. A golf course, even the Trona Golf Course, such as it is, would be a good place to be during an earthquake.

  59. @Anonymous
    This guy provided the answer a few years ago.

    He wants to raise Thule before the Chinese do.

    https://youtu.be/iOk6HB609po

    Hilarious. Great stuff.

    The 2016 election was monumental. Every morning I would wake up thinking ‘what will happen today?’ I was never disappointed.

  60. Here’s a question, would Greenland go red or blue?

    Perhaps it’ll become a new Texas. Maybe he’s looking for potential counterweights when/if Puerto Rico becomes a US State. (To give that little shithole national bankruptcy protection.)

    • Replies: @Corn
    “Here’s a question, would Greenland go red or blue?”

    Almost certainly blue
  61. Or…with the help of the Lemon Pipers:
    You drop 600 million every year

    Thats a lotta kroner,Mett,my dear

    Sell, I’ll give you anything you need

    Come on let me buy buy buy buy buy

    Greenland for me!

    We can call it Trumpland, whatcha think?

    The biggest ever outdoor skating rink

    The Squad will be banned permanently

    Come on baby sell sell sell sell sell

    Greenland to me!

  62. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    What about England giving Hong Kong to China?

    Only the New Territories was subject to the 99 year lease. The Brits just threw in Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula for no good reason.

    • Replies: @Corn
    Most or all of Hong Kong’s drinking water came from the new territories IIRC. I believe even a limited British presence remaining in HK would have been untenable if the Chinese wanted to force the issue.
    , @d dan
    Hong Kong island was acquired by war of aggression by UK, and Qing dynasty was forced to sign the "agreement" under gun point. This is a well-known historical fact.

    PRC does not recognize the so-called "agreement". Neither should any conscientious persons.
  63. @R.G. Camara
    Trump loves changing the narrative and testing his power in the media.

    Remember when he was all about Obama's birth certificate when Obama was president? It wasn't really about the certificate, it was about Trump seeing if he had the public cultural power to force Obama to release it.

    It turns out Trump did have that power, and Obama was forced into releasing it far before he wanted to (as Steve pointed out, Obama was saving it for the eve of the 2012 election, so he could morally deflate the conspiracy guys and dishearten them without time to regroup---but Trump got him to release it well before that. ).

    That was one of a few large data points that made Trump realize he could win the presidency even in his 70s. He could make the sitting president do something---all with the power of his tweets---and meanwhile get the media to notice him and report what he wanted.

    This is largely about that. And likely a few other things.

    He also had some crafty telemarketing in 2015, designed to gage how strongly a person might support him by how strongly they objected to very negatively-slanted questions about him after the pollster had lulled the person in with several fair, impartial lead-in statements or poll questions.

  64. @Indiana Jack
    Personally, I think that Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland because he is a civic nationalist whose views were formed in the 50's and 60's. He grew up in a time when history books taught American history as the growth of the nation from the Atlantic Seaboard across a continent and beyond, and he was 12 years old when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union.

    Although Trump's idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively. There aren't many places in the world today where the U.S.A. can still expand, but Greenland is still a possibility.

    America wants to expand because that is what empires do. Until they can no more. It will be a great day for all other independent nations when America finally collapses under its own weight.

    What would be the point, anyway? At the rate things are going, an “American Greenland” would be swarming with Mexican workers in twenty years.

  65. @anon
    I think it's some kind of legacy thing. How ironic would it be if he bought worthless Greenland but lost America? Not much of a trade off if you ask me. But it could also be a sign of things to come. I've long predicted as the United States descends into dysfunction due to demographic change and resultant infighting, it will look to overseas adventurism to distract the population from its problems - wars (hot and cold), terrorism, various controversies ... anything to make it look like progress is being made. Buying (bullying others into selling you) worthless dirt might be one means by which this is accomplished. You'd think with American technological know-how they could just build a base around the Arctic the same way the Chinese were accused of building artificial islands ... but since the US is an empire I guess they can't do that without also encouraging the Chinese to go back to island building themselves; and there are fewer white males every day available to support such projects. Thus, the proposal to buy Greenland. Presumably those already there wouldn't mind being inundated with the highest number of legal immigrants in history.

    America may (will) be lost, regardless, so we might as well have Greenland.

  66. @Anonymous

    Although Trump’s idea has been widely ridiculed, it is firmly in the tradition of American expansion that was once regarded as the central theme of American history. Purchasing Greenland would be a symbol that America is great again, that it is growing once more for the first time in generations, and it would secure his place in history alongside William Seward or even Thomas Jefferson, who were long remembered for the Alaska Purchase and the Louisiana Purchase, respectively.
     
    Wouldn't it be better to buy Mexico or part of Mexico? How about one or several of Mexico's northern states, including Baja California.

    If the United States is to absorb part of Mexico's population, it is only fair that it receive part of Mexico's land.

    Well, of the two — buying Greenland or buying Mexico — which do you think is more likely?

    Maybe we should make an offer to buy Poland or Estonia if we can’t get Mexico.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Well, of the two — buying Greenland or buying Mexico — which do you think is more likely?

    Maybe we should make an offer to buy Poland or Estonia if we can’t get Mexico.
     

    The US should make this offer to Mexico:

    A. We will give temporary (2-5 year) work permits to first X million illegal alien Mexicans who register with US fed government and who can show they have been in the country since 2016.

    B. All others subject to immediate deportation.

    C. In return, the United States receives Baja California and a band of territory along Mexico's northern border states. This would possibly carve out certain corridors of Mexican territory to encompass certain Mexican cities. Or Mexico can elect to give the US another of its states, in its south.

    D. Must be accompanied by an end to birthright citizenship.

  67. @Altai
    As memory serves a conspiracy exists that the US has an X-Files-esque deal with Australia, Argentina and Brazil to relocate tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of US citizens there in the event of Yellowstone's super-volcano blowing up.

    Perhaps Trump wants a nice big open plot of land for some weird contingency plan like that.

    Alternatively, maybe Trump has come around on anthropogenic global warming or at least accepted that climate change is happening and has a wheeler-dealer instinct that Greenland is a nice long-term investment with lots of natural resources being increasingly freed up for exploitation with melting glaciers and a nice strategic position by a navigable North-West passage. Not to mention the warmer climate will make much more land hospitable for longer periods of the year. Greenland is surely one of the few outright winners from global warming.

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the 'Trump' name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it 'Trumpland', if only informally.

    It's part of a long-term plan to encircle an increasingly Sinicised Canada.

    It's all a silly part of a patented Trump troll routine to distract attention from the whole Epstein situation or something else for one reason or another.

    He wants it to trade to China as part of the trade war negotiations.

    Fuck it, if you were president you'd try to see if you could buy Greenland too.

    He want wants a place on US soil he can retire to that has lots of open, varied terrain to build gold courses on away from the large portion of the urban populace who see him as their folk devil.

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the ‘Trump’ name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it ‘Trumpland’, if only informally.

    Trumpolina? Trump Dakota? Trumpletucky?

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    All three best the suit out of Obamistan.
  68. @Altai
    As memory serves a conspiracy exists that the US has an X-Files-esque deal with Australia, Argentina and Brazil to relocate tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of US citizens there in the event of Yellowstone's super-volcano blowing up.

    Perhaps Trump wants a nice big open plot of land for some weird contingency plan like that.

    Alternatively, maybe Trump has come around on anthropogenic global warming or at least accepted that climate change is happening and has a wheeler-dealer instinct that Greenland is a nice long-term investment with lots of natural resources being increasingly freed up for exploitation with melting glaciers and a nice strategic position by a navigable North-West passage. Not to mention the warmer climate will make much more land hospitable for longer periods of the year. Greenland is surely one of the few outright winners from global warming.

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the 'Trump' name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it 'Trumpland', if only informally.

    It's part of a long-term plan to encircle an increasingly Sinicised Canada.

    It's all a silly part of a patented Trump troll routine to distract attention from the whole Epstein situation or something else for one reason or another.

    He wants it to trade to China as part of the trade war negotiations.

    Fuck it, if you were president you'd try to see if you could buy Greenland too.

    He want wants a place on US soil he can retire to that has lots of open, varied terrain to build gold courses on away from the large portion of the urban populace who see him as their folk devil.

    Greenland has lots of nice minerals in the bits that aren’t covered in ice. If global warming continues, more of them will become available.

    Its position is also useful for getting to (or at) Russia, although that’s a pointless endeavour.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Its position is also useful for getting to (or at) Russia, although that’s a pointless endeavour.
     
    USA and Russia are natural allies and it would be good for them to consolidate ownership of territory held in mutual proximity and not have it held by third countries.
  69. @Wilkey
    "Is it to have lots of new farmland in case of massive Global Warming?"

    In which case I hope the Danes keep it. Denmark is actually a white country, and will remain so for the forseeable future. Unlike the United States.

    I came into the train station in Odense in 2008 and thought I was in Marrakech or Tripoli. That area was overrun with North Africans. There was a kebab shop on every corner. Denmark is banning new immigrants only because they are full.

  70. @Altai
    As memory serves a conspiracy exists that the US has an X-Files-esque deal with Australia, Argentina and Brazil to relocate tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of US citizens there in the event of Yellowstone's super-volcano blowing up.

    Perhaps Trump wants a nice big open plot of land for some weird contingency plan like that.

    Alternatively, maybe Trump has come around on anthropogenic global warming or at least accepted that climate change is happening and has a wheeler-dealer instinct that Greenland is a nice long-term investment with lots of natural resources being increasingly freed up for exploitation with melting glaciers and a nice strategic position by a navigable North-West passage. Not to mention the warmer climate will make much more land hospitable for longer periods of the year. Greenland is surely one of the few outright winners from global warming.

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the 'Trump' name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it 'Trumpland', if only informally.

    It's part of a long-term plan to encircle an increasingly Sinicised Canada.

    It's all a silly part of a patented Trump troll routine to distract attention from the whole Epstein situation or something else for one reason or another.

    He wants it to trade to China as part of the trade war negotiations.

    Fuck it, if you were president you'd try to see if you could buy Greenland too.

    He want wants a place on US soil he can retire to that has lots of open, varied terrain to build gold courses on away from the large portion of the urban populace who see him as their folk devil.

    He wants to put the US Space Force Academy there.

  71. @Buzz Mohawk
    Maybe it's the Trump Ego. He may have recently learned that the US tried to buy Greenland after WWII, and he's thinking how great it would be to have his name permanently associated with one of the biggest land acquisitions in history. Real estate.

    Either that, or his administration just realized that if the ice continues to melt, all that Project Iceworm stuff will be revealed and there will be some 'splainin to do.

    It would be an excellent purchase if it ever happened. Greenland includes a nice slice of rights to polar resources going all the way to the pole, under current international agreements. Plus, it would look "tremendous" on Mercator maps.

    Right now China and the US are tied for third place for the largest country. Russia is number one and Canada is number two. If the US cen acquire Greenland, then it has third place all to itself and China drops to number four. China won’t like that at all.

  72. @Anonymous
    Here's more on the project. Screw Greenland. We should be doing this instead.

    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/09/orion-space-battleships-could-still-be-built-in-a-nuclear-space-race.html

    Orion space battleships could still be built in a nuclear space race

    Nuclear bomb powered spaceships are technically feasible and could be built. The mass of the spaceships would have been like the submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers of today. 200-1000 ton spaceships would have been the small versions and 1,500 to 100,000-ton military nuclear ships would have been possible. Propulsion would have used shaped nuclear explosions. The blast of nuclear bombs can be shaped. This has been researched by the USA over the decades. Narrowing the shaped explosions further would have enabled single shot super-powerful plasma blasts.
     
