We are on the same page, novakant. One more way that the media continues to normalize the caprice of Clementine Caligula.
3 weeks ago
JD Vance is supporting some dangerous and fucked up shit. He's saying that federal agents have "absolute immunity" in pursuit of their orders, and he's also claiming that we should have sympathy for the officer who executed Good because that officer had been injured in a previous action where he was drug along by a moving car.
If the second point is true, then that officer had no business being cleared for duty like this because he is clearly psychologically unsuited for his job.
And if the first point is allowed to stand and be put into practice...
3 weeks ago
I've heard war historians refer to WWI and WWII as "The Second Thirty Years War," and while the postwar period did mark the start of the effort to create international agreements governed by consensus and law, it also marked the beginnings of hyperglobalism, and soon after of networked societies. Some historians mark those last two developments as the beginning of the end for the Westphalian Peace that was instituted as a system in the first Thirty Years War.
(I did think a bit while writing my earlier post if I should describe Trump's worldview as 19th C. or 17th. C. for this very reason.)
3 weeks ago
The US has military bases on Greenland. Greenland wants to continue that practice, even if it were to become independent. They've specifically pointed to the Compacts of Free Association that the US has with the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. That would likely take care of any strategic concerns.
What Greenland does not want, and what it seems Trump does really want, is a 19th C. imperial resource extraction scheme. Trump's comments point entirely to him thinking like a real estate developer, treating the Greenlanders not as a sovereign people with a right of self-determination, but as tenants on a desirable piece of property that has extensive mineral rights.
All the strategic concerns are true, but none of them ring true as motivations for Trump. He wants his name in the history books as having expanded US territory and acquiring valuable mineral rights that can be exploited to allow the US to dominate the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Anything beyond that is too much detail for the hamster wheel in his head.
3 weeks ago
The memes are on the Maduro-asks-to-be-self-deported schtick:
3 weeks ago
WRT "narcoterrorism" - hoo boy, how fraught and tactical a word.
The FBI defines international terrorism as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations." From that definition, all that is required is for the federal government to declare a group or a nation as "terrorist." They are a bit more helpful on the subject of domestic terrorism: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." Neither of these definitions, however, really do much to differentiate terrorism from other political crimes, especially hate crimes.
From my readings on the subject, I think that the crucial element of terrorism is that terrorism is a narrative crime. The media identity of the party doing the terrorizing must be announced to the public, or at the very least the reason for the violent spectacle must be made known to the public in some way, and that violence must have an ideological goal. I'd argue that the tool of the violence itself is not the weapon of the terrorist, but rather that the media is the weapon and that the media narrative is the intended injury.
From this viewpoint the Mexican cartels would qualify as narcoterrorists, but only in as much as they engage in kidnap, torture, and grisly executions as a means to subjugate the Mexican populace and intimidate, subvert, or control the legitimate government. Killing US citizens with the product that they sell is not an act of terror, it's just an illegal business enterprise. The drug cartels don't have any ideological goals they are trying to achieve through the deaths of their customers. They'd probably prefer to keep those customers alive in order to continue selling the drugs to them.
Maduro was a tyrant who violated the human rights of Venezuelans: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ He engaged in political intimidation and authorized arbitrary detentions and unfair trials for his political opponents. He wielded the Bolivaran National Guard against his political opponents in much the same way that the KKK engaged in terrorism against blacks after the Civil War.
But "narcoterrorism" against the US? That's propaganda. The illegal drug trade is just typical organized crime, and not the sort of thing that justifies military intervention in my non-lawyerly view of things.
3 weeks ago
bc - Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
Yes, really. The Danes were the ones that released the image of the forged letter, purportedly from Greenland but actually from the GRU, sent to Tom Cotton suggesting that Greenland was primed to join the US.
As for the Venezuela/Ukraine swap suggestion, that info comes from Fiona Hill's sworn testimony in 2019.
The best propaganda ops are always woven into historical contexts and appeal to the known biases of the targets.
The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
3 weeks ago
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
None of these idiots should ever have been given security clearance. They are entirely too easily manipulated.
4 weeks ago
Such a strange state of paralysis we are in as a nation. The Democrats cannot keep up with the galloping norm-crushing or find any path of resistance that is not through the slow crawl of the courts. The media is hapless, and hopeless, and toothless, and hamstrung by oligarchic editorial capture. That leaves civil resistance, but it doesn't seem like we are really ready to hit the streets and risk an authoritarian backlash and the suspension of habeas corpus that we know the authoritarians are jonezing to try out.
Every last bit of this could be ground to a halt if the milquetoast Republicans who have "raised concerns" would break ranks and side with the Dems to restore accountability. I don't see that happening. The GOP has so thoroughly demonized (literally) the Dems that I can't see any of them choosing to work with the Enemies of Christendom.
We are on the same page, novakant. One more way that the media continues to normalize the caprice of Clementine Caligula.
JD Vance is supporting some dangerous and fucked up shit. He's saying that federal agents have "absolute immunity" in pursuit of their orders, and he's also claiming that we should have sympathy for the officer who executed Good because that officer had been injured in a previous action where he was drug along by a moving car.
