Greenland: by negotiation, not by force [unleds the peaceful option is exhausted]

A policy like abortion appears to help the working class at first.

What actually happens is infa ts are slaughtered, casual sex happens a lot more frequently and the poor stay poor in a degenerate subculture.

This is not all poor. It is some subcultures of the poor.

This leads to vicious cycles whereby when a pioicy banning abortions or charging money rather then publicly finding the abortions occurs, it will at first hurt the poor.

On the flip side, a policy like flat tax and free markets at first will seem fair and as if the poor if they rise will be taxed less, to help them keep rising.

What actually happene is monpooie or oligopolies form, choke out all small business(es) in the industry/ies they compete in and nobody protects them.

I have other examples proving I see genuine deep flaws in both wings. It is not even that the pilitiicnas are corrupt alone, the wings themselves both have inherently flawed approaches. That is why mixed economies and middleway social pooicies are consistently what tends to be present in the most desirable places on Earth to live in.

However, I actually believe being too desirable to foreign migrants backfires. This is a view I gained much later into my life as I was raised to think as a leftist of sorts.

If you are too desirable, you find the dilemma of ethnic replacement and more inevitably takes place over time. Furthermore, the cuktures replacing you rarely give yours the mutual respect back.

This is NOT neonazi or white specific. I am not for total remigration. I am saying it needs to be very controlled. You want to attract law-compliant and assimilatable immigrants and repel ones that either will not likely obey the law or won't likely ever assimilate but it is not just that. You want to also have the amount of 'good immigration' low enough such that immigrants are at all times too low in population to win a civil war against the natives.

This is actually why I have deep issue with nations founded on a basis like what US was. US did not even identiy as a colonised nation, it confused itself to believe it was a white nation with several founding fathers, 0 of which were native.

This has led to MANY fubdamebtally racist and prohlematic aspects to US. In contrast their neighbour Canada had an ibtellectually honest realisation that it was British and French colonised. This led to it correctly handling the disparity and anguish its natices felt with the replacement of which culture was dominant. They showed a lot more respect to the native tribes than US did.

Australia had similar issues to US where NZ had less. NZ and Canada's relationship between the conqueror tribes and natige tribes was healthier because they realised it was the native's land first. The actual realisation of this wasnt enough. NZ did enslave the Maori at times.

However, in the US scenario they went so insane that they decided to bring over a whole new race and several of their ethnicities to enslave and abuse.

This is linked to the fact that Americans had a mental block in their minds, since they identified as natives of the land it led to them feeling it woukd be wrong to treat the actual natives that way (this was after a lot of raping, genociding and pillaging of said natives) so they instead decided to bring black people over, as in their minds that was an 'other' people while the natives were 'with' them.

Eventually you can appreciate how truly racist America is at a fundamental level only when you rewind to its origin and realise how it formed a torn identity as a white nation that it never actually was originally.

Abortion is clearly designed to funnel money from the poor to the rich. It's framed as propaganda as: "there's no way you can keep your current level of income and consumption and also have a baby, so you should choose income and consumption over having a baby." Generations of advertising have turned consumerism into a moral good above parenthood.

This keeps poor mothers in the factories and the malls while the rich get richer. When the population falls, they just get the lobbies to import new babies to eventually learn to mindlessly consume and not sacrifice and save up for the future of a family. Because when poor people stop consuming so much, save up, and become parents, it hurts the profit margins of the rich and keeps the factories empty.

How would those mothers be better off having a baby at a crucial moment early on in their career or late into their education?

Having a baby has massive health drawbacks. Pregnancy affects a lot in a woman's body and brain and also means she can have barely any drugs, even caffeine. This means she cannot even caffeine her way through tough work moments where she is fatigued, nor cannshe take drugs to handles anxiety etc without likely harming the baby.

The solution is a fully Catholic society. This is genuinely the most feasible and historically proven best solution. All other solutions neglect the women, children etc.

The problem is that a fully Catholic society is not free market. It is either Feudalist or akin thereof.

Can you be peasant class, stay peasant class and feel 0 resentment to the upper class? If not, pitchforks will get grabbed and rage and envy induced riots will lead to what eventually happened in Europe.

You are raised in the West to think liberally. This has led to a delusional outlook that is having MANY effects. It is why the birth rates are so low despite the sex rates being so high. It is why despite sex rates being so high, inceldom is extremely high too (1 man can hookup with many women after all).