    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/08/russian-nuclear-project-orion-battleship-might-happen.html

    In the 1960s, the US Air Force believed the 4,000-ton version of the Orion would be rightsized for an interplanetary warship. It would have 500 twenty-megaton city-killer warheads, 5-inch Naval cannon turrets, six landing shuttles, and several hundred of Casaba Howitzer weapons.

    Nuclear Powered Orion Would Be Able to Land Hundreds on the Moon and Mars

    A 4000-ton nuclear-powered Orion would be able to land hundreds of people on the moon and Mars and take about 1000-tons of supplies. Large fully assembled bases could be landed on the moon and Mars. Russia could use several hundred-megawatt submarine nuclear reactors to power large bases on the moon and Mars.

    Nuclear Bomb Powered Beam or Range Weapon

    The Casaba-Howitzer charges would be from sub-kiloton to several kilotons in yield. They would be launched on pancake booster rockets until they were far enough from the battleship to prevent damage (several hundred yards). They would explode and destroy targets with a spear of nuclear flame. The battleship would probably carry a stockpile of Casaba-Howitzer weapons in the low hundreds. This means an Orion Battleship would be able to destroy Naval Fleets and any massed military ground forces, military bases and devastate many cities.
     

    Even if technically feasible, it’s way too expensive.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's the thing: it wouldn't be very expensive. The tech is old and you don't need fancy new composite materials and the like. You can just use steel. In fact, because it's powered by nuclear bombs, the engineers proposed that using cheap, heavy, crude steel and the like was a benefit. Nuclear bombs have so much power over chemical rockets that weight isn't a limitation and it's easy to reach orbit. So you can, and want to use the biggest, heaviest metal material to shield the passengers and cargo and to carry the most stuff. You could make ocean liner sized space ships with steel. And they'd be easier to make than nuclear submarines because they don't have to deal with the pressure in space that subs do underwater.
  73. >CiC of strongest military in the world
    >Spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined
    >Wants island of a nation that doesn’t even have a single aircraft carrier
    >Offers to pay for it
    >Cuck
    >
    >Would be a shame if Danish terrorsts conducted an attack on US soil from their snow-base in Greenland, wouldn’t it?

  74. @Kronos
    Here’s a question, would Greenland go red or blue?

    Perhaps it’ll become a new Texas. Maybe he’s looking for potential counterweights when/if Puerto Rico becomes a US State. (To give that little shithole national bankruptcy protection.)

    “Here’s a question, would Greenland go red or blue?”

    Almost certainly blue

  75. Why Does Trump Want to Buy Greenland?

    Why does Minuit want to buy Manhattan?
    Why does Jefferson want to buy Louisiana?
    Why does Monroe want to buy Florida?
    Why does Polk want to buy some desert in Arizona?
    Why does Johnson want to buy Alaska?
    Why does McKinley want to buy Hawaii?
    Why does McKinley want to buy the Philippines?
    Why does Wilson want to buy the Virgin Islands?

  76. Why Does Trump Want to Buy Greenland?

    Because of it’s strategic placement.

  77. @Ibound1
    All “asylum seekers” and illegals can be placed in the Greenland Territory.

    I like it.

    What is wrong with parking them in Puerto Rico?

    • Replies: @Ibound1
    The cold might have a way of convincing them they really don’t want to stay.
  78. @Reg Cæsar

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn’t build the wall, but he bought Greenland!
     
    A better legacy would be unloading Puerto Rico. He wouldn't even have to sell it. Just give it away.

    If only that were possible. A few years ago I proposed paying Spain to take it back.

  79. Greenland is a refueling stop for the handful of private pilots who make the North Atlantic journey in small aircraft. If we owned it we could monopolize that market. That could be worth one meeelion dollars.

  80. The so-called alt-right needs a major wake-up call.

    Quick question: what is the #1 reason why Trump is president?

    Answer: Because globalism doesn’t work for the vast majority of middle class and working class people in the industrial world, esp. the Anglosphere and the Eurozone.

    The Democrats nominated a globalist.
    The Republicans nominated someone who at least claimed to be a nationalist.

    This election cycle, it is quite possible the Democrats will nominate a nationalist, perhaps Warren or Sanders. If so, Trump has lost his #1 trump card.

    The #2 reason?

    Answer: Immigration.
    As David Brooks pointed out (a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut), when the Left started claiming that anyone who would do anything sensible on immigration was a fascist, they left the electorate wide open to elect a “fascist”. Of course, you and I know Trump isn’t a fascist. I’m not sure what he is. I think he is a con man, and Ann Coulter is coming around to that position. But I could always be proven wrong in the remainder of his term.

    What issue could destroy the Republicans?
    Actually, there are a LOT of issues that could destroy the GOP.
    One issue that will very likely destroy the GOP in the long term is the environment.

    Consider — no Republican president since the Nixon/Ford era has had a strong record on the environment. Trump is perhaps worse than the Texas oil combo of Bush/Cheney.

    Consider — environmental problems are getting worse.

    Consider — one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider — the GOP is the ONLY major political party on the planet dedicated to the proposition that we should listen to Saudi oil shieks, the bin Laden family and the Koch brothers rather than scientists.

    Consider — the plan getting the most publicity these days is the so-called “Green New Deal”, actually created by the Green Party, which is neither green nor a party, and the “Squad”, esp. AOC.

    Consider — the “Green New Deal” is fatally flawed. It was put together by the group that helped defeat wishy-washy environmentalist Al Gore and get the Texas oil men put in office. I know right wingers hate Al Gore, but he has done more for the environment than any elected official since Gaylord Nelson. Gore’s work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    Face facts. The “Green New Deal” was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    Face facts. Those of us who are NOT socialists (I know, I come pretty close, but I am not actually a socialist) really don’t have a lot of options. The ONLY plan put out that has been endorsed by someone with a realistic chance of winning the presidency is whatever Biden’s plan is.

    Now, for a hard slap in the face.

    This next sentence is the most important sentence I have ever written on iSteve’s comments by a long shot.

    If conservatives don’t put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.

    What does that mean?

    According to AOC, the “Green New Deal” includes a massive increase in the level of immigration from Third World nations. That is not me putting words in her mouth. That is what her office has stated. The idea is, climate change is causing “climate refugees”, and it is the obligation of the US and other industrial nations to take in ALL of them. And within a few decades, the number of people claiming to be “climate refugees” will be greater than the current population of the earth.

    Meanwhile, Americans are expected to pretty much stop having kids to make room for them.

    If you think I am making this up, check your friend Google.

    If you won’t listen to me, maybe you will listen to Jared Taylor.
    Like Jared Taylor, I am (mostly) white and a nationalist.
    Unlike Jared Taylor, I am NOT a White Nationalist.

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment, or else the Left will impose their plan on us. Remember, the Left plan means we stop having kids, and the rest of the world gets to move in.

    Perhaps the most important sentence written by an alt-right writer in the 21st Century was written by Philip Santoro:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/09/climate-change-mass-immigration-green-identity-politics/

    The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Let me add:

    For the hard core open borders left, there is no greater threat than environmentalists who favor immigration restrictions:

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/anti-immigration-white-supremacy-has-deep-roots-in-the-environmental-movement/

    Note this article calls any environmentalist who favors immigration restriction either "eco-fascist" or "eco-xenophobe". Tanton is mentioned. Al Gore and Gaylord Nelson are not. I guess the severe immigration restrictionism of Nelson, or the mild immigration restrictionism of Gore is an inconvenient truth.

    To show how much of a threat even the mild immigration restrictionism of Gore was to the hard clore Left -- the Green Party was proud of helping defeat Al Gore, even though that meant putting in a Texas oil man who also led us into two unnecessary wars, turned record surpluses into record deficits, and presided over two recessions, including the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. But it was worth it to get in all those extra illegal aliens!
    , @peterike
    Consider — environmental problems are getting worse.

    Entirely because of over-population and the growth of Asian economies and their utter disregard for the environment. America would have essentially zero environmental issues had we set immigration to Zero forty years ago, as the Number One actual environmental problem is loss of open space.

    Consider — one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider - that's complete nonsense.

    Gore’s work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    The whole ozone layer thing was another giant scam. For someone who reads iSteve, you seem to do zero other reading outside The Narrative. Wake up.

    The “Green New Deal” was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    No. It's hard core grifters who want to scam as much money as they can using a fraudulent "crisis" as the excuse. Plain and simple. It's about the money. It's always about the money.

    If conservatives don’t put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.

    That I agree with. But "global warming" has nothing to do with saving the environment and any actual plan -- any effective plan -- will be shot down as racist or fill-in-the-buzzword, because "environmentalists" and "Greens" don't actually give two shits about the environment, they care about (1) grifting money and (2) gaining political power because (2) let's them do (1) far more effectively. Ask millionaire Al Gore how it works.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    A workable plan to save the immediate, national environment involves

    a) stop bringing in tens, over time hundreds, of millions more people

    b) the rest isn't so hard

    I see in the UK, admittedly a much smaller place, the environment being degraded around me.

    New build housing everywhere, 90% of it on what was green fields, even in the most productive agricultural areas.

    Little 'business parks' and 'industrial units' everywhere in the countryside. No one wants to start a small business in the city, the white potential employees are getting out.

    Roads and motorways crammed.

    Litter everywhere.

    A workable plan to save the global environment involves having a measure of control over China and India - for example by banning any imports of goods or people from them. Pollution over there is different scale - you can fly a thousand miles in the sun and just see a blanket of smog beneath you.

    It also involves a measure of control over Africa (no imports of people, a neo-imperialism to save the fauna), and much much more nuclear power. Oil is a precious resource for making other stuff , too good to burn.
    , @Wade
    This is not too much a slap in the face. I agree wholeheartedly. Is the key to all of this to get conservatives on board with it for once? Maybe some conservative thinkers out there will take this on and start referring to the immigration-restrictionist/environmentalist package deal as the new "conservationism" for it's much more positive connotations including it's obvious linguistic connection with the word "conservatism."

    If conservatives don't do this and take the lead Liberals will keep the package deal of Environmentalism - Immigration - Agenda 21 (let's replace all of those nice, white suburbs and their large, comfortable houses with densely-packed, high-rise apartment buildings) out front and center.
    , @Anonymous

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment
     
    What has Taylor said about the environment?
  81. @Paleo Liberal
    The so-called alt-right needs a major wake-up call.

    Quick question: what is the #1 reason why Trump is president?

    Answer: Because globalism doesn't work for the vast majority of middle class and working class people in the industrial world, esp. the Anglosphere and the Eurozone.

    The Democrats nominated a globalist.
    The Republicans nominated someone who at least claimed to be a nationalist.

    This election cycle, it is quite possible the Democrats will nominate a nationalist, perhaps Warren or Sanders. If so, Trump has lost his #1 trump card.


    The #2 reason?

    Answer: Immigration.
    As David Brooks pointed out (a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut), when the Left started claiming that anyone who would do anything sensible on immigration was a fascist, they left the electorate wide open to elect a "fascist". Of course, you and I know Trump isn't a fascist. I'm not sure what he is. I think he is a con man, and Ann Coulter is coming around to that position. But I could always be proven wrong in the remainder of his term.

    What issue could destroy the Republicans?
    Actually, there are a LOT of issues that could destroy the GOP.
    One issue that will very likely destroy the GOP in the long term is the environment.