If the second point is true, then that officer had no business being cleared for duty like this because he is clearly psychologically unsuited for his job.
And if the first point is allowed to stand and be put into practice...
I've heard war historians refer to WWI and WWII as "The Second Thirty Years War," and while the postwar period did mark the start of the effort to create international agreements governed by consensus and law, it also marked the beginnings of hyperglobalism, and soon after of networked societies. Some historians mark those last two developments as the beginning of the end for the Westphalian Peace that was instituted as a system in the first Thirty Years War.
(I did think a bit while writing my earlier post if I should describe Trump's worldview as 19th C. or 17th. C. for this very reason.)
The US has military bases on Greenland. Greenland wants to continue that practice, even if it were to become independent. They've specifically pointed to the Compacts of Free Association that the US has with the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. That would likely take care of any strategic concerns.
What Greenland does not want, and what it seems Trump does really want, is a 19th C. imperial resource extraction scheme. Trump's comments point entirely to him thinking like a real estate developer, treating the Greenlanders not as a sovereign people with a right of self-determination, but as tenants on a desirable piece of property that has extensive mineral rights.
All the strategic concerns are true, but none of them ring true as motivations for Trump. He wants his name in the history books as having expanded US territory and acquiring valuable mineral rights that can be exploited to allow the US to dominate the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Anything beyond that is too much detail for the hamster wheel in his head.
The memes are on the Maduro-asks-to-be-self-deported schtick:
WRT "narcoterrorism" - hoo boy, how fraught and tactical a word.
The FBI defines international terrorism as "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations." From that definition, all that is required is for the federal government to declare a group or a nation as "terrorist." They are a bit more helpful on the subject of domestic terrorism: "Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature." Neither of these definitions, however, really do much to differentiate terrorism from other political crimes, especially hate crimes.
From my readings on the subject, I think that the crucial element of terrorism is that terrorism is a narrative crime. The media identity of the party doing the terrorizing must be announced to the public, or at the very least the reason for the violent spectacle must be made known to the public in some way, and that violence must have an ideological goal. I'd argue that the tool of the violence itself is not the weapon of the terrorist, but rather that the media is the weapon and that the media narrative is the intended injury.
From this viewpoint the Mexican cartels would qualify as narcoterrorists, but only in as much as they engage in kidnap, torture, and grisly executions as a means to subjugate the Mexican populace and intimidate, subvert, or control the legitimate government. Killing US citizens with the product that they sell is not an act of terror, it's just an illegal business enterprise. The drug cartels don't have any ideological goals they are trying to achieve through the deaths of their customers. They'd probably prefer to keep those customers alive in order to continue selling the drugs to them.
Maduro was a tyrant who violated the human rights of Venezuelans: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/americas/south-america/venezuela/report-venezuela/ He engaged in political intimidation and authorized arbitrary detentions and unfair trials for his political opponents. He wielded the Bolivaran National Guard against his political opponents in much the same way that the KKK engaged in terrorism against blacks after the Civil War.
But "narcoterrorism" against the US? That's propaganda. The illegal drug trade is just typical organized crime, and not the sort of thing that justifies military intervention in my non-lawyerly view of things.
bc - Really? The US has wanted Greenland for a long time. We occupied it during WWII invoking the Monroe Doctrine. And comparing Venezuela to Ukraine at this point is truly balloon juice.
Yes, really. The Danes were the ones that released the image of the forged letter, purportedly from Greenland but actually from the GRU, sent to Tom Cotton suggesting that Greenland was primed to join the US.
As for the Venezuela/Ukraine swap suggestion, that info comes from Fiona Hill's sworn testimony in 2019.
The best propaganda ops are always woven into historical contexts and appeal to the known biases of the targets.
The success of the mission in light of Russian air defense has to be taken into account.
According to former ambassador Ken Fairfax on BSKY, the Russians pulled their people ten days before the US op. Make of that what you will.
Over at BJ, Adam Silverman is reminding everyone that both the Greenland nonsense and the Venezuela idea were planted by the GRU.
https://balloon-juice.com/2026/01/04/war-for-ukraine-day-1410-and-now-we-know-where-the-venezuela-idea-came-from/
None of these idiots should ever have been given security clearance. They are entirely too easily manipulated.
Such a strange state of paralysis we are in as a nation. The Democrats cannot keep up with the galloping norm-crushing or find any path of resistance that is not through the slow crawl of the courts. The media is hapless, and hopeless, and toothless, and hamstrung by oligarchic editorial capture. That leaves civil resistance, but it doesn't seem like we are really ready to hit the streets and risk an authoritarian backlash and the suspension of habeas corpus that we know the authoritarians are jonezing to try out.
Every last bit of this could be ground to a halt if the milquetoast Republicans who have "raised concerns" would break ranks and side with the Dems to restore accountability. I don't see that happening. The GOP has so thoroughly demonized (literally) the Dems that I can't see any of them choosing to work with the Enemies of Christendom.
So very fucked up.