The entire Catholic cultures of the West have degenerated so much over the past 4-5 centuries that people unironically believe that the main issue with Islam is how anti sex and anti liberty they are... No. The issues are far beyond that and they actually get family value somewhat right.

How would those mothers be better off having a baby at a crucial moment early on in their career or late into their education?

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are coming from the premise that education at an institution is a moral obligation, despite the fact that they were objectively designed to produce factory workers for the benefit of the rich. You are also upholding the premise that working at a factory is a moral career, and motherhood is not a moral career.

The fact that you so quickly and casually accepted both of those premises is a testimony to how deep the advertisement campaigns worked in America over so many generations.

That society existed before the first pilgrim ever showed up to the americas.

The difference was that women were banned from education.

if you support that at least be more obvious a sexist.

I support female education access. However, I believe a lot of modern education syllabuses is uselsss junk and even indoctrinates kids and teens into lies at times.

The subjects of geograpgy and histiry are taught so biased and blinkered and small blip time moments as well.

Even to be specific to the Americas, youd need to explore a lot of both sides. Both what the horrors were, the torture in the iraq war deon by the US soldiers etc AND the good things US did for the world and its people.

You cannot just educate people some bulkshit propaganda biaaed either for or against the nation and its agenda and expect them to really have good knowledge.

Why don't you like Trump?

He hates trans, gays, migrants...

Giving a series of images against your cause does not help your case.

Those are all 1900s btw, suporting my claim that the society you want was 1500s and Catholic but I actually oppose certain elements of that socirty esp the sexist approach to education.

It's careful advertisement which shaped your bias.

I am not a boomer. Im somewhere aged 26-33. Age is within that with either end included as a possibility.

Depending which end Im on Im either a severely young Millennial or a very old Zoomer (Gen Z).

I am very sure that the idea of feminism already existed when my actual grandparents were alive.

And this idea in fact existed for centuries before in non-Islamic (Hindu and Buddhist) South Asia. The Hindus were the first ever civilisation to push on the concept that a woman should study and work. However, they had the caveat that women tend to suit part time esp if mothers, not full-time. They also tended to have patriarchal ownership of businesses.

When colonisation happened the 2nd or 3rd time (Portuguese had come way before and Dutch had showed up, plus St. Thomas long before had led to catholicism in Kerala especially far longer ago), the British were shocked that feminism was present there. The level to which the Hindu communities held women genuinely equal to men was something unseen in most ogher native tribes. Some actually were matriarchal especially in the Americas.

Hindus and also Buddhists had a concept of gender egalitarianism even in spite of Caste system ethnic inequalities.

It is extremely plausible that the reason the British were the first to actually make Feminism work (the Frebch had the concept from way back, they had actual female warriors fighting off the Nazis fully saxrificing and shooting guns, even female lieutenants, idk for sure about generals, these were seen as terrorists by the Nazi occupiers so they lacked official ranks of any kind. You did have 2 prominent females leading specific batallions but with males as their equals or even superiors in strategy.

The British likely had seen that feminism in education worked out for the Indians and Sri Lankans quite well. It did not lead to any infertility issues that we have in the west today.

This is because Hindu and Buddhist Feminism was 2nd wave only. It never ever got the 3rd wave vibe to it.

This is about corporate advertisement setting norms to maximize the wealth transfer. Taking women out of the kitchen and putting them into the factories. Once enough women were persuaded to enter the workforce, wages were suppressed by the surplus of workers, making a 1 income household near impossible. All by design.

No conspiracy is required to explain this. When powerful and wealthy institutions benefit from greater labor availability and higher levels of household consumption, the cultural messaging they produce through advertisements like the samples I showed you will naturally reinforce those outcomes and persist in that direction. In fact, the entire "diversity is a strength" ad campaign by the wealthy institutions was simply the logical next level after they maxed out the exploitation of persuading women to flood the labor pool. What changed was not the incentive structure, but the rhetoric. The goal remained the same: maximize labor supply and consumption while minimizing resistance from anchored, self-sufficient households. ESG was the level after that ad campaign to max out even more useless consumption supporting "green energy" under a false promise to "save the planet"

The subject is Greenland and not feminism in Greenland. Trump took his TACO position after the NATO countries were preparing to send troops to defend Greenland against Trumps desire to own it.