    Consider -- no Republican president since the Nixon/Ford era has had a strong record on the environment. Trump is perhaps worse than the Texas oil combo of Bush/Cheney.

    Consider -- environmental problems are getting worse.

    Consider -- one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider -- the GOP is the ONLY major political party on the planet dedicated to the proposition that we should listen to Saudi oil shieks, the bin Laden family and the Koch brothers rather than scientists.

    Consider -- the plan getting the most publicity these days is the so-called "Green New Deal", actually created by the Green Party, which is neither green nor a party, and the "Squad", esp. AOC.

    Consider -- the "Green New Deal" is fatally flawed. It was put together by the group that helped defeat wishy-washy environmentalist Al Gore and get the Texas oil men put in office. I know right wingers hate Al Gore, but he has done more for the environment than any elected official since Gaylord Nelson. Gore's work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    Face facts. The "Green New Deal" was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    Face facts. Those of us who are NOT socialists (I know, I come pretty close, but I am not actually a socialist) really don't have a lot of options. The ONLY plan put out that has been endorsed by someone with a realistic chance of winning the presidency is whatever Biden's plan is.

    Now, for a hard slap in the face.

    This next sentence is the most important sentence I have ever written on iSteve's comments by a long shot.

    If conservatives don't put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.


    What does that mean?

    According to AOC, the "Green New Deal" includes a massive increase in the level of immigration from Third World nations. That is not me putting words in her mouth. That is what her office has stated. The idea is, climate change is causing "climate refugees", and it is the obligation of the US and other industrial nations to take in ALL of them. And within a few decades, the number of people claiming to be "climate refugees" will be greater than the current population of the earth.

    Meanwhile, Americans are expected to pretty much stop having kids to make room for them.

    If you think I am making this up, check your friend Google.


    If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Jared Taylor.
    Like Jared Taylor, I am (mostly) white and a nationalist.
    Unlike Jared Taylor, I am NOT a White Nationalist.

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment, or else the Left will impose their plan on us. Remember, the Left plan means we stop having kids, and the rest of the world gets to move in.

    Perhaps the most important sentence written by an alt-right writer in the 21st Century was written by Philip Santoro:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/09/climate-change-mass-immigration-green-identity-politics/

    The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.
     

    Let me add:

    For the hard core open borders left, there is no greater threat than environmentalists who favor immigration restrictions:

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/anti-immigration-white-supremacy-has-deep-roots-in-the-environmental-movement/

    Note this article calls any environmentalist who favors immigration restriction either “eco-fascist” or “eco-xenophobe”. Tanton is mentioned. Al Gore and Gaylord Nelson are not. I guess the severe immigration restrictionism of Nelson, or the mild immigration restrictionism of Gore is an inconvenient truth.

    To show how much of a threat even the mild immigration restrictionism of Gore was to the hard clore Left — the Green Party was proud of helping defeat Al Gore, even though that meant putting in a Texas oil man who also led us into two unnecessary wars, turned record surpluses into record deficits, and presided over two recessions, including the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. But it was worth it to get in all those extra illegal aliens!

  82. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale.

    Which International Court of Law has jurisdiction over the real estate dealings of the United States of America? Will this Court send its Marshals to enforce its Orders?

    • Replies: @Peter Frost
    "Which International Court of Law has jurisdiction over the real estate dealings of the United States of America?"

    This isn't a real estate deal. Trump wants to buy not only the land but also the people who live on it. Please don't tell me that the Greenlanders can go back to Denmark. Most are Inuit who have never lived anywhere else.

    "Will this Court send its Marshals to enforce its Orders?"

    The Greenland Parliament will enforce the court orders. American officials will be subject to arrest the moment they set foot on Greenland soil. Of course, Trump could send in the marines, but that would be terrible PR for a president who seems more interested in building monuments to his glory than in keeping his campaign promises.
  83. @Redneck farmer
    Are you saying NPR has been lying to us?

    Are you saying NPR has been lying to us?

    It’s not a lie if you believe it.

  84. @Paleo Liberal
    The so-called alt-right needs a major wake-up call.

    Quick question: what is the #1 reason why Trump is president?

    Answer: Because globalism doesn't work for the vast majority of middle class and working class people in the industrial world, esp. the Anglosphere and the Eurozone.

    The Democrats nominated a globalist.
    The Republicans nominated someone who at least claimed to be a nationalist.

    This election cycle, it is quite possible the Democrats will nominate a nationalist, perhaps Warren or Sanders. If so, Trump has lost his #1 trump card.


    The #2 reason?

    Answer: Immigration.
    As David Brooks pointed out (a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut), when the Left started claiming that anyone who would do anything sensible on immigration was a fascist, they left the electorate wide open to elect a "fascist". Of course, you and I know Trump isn't a fascist. I'm not sure what he is. I think he is a con man, and Ann Coulter is coming around to that position. But I could always be proven wrong in the remainder of his term.

    What issue could destroy the Republicans?
    Actually, there are a LOT of issues that could destroy the GOP.
    One issue that will very likely destroy the GOP in the long term is the environment.

    Consider -- no Republican president since the Nixon/Ford era has had a strong record on the environment. Trump is perhaps worse than the Texas oil combo of Bush/Cheney.

    Consider -- environmental problems are getting worse.

    Consider -- one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider -- the GOP is the ONLY major political party on the planet dedicated to the proposition that we should listen to Saudi oil shieks, the bin Laden family and the Koch brothers rather than scientists.

    Consider -- the plan getting the most publicity these days is the so-called "Green New Deal", actually created by the Green Party, which is neither green nor a party, and the "Squad", esp. AOC.

    Consider -- the "Green New Deal" is fatally flawed. It was put together by the group that helped defeat wishy-washy environmentalist Al Gore and get the Texas oil men put in office. I know right wingers hate Al Gore, but he has done more for the environment than any elected official since Gaylord Nelson. Gore's work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    Face facts. The "Green New Deal" was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    Face facts. Those of us who are NOT socialists (I know, I come pretty close, but I am not actually a socialist) really don't have a lot of options. The ONLY plan put out that has been endorsed by someone with a realistic chance of winning the presidency is whatever Biden's plan is.

    Now, for a hard slap in the face.

    This next sentence is the most important sentence I have ever written on iSteve's comments by a long shot.

    If conservatives don't put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.


    What does that mean?

    According to AOC, the "Green New Deal" includes a massive increase in the level of immigration from Third World nations. That is not me putting words in her mouth. That is what her office has stated. The idea is, climate change is causing "climate refugees", and it is the obligation of the US and other industrial nations to take in ALL of them. And within a few decades, the number of people claiming to be "climate refugees" will be greater than the current population of the earth.

    Meanwhile, Americans are expected to pretty much stop having kids to make room for them.

    If you think I am making this up, check your friend Google.


    If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Jared Taylor.
    Like Jared Taylor, I am (mostly) white and a nationalist.
    Unlike Jared Taylor, I am NOT a White Nationalist.

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment, or else the Left will impose their plan on us. Remember, the Left plan means we stop having kids, and the rest of the world gets to move in.

    Perhaps the most important sentence written by an alt-right writer in the 21st Century was written by Philip Santoro:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/09/climate-change-mass-immigration-green-identity-politics/

    The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.
     

    Consider — environmental problems are getting worse.

    Entirely because of over-population and the growth of Asian economies and their utter disregard for the environment. America would have essentially zero environmental issues had we set immigration to Zero forty years ago, as the Number One actual environmental problem is loss of open space.

    Consider — one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider – that’s complete nonsense.

    Gore’s work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    The whole ozone layer thing was another giant scam. For someone who reads iSteve, you seem to do zero other reading outside The Narrative. Wake up.

    The “Green New Deal” was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    No. It’s hard core grifters who want to scam as much money as they can using a fraudulent “crisis” as the excuse. Plain and simple. It’s about the money. It’s always about the money.

    If conservatives don’t put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.

    That I agree with. But “global warming” has nothing to do with saving the environment and any actual plan — any effective plan — will be shot down as racist or fill-in-the-buzzword, because “environmentalists” and “Greens” don’t actually give two shits about the environment, they care about (1) grifting money and (2) gaining political power because (2) let’s them do (1) far more effectively. Ask millionaire Al Gore how it works.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change. I even did a small bit of climate research in the late 1990s, specifically on the chemical physics behind the cooling effects of nitrate and sulfate pollutants in the atmosphere. Turns out nitrates and sulfates act as seed particles to form clouds which block sunlight.

    I see all sorts of people talking about the “scam” of ozone and global warming, but I doubt any of you understand the science behind it. It is much easier to follow the party line of the Arabs and the Koch brothers than it is to actually learn the science. After all, the skeptic scientist the Koch brothers hired to disprove global warming spent years examining the evidence, and came to the conclusion that global warming was real. But he actually did the work.

    Seriously, do you even know how ozone reacts with chlorofluorocarbons? Do you even know anything about free radical reactions? Or the photo induced degradation of O3 to O2?

    Do you even understand the concepts of albedo (first measured by the ChiCom tool Dr. B. Franklin of Philadelphia)? Do you even know when to use 3N-5 and when to use 3N-6 when determining the IR absorption frequencies of polyatomic molecules? And why that matters for global warming?

    So please, explain to me the science behind what makes ozone depletion a “scam”. Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”. I don’t want hand waving BS. I want hard science. And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average, when the probability of that happening by chance is 1/2**200, or less than the probability of picking one random electron out of the entire universe.

    Dr. Paleo Liberal.

  85. @Paleo Liberal
    The so-called alt-right needs a major wake-up call.

    Quick question: what is the #1 reason why Trump is president?

    Answer: Because globalism doesn't work for the vast majority of middle class and working class people in the industrial world, esp. the Anglosphere and the Eurozone.

    The Democrats nominated a globalist.
    The Republicans nominated someone who at least claimed to be a nationalist.

    This election cycle, it is quite possible the Democrats will nominate a nationalist, perhaps Warren or Sanders. If so, Trump has lost his #1 trump card.


    The #2 reason?

    Answer: Immigration.
    As David Brooks pointed out (a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut), when the Left started claiming that anyone who would do anything sensible on immigration was a fascist, they left the electorate wide open to elect a "fascist". Of course, you and I know Trump isn't a fascist. I'm not sure what he is. I think he is a con man, and Ann Coulter is coming around to that position. But I could always be proven wrong in the remainder of his term.

    What issue could destroy the Republicans?
    Actually, there are a LOT of issues that could destroy the GOP.
    One issue that will very likely destroy the GOP in the long term is the environment.

    Consider -- no Republican president since the Nixon/Ford era has had a strong record on the environment. Trump is perhaps worse than the Texas oil combo of Bush/Cheney.

    Consider -- environmental problems are getting worse.

    Consider -- one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider -- the GOP is the ONLY major political party on the planet dedicated to the proposition that we should listen to Saudi oil shieks, the bin Laden family and the Koch brothers rather than scientists.

    Consider -- the plan getting the most publicity these days is the so-called "Green New Deal", actually created by the Green Party, which is neither green nor a party, and the "Squad", esp. AOC.

    Consider -- the "Green New Deal" is fatally flawed. It was put together by the group that helped defeat wishy-washy environmentalist Al Gore and get the Texas oil men put in office. I know right wingers hate Al Gore, but he has done more for the environment than any elected official since Gaylord Nelson. Gore's work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    Face facts. The "Green New Deal" was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    Face facts. Those of us who are NOT socialists (I know, I come pretty close, but I am not actually a socialist) really don't have a lot of options. The ONLY plan put out that has been endorsed by someone with a realistic chance of winning the presidency is whatever Biden's plan is.

    Now, for a hard slap in the face.

    This next sentence is the most important sentence I have ever written on iSteve's comments by a long shot.

    If conservatives don't put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.


    What does that mean?

    According to AOC, the "Green New Deal" includes a massive increase in the level of immigration from Third World nations. That is not me putting words in her mouth. That is what her office has stated. The idea is, climate change is causing "climate refugees", and it is the obligation of the US and other industrial nations to take in ALL of them. And within a few decades, the number of people claiming to be "climate refugees" will be greater than the current population of the earth.

    Meanwhile, Americans are expected to pretty much stop having kids to make room for them.

    If you think I am making this up, check your friend Google.


    If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Jared Taylor.
    Like Jared Taylor, I am (mostly) white and a nationalist.
    Unlike Jared Taylor, I am NOT a White Nationalist.

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment, or else the Left will impose their plan on us. Remember, the Left plan means we stop having kids, and the rest of the world gets to move in.

    Perhaps the most important sentence written by an alt-right writer in the 21st Century was written by Philip Santoro:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/09/climate-change-mass-immigration-green-identity-politics/

    The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.
     

    A workable plan to save the immediate, national environment involves

    a) stop bringing in tens, over time hundreds, of millions more people

    b) the rest isn’t so hard

    I see in the UK, admittedly a much smaller place, the environment being degraded around me.

    New build housing everywhere, 90% of it on what was green fields, even in the most productive agricultural areas.

    Little ‘business parks’ and ‘industrial units’ everywhere in the countryside. No one wants to start a small business in the city, the white potential employees are getting out.

    Roads and motorways crammed.

    Litter everywhere.

    A workable plan to save the global environment involves having a measure of control over China and India – for example by banning any imports of goods or people from them. Pollution over there is different scale – you can fly a thousand miles in the sun and just see a blanket of smog beneath you.

    It also involves a measure of control over Africa (no imports of people, a neo-imperialism to save the fauna), and much much more nuclear power. Oil is a precious resource for making other stuff , too good to burn.

    • Agree: peterike
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    And there is a very good, workable start to the solution.
    , @Corvinus
    "A workable plan to save the global environment involves having a measure of control over China and India – for example by banning any imports of goods or people from them."

    How is that "workable"? You never offer any specific details.
  86. It’s a win-win for all involved, so I think Denmark may come around. They just don’t want to look too eager, they’ve got to do the “Let me go talk to my manager and see what we can do” thing.

    • Replies: @peterike

    they’ve got to do the “Let me go talk to my manager and see what we can do” thing.

     

    So they're going to come back and offer Trump Greenland, but with a rust-proof undercoating at a relatively small additional cost?
  87. @Paleo Liberal
    The so-called alt-right needs a major wake-up call.

    Quick question: what is the #1 reason why Trump is president?

    Answer: Because globalism doesn't work for the vast majority of middle class and working class people in the industrial world, esp. the Anglosphere and the Eurozone.

    The Democrats nominated a globalist.
    The Republicans nominated someone who at least claimed to be a nationalist.

    This election cycle, it is quite possible the Democrats will nominate a nationalist, perhaps Warren or Sanders. If so, Trump has lost his #1 trump card.


    The #2 reason?

    Answer: Immigration.
    As David Brooks pointed out (a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut), when the Left started claiming that anyone who would do anything sensible on immigration was a fascist, they left the electorate wide open to elect a "fascist". Of course, you and I know Trump isn't a fascist. I'm not sure what he is. I think he is a con man, and Ann Coulter is coming around to that position. But I could always be proven wrong in the remainder of his term.

    What issue could destroy the Republicans?
    Actually, there are a LOT of issues that could destroy the GOP.
    One issue that will very likely destroy the GOP in the long term is the environment.

    Consider -- no Republican president since the Nixon/Ford era has had a strong record on the environment. Trump is perhaps worse than the Texas oil combo of Bush/Cheney.

    Consider -- environmental problems are getting worse.

    Consider -- one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider -- the GOP is the ONLY major political party on the planet dedicated to the proposition that we should listen to Saudi oil shieks, the bin Laden family and the Koch brothers rather than scientists.

    Consider -- the plan getting the most publicity these days is the so-called "Green New Deal", actually created by the Green Party, which is neither green nor a party, and the "Squad", esp. AOC.

    Consider -- the "Green New Deal" is fatally flawed. It was put together by the group that helped defeat wishy-washy environmentalist Al Gore and get the Texas oil men put in office. I know right wingers hate Al Gore, but he has done more for the environment than any elected official since Gaylord Nelson. Gore's work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    Face facts. The "Green New Deal" was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    Face facts. Those of us who are NOT socialists (I know, I come pretty close, but I am not actually a socialist) really don't have a lot of options. The ONLY plan put out that has been endorsed by someone with a realistic chance of winning the presidency is whatever Biden's plan is.

    Now, for a hard slap in the face.

    This next sentence is the most important sentence I have ever written on iSteve's comments by a long shot.

    If conservatives don't put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.


    What does that mean?

    According to AOC, the "Green New Deal" includes a massive increase in the level of immigration from Third World nations. That is not me putting words in her mouth. That is what her office has stated. The idea is, climate change is causing "climate refugees", and it is the obligation of the US and other industrial nations to take in ALL of them. And within a few decades, the number of people claiming to be "climate refugees" will be greater than the current population of the earth.

    Meanwhile, Americans are expected to pretty much stop having kids to make room for them.

    If you think I am making this up, check your friend Google.


    If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Jared Taylor.
    Like Jared Taylor, I am (mostly) white and a nationalist.
    Unlike Jared Taylor, I am NOT a White Nationalist.

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment, or else the Left will impose their plan on us. Remember, the Left plan means we stop having kids, and the rest of the world gets to move in.

    Perhaps the most important sentence written by an alt-right writer in the 21st Century was written by Philip Santoro:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/09/climate-change-mass-immigration-green-identity-politics/

    The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.
     

    This is not too much a slap in the face. I agree wholeheartedly. Is the key to all of this to get conservatives on board with it for once? Maybe some conservative thinkers out there will take this on and start referring to the immigration-restrictionist/environmentalist package deal as the new “conservationism” for it’s much more positive connotations including it’s obvious linguistic connection with the word “conservatism.”

    If conservatives don’t do this and take the lead Liberals will keep the package deal of Environmentalism – Immigration – Agenda 21 (let’s replace all of those nice, white suburbs and their large, comfortable houses with densely-packed, high-rise apartment buildings) out front and center.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Wade, you bring up an extremely important point.
    Back in my youth, there was a very strong “conversation “ movement. And it was often led by conservatives. People who loved hunting and fishing and wished to preserve the habitats. My mother was from a family of hunters. My father had the bad timing of dying at the beginning of deer season, back before cell phones, so some of my mother’s family could not be reached before the funeral.

    In memory of my late uncle, a Republican, an NRA member, great skeet shooter, great duck hunter and the maker of hand made duck calls, I will mention two words that are part of the core of the “conservation” movement:

    Duck stamps.
  88. After Trump built the wall and made Mexico pay for it, after he successfully instituted a travel ban of people from known terrorist countries, after he commissioned the illustrious space forces keeping us safe from alien invasion, after jailing Bill and Hillary Clinton for their treasonous activities, after returning illegal immigrants to their home countries, after freeing United States foreign policy from the evil grip of Israeli lobbyists, after ending our disastrous foreign wars in the Middle East, after achieving detente with Russia, after improving the economic fundamentals of the economy rather than just browbeating the Fed president with tweets to print more money, after skillfully managing relations with China, after applying useful diplomatic pressure to rein in the despicable House of Saud, after inaugurating a new era of openness with a peaceful Iran, after generously aiding American farmers during one of the worst harvests in recent memory by not antagonizing their primary export market…

    …After all this, dear comrades, what remains to be accomplished by so august a personage as he, other than the purchase of the world’s second-largest frozen wasteland?

    • LOL: Pater
    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    I looked for something to disagree with, here, and found nothing.
  89. @Known Fact
    It's a win-win for all involved, so I think Denmark may come around. They just don't want to look too eager, they've got to do the "Let me go talk to my manager and see what we can do" thing.

    they’ve got to do the “Let me go talk to my manager and see what we can do” thing.

    So they’re going to come back and offer Trump Greenland, but with a rust-proof undercoating at a relatively small additional cost?

    • LOL: Corn
    • Replies: @Corn
    “OK Denmark.... Denmark.. we’ll take your price. But we want more in the package. Throw in the Faeroe Islands for that kind of money.
  90. @Bill Jones
    What is wrong with parking them in Puerto Rico?

    The cold might have a way of convincing them they really don’t want to stay.

  91. @peterike
    Consider — environmental problems are getting worse.

    Entirely because of over-population and the growth of Asian economies and their utter disregard for the environment. America would have essentially zero environmental issues had we set immigration to Zero forty years ago, as the Number One actual environmental problem is loss of open space.

    Consider — one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider - that's complete nonsense.

    Gore’s work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    The whole ozone layer thing was another giant scam. For someone who reads iSteve, you seem to do zero other reading outside The Narrative. Wake up.

    The “Green New Deal” was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    No. It's hard core grifters who want to scam as much money as they can using a fraudulent "crisis" as the excuse. Plain and simple. It's about the money. It's always about the money.

    If conservatives don’t put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.

    That I agree with. But "global warming" has nothing to do with saving the environment and any actual plan -- any effective plan -- will be shot down as racist or fill-in-the-buzzword, because "environmentalists" and "Greens" don't actually give two shits about the environment, they care about (1) grifting money and (2) gaining political power because (2) let's them do (1) far more effectively. Ask millionaire Al Gore how it works.

    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change. I even did a small bit of climate research in the late 1990s, specifically on the chemical physics behind the cooling effects of nitrate and sulfate pollutants in the atmosphere. Turns out nitrates and sulfates act as seed particles to form clouds which block sunlight.

    I see all sorts of people talking about the “scam” of ozone and global warming, but I doubt any of you understand the science behind it. It is much easier to follow the party line of the Arabs and the Koch brothers than it is to actually learn the science. After all, the skeptic scientist the Koch brothers hired to disprove global warming spent years examining the evidence, and came to the conclusion that global warming was real. But he actually did the work.

    Seriously, do you even know how ozone reacts with chlorofluorocarbons? Do you even know anything about free radical reactions? Or the photo induced degradation of O3 to O2?

    Do you even understand the concepts of albedo (first measured by the ChiCom tool Dr. B. Franklin of Philadelphia)? Do you even know when to use 3N-5 and when to use 3N-6 when determining the IR absorption frequencies of polyatomic molecules? And why that matters for global warming?

    So please, explain to me the science behind what makes ozone depletion a “scam”. Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”. I don’t want hand waving BS. I want hard science. And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average, when the probability of that happening by chance is 1/2**200, or less than the probability of picking one random electron out of the entire universe.

    Dr. Paleo Liberal.

    • Replies: @peterike

    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change.

     

    How do you know what I have or haven't "spent time to learn"? Like most Liberals, your primary attribute is an arrogant, unshakable confidence in your own superiority.

    So you spent a lot of time reading lousy "science." You do know, don't you, that many "studies" are rigged? That temperature monitoring stations are corrupted by urban heat island effects yet their reading presented as if nothing is different? That periodically, NASA "resets" its data always in the same direction? That global warming advocates like Michael Mann WERE EXPOSED deliberately manipulating data?