So do the democrats

Why place me in false dichotomy? Me hating trump doesnt mean I like democrats. I dont like republicans or democrats. Both parties proved over and over that they are pure evil and dont care at all for average person. Politician doesnt love you. Never did, never will. You are just a means to an end for them.

I am not a boomer. Im somewhere aged 26-33

Omg you are my age. I always knew we shared more in common than just autism.

Being of the same age. Does it mean you two are at the same level of autism?

So if someone threatens to beat the living shit out of you,

So, when did Trump first threaten to beat the living shit out of Greenland, take Greenland against Denmark's will and then say "let's negotiate peacefully if you don't want that," pray tell? Unless it happened, your accusation is more hole than substance.

Words never were, and never will be substance. That's the distinction, in court, between oral testimony and tangible substance, like a gun with fingerprints, and a the same prints on the shell casing matching the accused. Yes, both are "evidence," but there is a distinction. One is subjective, the other is objective.

I'll be more convinced of Trumps success when I hear of more than a 'framework of a deal in Greenland.

Agreed

Early on in his presidency this 2nd Term he literally said hed colonise/take Greenland later into his term.

This is now the official 2026 narrative from UK Government perspective:

In January 2026, United States President Donald Trump has intensified pressure on Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, to become part of the United States. He has argued Greenland is vital to US security.

While he has often spoken of purchasing Greenland, he has also said the US would obtain it “one way or the other” and up till 21 January refused to rule out using military force. President Trump had said the US would impose tariffs on several European countries including the UK, who had been part of a military preparation exercise in Greenland, until an agreement to cede the island had been made. Following discussion with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as the World Economic Forum at Davos, he changed his mind and said tariffs would not be imposed.

Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty states that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. Were the US to use force against another NATO member, Denmark, to secure Greenland, then the mutual defence foundation on which NATO rests would be jeopardised.

Leaders in Greenland and Denmark have repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale. The UK Government has echoed these remarks, and criticised President Trump’s threat of tariffs while emphasising that it wishes to maintain good relations with the United States.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/

The only possible reason to say things like he will take it 'one way or another' are to imply much like he grabbed women by the pussy one way or another that he was open to nonconsensually abuse Greenland and violate the sanctity of its sovereign land.

Your turn.

Tell me why it was not reasonable for Europe to be ready for an invasion. Recall that prior to Putin forcefully and brutally trying to take Ukraine, he claimed he was not going to and just was interested. So, you hopefully realise that invasion is rarely done consensually and pre warned overtly.

Danish MP says Trump’s claim of a Greenland deal is not real.

“The thing is, there can’t be a deal without having Greenland as part of the negotiations, first of all” Faxe said.

The Right Wing has been far more dedicated go corporate shilling than the Left.

Consumerism was entirely engineered by the Right as it evovled, not the Left.

This is the irony in what you say.

If it is true, and I am open to it being true, Feminism in the West was hurled forward by the Right.

So was the banning of a national wide abortion forwarded by the right.

Your FDR invented corporate shilling as a way to win the war. Why do you think he brought all those rich factory owners to the White House for cigars and whiskey sessions? It's not a grand ideological conspiracy; it's just how you guys get things done. After the war, the government let corporate advertisement run the country. Policy through corporate jingles. I think you guys are the only country that still allows direct pharmaceutical advertisements, and you used to advertise beer and tobacco like crazy.

I am not American resident btw.

I am in Europe.

Are you saying you believe I am from America or what?

You use of different fingers should have suggested your nationality.

Frigging Mike Pence, a man now chiefly remembered for saying "No, Mr. President, I won't go along with January 6", has since endorsed Trump's attempt to renegotiate the matter of Greenland.

We do not need more land, nor are we entitled to more land, but we do need more access to places like Greenland than we have now for strategic reasons, namely as the linchpin that would make Golden Dome viable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system)#Strategic_value_of_Greenland

Trump claimed to have secured said access. The other side denied this, though it's possible they're just trying to save face publicly, since capitulating to those evil Yankees might not go well with European voters. The best way to ascertain the truth is to keep an eye on Greenland over the next 3 years and to see if there's a buildup of US assets there.

Does all Europe even have any military presence in Greenland? If not, how was it supposed to defend it? The 34 soldiers they recently sent don't count, they aren't a permanent presence but rather a clown show.