    Here's just a starter on the fluorocarbon scam. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be your researcher.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

    And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average

     

    You do realize that "above average" is a completely meaningless term? Average compared to what? Compared to the Medieval Warming Period? Oh, then not so much. Climate "scientists" are very good at picking their data ranges to get the results they want.

    The earth may happen to be warming during this time period, but humans have little or nothing to do with it.
    , @William Badwhite

    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change.
     
    You don't understand the science because there is no science. Modeling is not science.

    Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”.
     
    The burden of proof is on the change agent. You don't get to assign homework. The AGW hysterics still have not made a credible case, and the East Anglia emails showed that the ranks are infested with liars and frauds.

    And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average,
     
    Temperature where? Antarctica? The Congo? What times series do you use to define "average" (by which I assume you meant "mean"). Neither scientists nor statisticians use "average" when they mean "mean".

    Do you know how much CO2 the Alaskan wildfires in July emitted, and how that amount compares to an industrial nation? Did you even know there wildfires in Alaska? Do you know the amount of "greenhouse gases" released by people as opposed to volcanic activity on an annual basis?

    If you really understood the "science" and you really believed that CO2 is a pollutant, you would be shouting from the rooftops that importing 3rd worlders by the millions and thus bringing them up to 1st world levels of energy usage is a REALLY BAD THING. You would be loudly advocating that we do everything possible to reduce African birth rates. Instead we hear about how the dolt Al Gore fixed the ozone layer.

  92. @YetAnotherAnon
    A workable plan to save the immediate, national environment involves

    a) stop bringing in tens, over time hundreds, of millions more people

    b) the rest isn't so hard

    I see in the UK, admittedly a much smaller place, the environment being degraded around me.

    New build housing everywhere, 90% of it on what was green fields, even in the most productive agricultural areas.

    Little 'business parks' and 'industrial units' everywhere in the countryside. No one wants to start a small business in the city, the white potential employees are getting out.

    Roads and motorways crammed.

    Litter everywhere.

    A workable plan to save the global environment involves having a measure of control over China and India - for example by banning any imports of goods or people from them. Pollution over there is different scale - you can fly a thousand miles in the sun and just see a blanket of smog beneath you.

    It also involves a measure of control over Africa (no imports of people, a neo-imperialism to save the fauna), and much much more nuclear power. Oil is a precious resource for making other stuff , too good to burn.

    And there is a very good, workable start to the solution.

  93. @Wade
    This is not too much a slap in the face. I agree wholeheartedly. Is the key to all of this to get conservatives on board with it for once? Maybe some conservative thinkers out there will take this on and start referring to the immigration-restrictionist/environmentalist package deal as the new "conservationism" for it's much more positive connotations including it's obvious linguistic connection with the word "conservatism."

    If conservatives don't do this and take the lead Liberals will keep the package deal of Environmentalism - Immigration - Agenda 21 (let's replace all of those nice, white suburbs and their large, comfortable houses with densely-packed, high-rise apartment buildings) out front and center.

    Wade, you bring up an extremely important point.
    Back in my youth, there was a very strong “conversation “ movement. And it was often led by conservatives. People who loved hunting and fishing and wished to preserve the habitats. My mother was from a family of hunters. My father had the bad timing of dying at the beginning of deer season, back before cell phones, so some of my mother’s family could not be reached before the funeral.

    In memory of my late uncle, a Republican, an NRA member, great skeet shooter, great duck hunter and the maker of hand made duck calls, I will mention two words that are part of the core of the “conservation” movement:

    Duck stamps.

  94. @Paleo Liberal
    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change. I even did a small bit of climate research in the late 1990s, specifically on the chemical physics behind the cooling effects of nitrate and sulfate pollutants in the atmosphere. Turns out nitrates and sulfates act as seed particles to form clouds which block sunlight.

    I see all sorts of people talking about the “scam” of ozone and global warming, but I doubt any of you understand the science behind it. It is much easier to follow the party line of the Arabs and the Koch brothers than it is to actually learn the science. After all, the skeptic scientist the Koch brothers hired to disprove global warming spent years examining the evidence, and came to the conclusion that global warming was real. But he actually did the work.

    Seriously, do you even know how ozone reacts with chlorofluorocarbons? Do you even know anything about free radical reactions? Or the photo induced degradation of O3 to O2?

    Do you even understand the concepts of albedo (first measured by the ChiCom tool Dr. B. Franklin of Philadelphia)? Do you even know when to use 3N-5 and when to use 3N-6 when determining the IR absorption frequencies of polyatomic molecules? And why that matters for global warming?

    So please, explain to me the science behind what makes ozone depletion a “scam”. Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”. I don’t want hand waving BS. I want hard science. And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average, when the probability of that happening by chance is 1/2**200, or less than the probability of picking one random electron out of the entire universe.

    Dr. Paleo Liberal.

    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change.

    How do you know what I have or haven’t “spent time to learn”? Like most Liberals, your primary attribute is an arrogant, unshakable confidence in your own superiority.

    So you spent a lot of time reading lousy “science.” You do know, don’t you, that many “studies” are rigged? That temperature monitoring stations are corrupted by urban heat island effects yet their reading presented as if nothing is different? That periodically, NASA “resets” its data always in the same direction? That global warming advocates like Michael Mann WERE EXPOSED deliberately manipulating data?

    Here’s just a starter on the fluorocarbon scam. I have neither the time nor the inclination to be your researcher.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

    And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average

    You do realize that “above average” is a completely meaningless term? Average compared to what? Compared to the Medieval Warming Period? Oh, then not so much. Climate “scientists” are very good at picking their data ranges to get the results they want.

    The earth may happen to be warming during this time period, but humans have little or nothing to do with it.

  95. @James Braxton
    What about England giving Hong Kong to China?

    Only the New Territories was subject to the 99 year lease. The Brits just threw in Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula for no good reason.

    Most or all of Hong Kong’s drinking water came from the new territories IIRC. I believe even a limited British presence remaining in HK would have been untenable if the Chinese wanted to force the issue.

  96. @Anonymous
    So does that mean that we can buy it directly from the Greenlanders themselves? Because that would make it a lot easier. There's only around 50,000 Greenlanders, and most of them are Eskimos. We can trade them some cheap whiskey for the place.

    Of maybe A few smallpox saddled blankets.

  97. @peterike

    they’ve got to do the “Let me go talk to my manager and see what we can do” thing.

     

    So they're going to come back and offer Trump Greenland, but with a rust-proof undercoating at a relatively small additional cost?

    “OK Denmark…. Denmark.. we’ll take your price. But we want more in the package. Throw in the Faeroe Islands for that kind of money.

  98. Anonymous[242] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF
    Well, of the two -- buying Greenland or buying Mexico -- which do you think is more likely?

    Maybe we should make an offer to buy Poland or Estonia if we can't get Mexico.

    Well, of the two — buying Greenland or buying Mexico — which do you think is more likely?

    Maybe we should make an offer to buy Poland or Estonia if we can’t get Mexico.

    The US should make this offer to Mexico:

    A. We will give temporary (2-5 year) work permits to first X million illegal alien Mexicans who register with US fed government and who can show they have been in the country since 2016.

    B. All others subject to immediate deportation.

    C. In return, the United States receives Baja California and a band of territory along Mexico’s northern border states. This would possibly carve out certain corridors of Mexican territory to encompass certain Mexican cities. Or Mexico can elect to give the US another of its states, in its south.

    D. Must be accompanied by an end to birthright citizenship.

  99. @YetAnotherAnon
    Greenland has lots of nice minerals in the bits that aren't covered in ice. If global warming continues, more of them will become available.

    Its position is also useful for getting to (or at) Russia, although that's a pointless endeavour.

    Its position is also useful for getting to (or at) Russia, although that’s a pointless endeavour.

    USA and Russia are natural allies and it would be good for them to consolidate ownership of territory held in mutual proximity and not have it held by third countries.

  100. @Charon

    He just wants to see how big a thing he can put the ‘Trump’ name on and wants to be remembered as the president who added the biggest new state to the US and see if he can call it ‘Trumpland’, if only informally.
     
    Trumpolina? Trump Dakota? Trumpletucky?

    All three best the suit out of Obamistan.

  101. @Alec Leamas (hard at work)

    These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale.
     
    Which International Court of Law has jurisdiction over the real estate dealings of the United States of America? Will this Court send its Marshals to enforce its Orders?

    “Which International Court of Law has jurisdiction over the real estate dealings of the United States of America?”

    This isn’t a real estate deal. Trump wants to buy not only the land but also the people who live on it. Please don’t tell me that the Greenlanders can go back to Denmark. Most are Inuit who have never lived anywhere else.

    “Will this Court send its Marshals to enforce its Orders?”

    The Greenland Parliament will enforce the court orders. American officials will be subject to arrest the moment they set foot on Greenland soil. Of course, Trump could send in the marines, but that would be terrible PR for a president who seems more interested in building monuments to his glory than in keeping his campaign promises.

  102. Trump is the smart one, and his critics are idiots

    Greenland may have enormous resources. Denmark (or the EU) cannot defend it. They spend nothing on defense. The US can defend it but why should we? Trump probably told Denmark that free ride is over. If you want us to defend it, we must own it.

    Denmark, like all countries which rely on the US taxpayer defending them forever, for free, sneered. Screw that.

    Trump is correct. We need to get out of NATO and any defense obligations to these ingrates. Let Denmark defend Greenland from Mr. Putin or the Communist Party of China. If we do not get the resources, our defense obligations must end. Here, there and everywhere.

  103. An Arctic ‘scientist’ of some sort says that Russians are all over the Arctic, and that there’s oil there. And that that’s why Trump wants Greenland. It’s /pol/, so be ginger with your belief, but it sounds plausible and no-one else mentioned it.

    Listen very carefully. I am a scientist that just left the Arctic Sea after a 1 year expedition. I am off for 2 weeks and then return in mid September. I work on measuring the Arctic Sea Ice. As we all know, in about a month, the ice levels will reach their lowest of the year, and then refreeze. However, we have a lot of new problems that is not being reported.

    1. Russia influence is massive. Anyone that is around this area sees that Russia will most likely attempt into invade/control all of the Arctic. That is because of the oil reserves. That is why Trump wants Greenland.

    The rest of it is larpy, though. Check it out if you’re curious.

    http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/223893964/

  104. @James Braxton
    What about England giving Hong Kong to China?

    Only the New Territories was subject to the 99 year lease. The Brits just threw in Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula for no good reason.

    Hong Kong island was acquired by war of aggression by UK, and Qing dynasty was forced to sign the “agreement” under gun point. This is a well-known historical fact.

    PRC does not recognize the so-called “agreement”. Neither should any conscientious persons.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    My point was that it was an example of a colonial possession being voluntarily surrendered to a third country in recent times.

    Britain should have either kept Hong Kong or given it to the legitimate Chinese government in Taipei.
  105. @Intelligent Dasein
    After Trump built the wall and made Mexico pay for it, after he successfully instituted a travel ban of people from known terrorist countries, after he commissioned the illustrious space forces keeping us safe from alien invasion, after jailing Bill and Hillary Clinton for their treasonous activities, after returning illegal immigrants to their home countries, after freeing United States foreign policy from the evil grip of Israeli lobbyists, after ending our disastrous foreign wars in the Middle East, after achieving detente with Russia, after improving the economic fundamentals of the economy rather than just browbeating the Fed president with tweets to print more money, after skillfully managing relations with China, after applying useful diplomatic pressure to rein in the despicable House of Saud, after inaugurating a new era of openness with a peaceful Iran, after generously aiding American farmers during one of the worst harvests in recent memory by not antagonizing their primary export market...

    ...After all this, dear comrades, what remains to be accomplished by so august a personage as he, other than the purchase of the world's second-largest frozen wasteland?

    I looked for something to disagree with, here, and found nothing.

  106. @Paleo Liberal
    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change. I even did a small bit of climate research in the late 1990s, specifically on the chemical physics behind the cooling effects of nitrate and sulfate pollutants in the atmosphere. Turns out nitrates and sulfates act as seed particles to form clouds which block sunlight.

    I see all sorts of people talking about the “scam” of ozone and global warming, but I doubt any of you understand the science behind it. It is much easier to follow the party line of the Arabs and the Koch brothers than it is to actually learn the science. After all, the skeptic scientist the Koch brothers hired to disprove global warming spent years examining the evidence, and came to the conclusion that global warming was real. But he actually did the work.

    Seriously, do you even know how ozone reacts with chlorofluorocarbons? Do you even know anything about free radical reactions? Or the photo induced degradation of O3 to O2?

    Do you even understand the concepts of albedo (first measured by the ChiCom tool Dr. B. Franklin of Philadelphia)? Do you even know when to use 3N-5 and when to use 3N-6 when determining the IR absorption frequencies of polyatomic molecules? And why that matters for global warming?

    So please, explain to me the science behind what makes ozone depletion a “scam”. Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”. I don’t want hand waving BS. I want hard science. And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average, when the probability of that happening by chance is 1/2**200, or less than the probability of picking one random electron out of the entire universe.

    Dr. Paleo Liberal.

    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change.

    You don’t understand the science because there is no science. Modeling is not science.

    Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”.

    The burden of proof is on the change agent. You don’t get to assign homework. The AGW hysterics still have not made a credible case, and the East Anglia emails showed that the ranks are infested with liars and frauds.

    And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average,

    Temperature where? Antarctica? The Congo? What times series do you use to define “average” (by which I assume you meant “mean”). Neither scientists nor statisticians use “average” when they mean “mean”.

    Do you know how much CO2 the Alaskan wildfires in July emitted, and how that amount compares to an industrial nation? Did you even know there wildfires in Alaska? Do you know the amount of “greenhouse gases” released by people as opposed to volcanic activity on an annual basis?

    If you really understood the “science” and you really believed that CO2 is a pollutant, you would be shouting from the rooftops that importing 3rd worlders by the millions and thus bringing them up to 1st world levels of energy usage is a REALLY BAD THING. You would be loudly advocating that we do everything possible to reduce African birth rates. Instead we hear about how the dolt Al Gore fixed the ozone layer.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    1. Very few people possess the wide and deep swathes of technical and scientific training to even begin to assess the claims regarding AGW, let alone have strong opinions about them. I'm not one of those people, so even though I suspect there's a strong component of horsesh!t to the whole thing, I can neither go Chicken Little about it, nor say with confidence that it's entirely a scam. My suspicion is that the relevant science is still roughly in its infancy, and that the work to date has been so thoroughly compromised by political (viz completely non-, un-, and even anti-scientific) manipulation, that the true state of climate affairs remains unknowable with the tools we have on offer.

    2. However, as a student of history, political behavior, and history of science, I can from the periphery infer a good deal of climate skepticism, simply based on the behavior of the players.

    3. Nobody, not even the most ardent believers, actually behaves as if they really think that what they believe is really true. If they really believed that the very survival of humanity and the planet itself were in peril, they would be advocating for Pol Pot-type policies which would result in the near-immediate deaths of probably 4 billion people at a minimum.

    Sounds drastic, but if your choice is to Save All Humanity by Killing Lots Of It, or else to Increase Quality of Life in Africa and Asia, and you choose b), then you've pretty much given away that you don't believe it yourself. Maybe we should put the guy from the "Saw" movies in charge of global climate policy, and he'd truth-test these people in creative ways.

    4. It's another huge tell that if you made a Venn diagram, the set of Loud Insistent Climate Howlers would map almost perfectly over the set of Crazy Leftist Trump Is Hitler Crackpots. Plenty of UN and other Leftist climate poobahs are on record saying they don't care whether AGW is true, even if it isn't they're going to use it to force global government and global wealth re-distribution, and the conquest of the white, industrial North by "climate refugee" inundation. What they really want is global theft and White genocide in the name of "climate justice".

    Back when I was a (non-political) student at Super Prestigious University, decades ago, before the Berlin Wall fell, I routinely met the Smartest, Most Elite People on Earth who assured me with absolute certainty that world Communism was inevitable, that it was a scientific fact which had been proven by infallible Marxism, that, in effect, "the science was settled." The ostensible smartest people in America told me this, in unison, with a straight face. Our current crop of Climate Lunatics come from the exact same social, economic, political, and educational co-ordinates.

    I set my watch accordingly.
  107. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Don't Look at Me
    Even if technically feasible, it's way too expensive.

    That’s the thing: it wouldn’t be very expensive. The tech is old and you don’t need fancy new composite materials and the like. You can just use steel. In fact, because it’s powered by nuclear bombs, the engineers proposed that using cheap, heavy, crude steel and the like was a benefit. Nuclear bombs have so much power over chemical rockets that weight isn’t a limitation and it’s easy to reach orbit. So you can, and want to use the biggest, heaviest metal material to shield the passengers and cargo and to carry the most stuff. You could make ocean liner sized space ships with steel. And they’d be easier to make than nuclear submarines because they don’t have to deal with the pressure in space that subs do underwater.

    • Replies: @Don't Look at Me
    So the nuclear powered rockets could launch themselves into orbit and not have to be assembled in space?

    Wouldn't that mean detonating nuclear bombs, a lot of them, on the earth's soil? And in the atmosphere?

    And if something didn't go well with the launch, which sometimes happen, and the ship gains some significant altitude before it crashes to earth, wouldn't that mean that nuclear material would be spread across the countryside?
    , @Kyle

    You could make ocean liner sized space ships with steel
     
    We could just repurpose the Iowa class battleships. Five inch guns are pussy, the Iowa ships have nine 16 inch guns. You might be able to fit a tactical nuke warhead on one of those shells.
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c6/31/02/c63102bc15f108b051560969c50446b4.png
  108. @William Badwhite

    Unlike you, I have actually spent time to learn the science behind the ozone layer and climate change.
     
    You don't understand the science because there is no science. Modeling is not science.

    Explain the science as to what makes AGW a “scam”.
     
    The burden of proof is on the change agent. You don't get to assign homework. The AGW hysterics still have not made a credible case, and the East Anglia emails showed that the ranks are infested with liars and frauds.

    And the hard science has to be able to explain why there have been over 200 consecutive months for which the temperature has been above average,
     
    Temperature where? Antarctica? The Congo? What times series do you use to define "average" (by which I assume you meant "mean"). Neither scientists nor statisticians use "average" when they mean "mean".

    Do you know how much CO2 the Alaskan wildfires in July emitted, and how that amount compares to an industrial nation? Did you even know there wildfires in Alaska? Do you know the amount of "greenhouse gases" released by people as opposed to volcanic activity on an annual basis?

    If you really understood the "science" and you really believed that CO2 is a pollutant, you would be shouting from the rooftops that importing 3rd worlders by the millions and thus bringing them up to 1st world levels of energy usage is a REALLY BAD THING. You would be loudly advocating that we do everything possible to reduce African birth rates. Instead we hear about how the dolt Al Gore fixed the ozone layer.

    1. Very few people possess the wide and deep swathes of technical and scientific training to even begin to assess the claims regarding AGW, let alone have strong opinions about them. I’m not one of those people, so even though I suspect there’s a strong component of horsesh!t to the whole thing, I can neither go Chicken Little about it, nor say with confidence that it’s entirely a scam. My suspicion is that the relevant science is still roughly in its infancy, and that the work to date has been so thoroughly compromised by political (viz completely non-, un-, and even anti-scientific) manipulation, that the true state of climate affairs remains unknowable with the tools we have on offer.

    2. However, as a student of history, political behavior, and history of science, I can from the periphery infer a good deal of climate skepticism, simply based on the behavior of the players.

    3. Nobody, not even the most ardent believers, actually behaves as if they really think that what they believe is really true. If they really believed that the very survival of humanity and the planet itself were in peril, they would be advocating for Pol Pot-type policies which would result in the near-immediate deaths of probably 4 billion people at a minimum.

    Sounds drastic, but if your choice is to Save All Humanity by Killing Lots Of It, or else to Increase Quality of Life in Africa and Asia, and you choose b), then you’ve pretty much given away that you don’t believe it yourself. Maybe we should put the guy from the “Saw” movies in charge of global climate policy, and he’d truth-test these people in creative ways.

    4. It’s another huge tell that if you made a Venn diagram, the set of Loud Insistent Climate Howlers would map almost perfectly over the set of Crazy Leftist Trump Is Hitler Crackpots. Plenty of UN and other Leftist climate poobahs are on record saying they don’t care whether AGW is true, even if it isn’t they’re going to use it to force global government and global wealth re-distribution, and the conquest of the white, industrial North by “climate refugee” inundation. What they really want is global theft and White genocide in the name of “climate justice”.

    Back when I was a (non-political) student at Super Prestigious University, decades ago, before the Berlin Wall fell, I routinely met the Smartest, Most Elite People on Earth who assured me with absolute certainty that world Communism was inevitable, that it was a scientific fact which had been proven by infallible Marxism, that, in effect, “the science was settled.” The ostensible smartest people in America told me this, in unison, with a straight face. Our current crop of Climate Lunatics come from the exact same social, economic, political, and educational co-ordinates.

    I set my watch accordingly.

    • Agree: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @JMcG
    Thank you, perfectly put.
    , @William Badwhite
    Excellent comment. Paragraph 3 in particular.
  109. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands.

    The USA purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. What it bought, it can sell, notably because the territory has not been admitted to the Union.

    You are right however that the partial autonomy of overseas possessions would be an obstacle to their sale. But it is probably not an insuperable legal barrier, especially if that autonomy were preserved, along with private property rights, when the ownership changed.

    A more practical obstacle is that the inhabitants of most overseas territories have citizenship of the sovereign country, and would be free to leave for the “mother country” if they did not like their new “owners”. In most places, mass emigration would destroy the economic value of the territory; but not in Greenland (population 56,000) whose attractions to the USA are presumably its mineral wealth, its strategic value, and its claim on the Arctic.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    Do we not have a claim on the Arctic through Alaska? Serious question.
  110. @James N. Kennett

    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands.
     
    The USA purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. What it bought, it can sell, notably because the territory has not been admitted to the Union.

    You are right however that the partial autonomy of overseas possessions would be an obstacle to their sale. But it is probably not an insuperable legal barrier, especially if that autonomy were preserved, along with private property rights, when the ownership changed.

    A more practical obstacle is that the inhabitants of most overseas territories have citizenship of the sovereign country, and would be free to leave for the "mother country" if they did not like their new "owners". In most places, mass emigration would destroy the economic value of the territory; but not in Greenland (population 56,000) whose attractions to the USA are presumably its mineral wealth, its strategic value, and its claim on the Arctic.

    Do we not have a claim on the Arctic through Alaska? Serious question.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Do we not have a claim on the Arctic through Alaska? Serious question.
     
    Yes, but adding Greenland's claim would only make the American case stronger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic
  111. @d dan
    Hong Kong island was acquired by war of aggression by UK, and Qing dynasty was forced to sign the "agreement" under gun point. This is a well-known historical fact.

    PRC does not recognize the so-called "agreement". Neither should any conscientious persons.

    My point was that it was an example of a colonial possession being voluntarily surrendered to a third country in recent times.

    Britain should have either kept Hong Kong or given it to the legitimate Chinese government in Taipei.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If Britain hadn't acknowledged the PRC as the government of China in 1972, then yes, sovereignty would have been transferred to Taipei instead of Beijing.

    (The post-war British Labour government had actually recognized the PRC way back in 1950, but then the Korean War broke out, Labour lost power, and it became a dead letter.)
  112. @Anonymous
    That's the thing: it wouldn't be very expensive. The tech is old and you don't need fancy new composite materials and the like. You can just use steel. In fact, because it's powered by nuclear bombs, the engineers proposed that using cheap, heavy, crude steel and the like was a benefit. Nuclear bombs have so much power over chemical rockets that weight isn't a limitation and it's easy to reach orbit. So you can, and want to use the biggest, heaviest metal material to shield the passengers and cargo and to carry the most stuff. You could make ocean liner sized space ships with steel. And they'd be easier to make than nuclear submarines because they don't have to deal with the pressure in space that subs do underwater.

    So the nuclear powered rockets could launch themselves into orbit and not have to be assembled in space?

    Wouldn’t that mean detonating nuclear bombs, a lot of them, on the earth’s soil? And in the atmosphere?

    And if something didn’t go well with the launch, which sometimes happen, and the ship gains some significant altitude before it crashes to earth, wouldn’t that mean that nuclear material would be spread across the countryside?

  113. @Paleo Liberal
    The so-called alt-right needs a major wake-up call.

    Quick question: what is the #1 reason why Trump is president?

    Answer: Because globalism doesn't work for the vast majority of middle class and working class people in the industrial world, esp. the Anglosphere and the Eurozone.

    The Democrats nominated a globalist.
    The Republicans nominated someone who at least claimed to be a nationalist.

    This election cycle, it is quite possible the Democrats will nominate a nationalist, perhaps Warren or Sanders. If so, Trump has lost his #1 trump card.


    The #2 reason?

    Answer: Immigration.
    As David Brooks pointed out (a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut), when the Left started claiming that anyone who would do anything sensible on immigration was a fascist, they left the electorate wide open to elect a "fascist". Of course, you and I know Trump isn't a fascist. I'm not sure what he is. I think he is a con man, and Ann Coulter is coming around to that position. But I could always be proven wrong in the remainder of his term.

    What issue could destroy the Republicans?
    Actually, there are a LOT of issues that could destroy the GOP.
    One issue that will very likely destroy the GOP in the long term is the environment.

    Consider -- no Republican president since the Nixon/Ford era has had a strong record on the environment. Trump is perhaps worse than the Texas oil combo of Bush/Cheney.

    Consider -- environmental problems are getting worse.

    Consider -- one of the biggest environmental issues is global warming.

    Consider -- the GOP is the ONLY major political party on the planet dedicated to the proposition that we should listen to Saudi oil shieks, the bin Laden family and the Koch brothers rather than scientists.

    Consider -- the plan getting the most publicity these days is the so-called "Green New Deal", actually created by the Green Party, which is neither green nor a party, and the "Squad", esp. AOC.

    Consider -- the "Green New Deal" is fatally flawed. It was put together by the group that helped defeat wishy-washy environmentalist Al Gore and get the Texas oil men put in office. I know right wingers hate Al Gore, but he has done more for the environment than any elected official since Gaylord Nelson. Gore's work on the ozone layer and Love Canal probably saved quite a few people from dying of cancer.

    Face facts. The "Green New Deal" was written by hard core socialists who want to use the very real climate crisis as a way to impose socialism on the US. Plain and simple.

    Face facts. Those of us who are NOT socialists (I know, I come pretty close, but I am not actually a socialist) really don't have a lot of options. The ONLY plan put out that has been endorsed by someone with a realistic chance of winning the presidency is whatever Biden's plan is.

    Now, for a hard slap in the face.

    This next sentence is the most important sentence I have ever written on iSteve's comments by a long shot.

    If conservatives don't put together a workable plan to save the environment, at some point the Left will be put in power to impose their plan.


    What does that mean?

    According to AOC, the "Green New Deal" includes a massive increase in the level of immigration from Third World nations. That is not me putting words in her mouth. That is what her office has stated. The idea is, climate change is causing "climate refugees", and it is the obligation of the US and other industrial nations to take in ALL of them. And within a few decades, the number of people claiming to be "climate refugees" will be greater than the current population of the earth.

    Meanwhile, Americans are expected to pretty much stop having kids to make room for them.

    If you think I am making this up, check your friend Google.


    If you won't listen to me, maybe you will listen to Jared Taylor.
    Like Jared Taylor, I am (mostly) white and a nationalist.
    Unlike Jared Taylor, I am NOT a White Nationalist.

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment, or else the Left will impose their plan on us. Remember, the Left plan means we stop having kids, and the rest of the world gets to move in.

    Perhaps the most important sentence written by an alt-right writer in the 21st Century was written by Philip Santoro:

    https://www.amren.com/news/2017/09/climate-change-mass-immigration-green-identity-politics/

    The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.
     

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment

    What has Taylor said about the environment?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    It is hard to find an original source direct quote from Jared Taylor.

    His AmRen magazine did print the article I quoted earlier.

    I did find a quote supposedly from an email by Jared Taylor. "The magazine" refers to AmRen. The "AmRen's position" refers to the quote from the article in AmRen I cited earlier, that the combination of global climate change with high birth rates in the Third World are the greatest threat to the West:

    The magazine’s editor-in-chief, influential white nationalist Jared Taylor, doubled down on AmRen’s position in an email to Jewish Currents. “If continued global change makes the poor, non-white parts of the world even more unpleasant to live in than they are now, it will certainly drive more non-whites north,” Taylor said. “I make no apology for…urging white nations to muster the will to guard their borders and maintain white majorities.”
     
    https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/what-happens-when-the-alt-right-starts-believing-in-climate-change/


    Note that this article I cited is from a left-wing web site. Here is another article from a left-wing web site that warns about the dangers of Jared Taylor, and the lingering effects of John Tanton. Please notice the liberal use (haw haw I made a pun) of references to $PLC, oops, I mean the Southern Poverty Looting Center.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/anti-immigration-white-supremacy-has-deep-roots-in-the-environmental-movement/

    The point being:

    There is NOTHING scarier to certain members of the Open Borders Left than the notion that conservatives will realize that global warming is real, and will use global warming as a reason to restrict immigration.

    The facts are:
    1. Global warming is real. I mistakenly claimed that the temperature of the earth has been above average for over 200 months. The actual number is 410 (reported by NOAA, using the mean monthly global temperature, compared to the mean temperatures of the same calendar month for the previous 100 years). The odds of that happening by change are 1/2**410. Meaning a number far, far smaller than picking a random electron out of the entire universe. In other words, the probability of this happening by chance are zero. This is absolute proof that the climate has already changed, and is continuing to change at a rate never seen before in human history.

    2. Overpopulation exacerbates climate change, as well as other forms of environmental degradation.

    3. Moving large numbers of people from the Third World to the US greatly exacerbates climate change, as well as other forms of environmental degradation. By environmental degradation, I include things like suburban sprawl (farmland and woods converted to housing and roads), plastics in the ocean, depletion of the Oglala Aquifer, etc.

    http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/issues/society/ogallala/ogallala.html

    4. The Green New Deal is more red than green. The person who came up with the term "Green New Deal" meant for it to be used in a much different context. The guy who coined the term said that massive spending would bankrupt our country, and would make life miserable for future generations. His proposal was a far saner, and a truly green proposal:

    a. Stop government subsidies and tax breaks for "brown" energy.
    b. Use the money saved in step a for tax breaks and subsidies for "green" energy.

    Seriously. THAT was the original "Green New Deal". The sh*t like having the government fund baby sitters may or may not be a good idea, but that is NOT green. Open borders is the opposite of green, but that is what AOC and the proponents of her supposed "Green New Deal" propose.
  114. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:

    Right now, maybe there is like one dude, somewhere in Greenland, who is hearing about this on the internet, and coming to think it is ingenious, and can make it happen.
    He will realize the population is small, and he is ahead of the game. He cares for those who want a traditional life, but he can be their leader, by engaging with the world.
    He can organize a campaign to join the US, and the Danish government will eventually be forced to accept a vote, and the pro-US faction will win.
    And this Greenland dude on the net will be elected the first governor of the territory of Greenland, and will receive President Donald Trump in the governor’s mansion.
    Dare to dream!

  115. Let’s assume that global warming is occurring. Wouldn’t it be possible to combat sea level rise by pumping mass quantities of fresh water to Greenland and allowing it to freeze during the winter. As long as more ice froze during winter than melted during summer, theoretically we could mitigate sea level rise. The arctic ice cap melting wouldn’t actually raise sea levels because floating ice displaces the same volume it would constitute as water.
    Greenland melting would raise the sea level measurably. I’m not a climate scientist or a geologist so maybe this is just a stupid idea. This stupid idea is what popped into my head when I heard about trump buying greenland.

    • Replies: @Don't Look at Me
    I think it would be possible, but only in the theoretical sense. Meaning it doesn't break any physical laws. So if money and engineering know-how were not issues, we could do it.

    On a practical level, however, this is something so massive that no one has ever done it before and I'm not sure we could do this. The money required would be considerable as well. So no, at this time it isn't possible.
  116. @Thagomizer
    It's just Trump's media strategy. Suck all the air out of the room. Prevent any of the Democratic candidates from setting the agenda.

    The Dem candidates are veering farther and farther left to make Twitter happy.

    Their nominee will end up going into the 2020 election with policies built around open borders and trans kids.

    Also it's possible that his long term strategic plan is to surround and contain Canada.

    Why don’t we just invade Canada?

  117. @JMcG
    Do we not have a claim on the Arctic through Alaska? Serious question.

    Do we not have a claim on the Arctic through Alaska? Serious question.

    Yes, but adding Greenland’s claim would only make the American case stronger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic

  118. @Anonymous
    That's the thing: it wouldn't be very expensive. The tech is old and you don't need fancy new composite materials and the like. You can just use steel. In fact, because it's powered by nuclear bombs, the engineers proposed that using cheap, heavy, crude steel and the like was a benefit. Nuclear bombs have so much power over chemical rockets that weight isn't a limitation and it's easy to reach orbit. So you can, and want to use the biggest, heaviest metal material to shield the passengers and cargo and to carry the most stuff. You could make ocean liner sized space ships with steel. And they'd be easier to make than nuclear submarines because they don't have to deal with the pressure in space that subs do underwater.

    You could make ocean liner sized space ships with steel

    We could just repurpose the Iowa class battleships. Five inch guns are pussy, the Iowa ships have nine 16 inch guns. You might be able to fit a tactical nuke warhead on one of those shells.

  119. It’s all about Gazprom vs. ‘freedom gas’.

    Denmark can potentially delay the completion of Nord Stream 2 pipeline:
    https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/08/exclusive-denmarks-nord-stream-2-route-request-could-cause-eight-month-delay-cost-660-million-euros-operator

    Ridiculing Denmark on Twitter is a cheaper way of exerting pressure than boycotting salami.

  120. @Kyle
    Let’s assume that global warming is occurring. Wouldn’t it be possible to combat sea level rise by pumping mass quantities of fresh water to Greenland and allowing it to freeze during the winter. As long as more ice froze during winter than melted during summer, theoretically we could mitigate sea level rise. The arctic ice cap melting wouldn’t actually raise sea levels because floating ice displaces the same volume it would constitute as water.
    Greenland melting would raise the sea level measurably. I’m not a climate scientist or a geologist so maybe this is just a stupid idea. This stupid idea is what popped into my head when I heard about trump buying greenland.

    I think it would be possible, but only in the theoretical sense. Meaning it doesn’t break any physical laws. So if money and engineering know-how were not issues, we could do it.

    On a practical level, however, this is something so massive that no one has ever done it before and I’m not sure we could do this. The money required would be considerable as well. So no, at this time it isn’t possible.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    He misunderestimates the scarcity and value of the raw material: fresh water.
  121. @Anonymous

    But Jared Taylor is 100% on the money that the Right needs a plan to save the environment
     
    What has Taylor said about the environment?

    It is hard to find an original source direct quote from Jared Taylor.

    His AmRen magazine did print the article I quoted earlier.

    I did find a quote supposedly from an email by Jared Taylor. “The magazine” refers to AmRen. The “AmRen’s position” refers to the quote from the article in AmRen I cited earlier, that the combination of global climate change with high birth rates in the Third World are the greatest threat to the West:

    The magazine’s editor-in-chief, influential white nationalist Jared Taylor, doubled down on AmRen’s position in an email to Jewish Currents. “If continued global change makes the poor, non-white parts of the world even more unpleasant to live in than they are now, it will certainly drive more non-whites north,” Taylor said. “I make no apology for…urging white nations to muster the will to guard their borders and maintain white majorities.”

    https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/what-happens-when-the-alt-right-starts-believing-in-climate-change/

    Note that this article I cited is from a left-wing web site. Here is another article from a left-wing web site that warns about the dangers of Jared Taylor, and the lingering effects of John Tanton. Please notice the liberal use (haw haw I made a pun) of references to $PLC, oops, I mean the Southern Poverty Looting Center.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/anti-immigration-white-supremacy-has-deep-roots-in-the-environmental-movement/

    The point being:

    There is NOTHING scarier to certain members of the Open Borders Left than the notion that conservatives will realize that global warming is real, and will use global warming as a reason to restrict immigration.

    The facts are:
    1. Global warming is real. I mistakenly claimed that the temperature of the earth has been above average for over 200 months. The actual number is 410 (reported by NOAA, using the mean monthly global temperature, compared to the mean temperatures of the same calendar month for the previous 100 years). The odds of that happening by change are 1/2**410. Meaning a number far, far smaller than picking a random electron out of the entire universe. In other words, the probability of this happening by chance are zero. This is absolute proof that the climate has already changed, and is continuing to change at a rate never seen before in human history.

    2. Overpopulation exacerbates climate change, as well as other forms of environmental degradation.

    3. Moving large numbers of people from the Third World to the US greatly exacerbates climate change, as well as other forms of environmental degradation. By environmental degradation, I include things like suburban sprawl (farmland and woods converted to housing and roads), plastics in the ocean, depletion of the Oglala Aquifer, etc.

    http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/issues/society/ogallala/ogallala.html

    4. The Green New Deal is more red than green. The person who came up with the term “Green New Deal” meant for it to be used in a much different context. The guy who coined the term said that massive spending would bankrupt our country, and would make life miserable for future generations. His proposal was a far saner, and a truly green proposal:

    a. Stop government subsidies and tax breaks for “brown” energy.
    b. Use the money saved in step a for tax breaks and subsidies for “green” energy.

    Seriously. THAT was the original “Green New Deal”. The sh*t like having the government fund baby sitters may or may not be a good idea, but that is NOT green. Open borders is the opposite of green, but that is what AOC and the proponents of her supposed “Green New Deal” propose.

  122. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    1. Very few people possess the wide and deep swathes of technical and scientific training to even begin to assess the claims regarding AGW, let alone have strong opinions about them. I'm not one of those people, so even though I suspect there's a strong component of horsesh!t to the whole thing, I can neither go Chicken Little about it, nor say with confidence that it's entirely a scam. My suspicion is that the relevant science is still roughly in its infancy, and that the work to date has been so thoroughly compromised by political (viz completely non-, un-, and even anti-scientific) manipulation, that the true state of climate affairs remains unknowable with the tools we have on offer.

    2. However, as a student of history, political behavior, and history of science, I can from the periphery infer a good deal of climate skepticism, simply based on the behavior of the players.

    3. Nobody, not even the most ardent believers, actually behaves as if they really think that what they believe is really true. If they really believed that the very survival of humanity and the planet itself were in peril, they would be advocating for Pol Pot-type policies which would result in the near-immediate deaths of probably 4 billion people at a minimum.

    Sounds drastic, but if your choice is to Save All Humanity by Killing Lots Of It, or else to Increase Quality of Life in Africa and Asia, and you choose b), then you've pretty much given away that you don't believe it yourself. Maybe we should put the guy from the "Saw" movies in charge of global climate policy, and he'd truth-test these people in creative ways.

    4. It's another huge tell that if you made a Venn diagram, the set of Loud Insistent Climate Howlers would map almost perfectly over the set of Crazy Leftist Trump Is Hitler Crackpots. Plenty of UN and other Leftist climate poobahs are on record saying they don't care whether AGW is true, even if it isn't they're going to use it to force global government and global wealth re-distribution, and the conquest of the white, industrial North by "climate refugee" inundation. What they really want is global theft and White genocide in the name of "climate justice".

    Back when I was a (non-political) student at Super Prestigious University, decades ago, before the Berlin Wall fell, I routinely met the Smartest, Most Elite People on Earth who assured me with absolute certainty that world Communism was inevitable, that it was a scientific fact which had been proven by infallible Marxism, that, in effect, "the science was settled." The ostensible smartest people in America told me this, in unison, with a straight face. Our current crop of Climate Lunatics come from the exact same social, economic, political, and educational co-ordinates.

    I set my watch accordingly.

    Thank you, perfectly put.

  123. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    1. Very few people possess the wide and deep swathes of technical and scientific training to even begin to assess the claims regarding AGW, let alone have strong opinions about them. I'm not one of those people, so even though I suspect there's a strong component of horsesh!t to the whole thing, I can neither go Chicken Little about it, nor say with confidence that it's entirely a scam. My suspicion is that the relevant science is still roughly in its infancy, and that the work to date has been so thoroughly compromised by political (viz completely non-, un-, and even anti-scientific) manipulation, that the true state of climate affairs remains unknowable with the tools we have on offer.

    2. However, as a student of history, political behavior, and history of science, I can from the periphery infer a good deal of climate skepticism, simply based on the behavior of the players.

    3. Nobody, not even the most ardent believers, actually behaves as if they really think that what they believe is really true. If they really believed that the very survival of humanity and the planet itself were in peril, they would be advocating for Pol Pot-type policies which would result in the near-immediate deaths of probably 4 billion people at a minimum.

    Sounds drastic, but if your choice is to Save All Humanity by Killing Lots Of It, or else to Increase Quality of Life in Africa and Asia, and you choose b), then you've pretty much given away that you don't believe it yourself. Maybe we should put the guy from the "Saw" movies in charge of global climate policy, and he'd truth-test these people in creative ways.

    4. It's another huge tell that if you made a Venn diagram, the set of Loud Insistent Climate Howlers would map almost perfectly over the set of Crazy Leftist Trump Is Hitler Crackpots. Plenty of UN and other Leftist climate poobahs are on record saying they don't care whether AGW is true, even if it isn't they're going to use it to force global government and global wealth re-distribution, and the conquest of the white, industrial North by "climate refugee" inundation. What they really want is global theft and White genocide in the name of "climate justice".

    Back when I was a (non-political) student at Super Prestigious University, decades ago, before the Berlin Wall fell, I routinely met the Smartest, Most Elite People on Earth who assured me with absolute certainty that world Communism was inevitable, that it was a scientific fact which had been proven by infallible Marxism, that, in effect, "the science was settled." The ostensible smartest people in America told me this, in unison, with a straight face. Our current crop of Climate Lunatics come from the exact same social, economic, political, and educational co-ordinates.

    I set my watch accordingly.

    Excellent comment. Paragraph 3 in particular.

  124. @YetAnotherAnon
    A workable plan to save the immediate, national environment involves

    a) stop bringing in tens, over time hundreds, of millions more people

    b) the rest isn't so hard

    I see in the UK, admittedly a much smaller place, the environment being degraded around me.

    New build housing everywhere, 90% of it on what was green fields, even in the most productive agricultural areas.

    Little 'business parks' and 'industrial units' everywhere in the countryside. No one wants to start a small business in the city, the white potential employees are getting out.

    Roads and motorways crammed.

    Litter everywhere.

    A workable plan to save the global environment involves having a measure of control over China and India - for example by banning any imports of goods or people from them. Pollution over there is different scale - you can fly a thousand miles in the sun and just see a blanket of smog beneath you.

    It also involves a measure of control over Africa (no imports of people, a neo-imperialism to save the fauna), and much much more nuclear power. Oil is a precious resource for making other stuff , too good to burn.

    “A workable plan to save the global environment involves having a measure of control over China and India – for example by banning any imports of goods or people from them.”

    How is that “workable”? You never offer any specific details.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  125. @Don't Look at Me
    I think it would be possible, but only in the theoretical sense. Meaning it doesn't break any physical laws. So if money and engineering know-how were not issues, we could do it.

    On a practical level, however, this is something so massive that no one has ever done it before and I'm not sure we could do this. The money required would be considerable as well. So no, at this time it isn't possible.

    He misunderestimates the scarcity and value of the raw material: fresh water.

  126. It didn’t make a big splash, but in the movie Sgt. Bilko, the set-up was that Phil Hartman wanted to get revenge on Bilko (Steve Martin) for having him stationed in Greenland many years prior.

  127. @Peter Frost
    Denmark cannot sell Greenland to anybody, any more than the United Kingdom can sell Bermuda or the United States the Virgin Islands. These are territories that already enjoy a high degree of autonomy, and no international court of law would recognize the legality of such a sale. At the very least, there would have to be a vote in the Greenland Parliament and a referendum.

    The closest historical precedent would be the transfer of Newfoundland from the United Kingdom to Canada in 1948. Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer, but it still had to be approved by a referendum. No money was paid.

    I suspect this is a misguided attempt by Trump to create a legacy. He didn't build the wall, but he bought Greenland!

    Both London and Ottawa wanted to make that transfer [New Foundland to Canada], but it still had to be approved by a referendum.

    Looking back at it, that election may not have been all on the up-and-up. Also, New Foundland was once its own country and gave itself back to the UK after WWI. When they wanted independence again after WWII the UK held the referendum so that they could be given to Canada instead.

  128. Anonymous[419] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Braxton
    My point was that it was an example of a colonial possession being voluntarily surrendered to a third country in recent times.

    Britain should have either kept Hong Kong or given it to the legitimate Chinese government in Taipei.

    If Britain hadn’t acknowledged the PRC as the government of China in 1972, then yes, sovereignty would have been transferred to Taipei instead of Beijing.

    (The post-war British Labour government had actually recognized the PRC way back in 1950, but then the Korean War broke out, Labour lost power, and it became a dead letter.)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS