"sustainable funding for black-led, black-focused and black-serving organizations." Whenever I hear something like this, I think about Berry Gordy setting up Motown Records because he was fed up with black artists being exploited by white record label executives. With Motown, this changed. They were now exploited by a black record label executive.
(1) As a general rule, when a right-wing source publishes a horror story about something ridiculous or terrible happening in America, it turns out to be a nothingburger when I go to see it myself. Schools (at all levels) are the notable exception to this rule.
(2) When I expected the same thing in trips to Britain and Sweden, I have been genuinely stunned to find out that the above is not true: what right-wing sources say is happening turns out to be remarkably easy to see happening for yourself. Economic history conferences in Britain have been the major encouraging exception to this rule.
I put this out here because I am genuinely curious to know if my experiences are representative.
Regarding the Greenland obsession, this year is the USA's quarter-millennial anniversary and what better way to mark it than to have a Caesaristic head of state plant the flag on fresh territory!
I have written elsewhere about the serious arguments about annexing Greenland ... but yeah, come on people. Anyone who supports it really does so because it's just cool. Kinda like a moonbase or putting an American flag on Titan, although unlike the Danes the space aliens are not old friends and do not seem to care.
I personally know an Iranian Christian (now a refugee in Europe) who was moved to convert to Christianity after having a dream. I think it happens a lot to Muslims because, in their part of the world, they are unlikely to just stumble upon a book by C.S. Lewis or Tim Keller, or to be witnessed to by a Christian acquaintance (since converting a Muslim away from Islam can carry unpleasant penalties). God meets different people in different ways.
I always thought the idea that the authorities focussed on right wing "extremists" rather than islamists was a myth, until I had to read government guidance for schools on various subjects for my work. It's absolutely the case that radical religion gets no mention at all but "right wing" is specifically targeted.
As for small beer, I love this and drink it regularly. I advocate a return to this level of beer consumption. I've also rediscovered what Romans did - watering down wine makes a different but equally pleasurable drink. Maybe we should encourage these kinds of things.
Perhaps too many people were trying to play it and overwhelmed the website?
BTW, according to someone on Twitter, there are two endings - in which Charlie is radicalised but refuses help - that exist in the game code but can't be reached.
"Inexplicably mad Greenland policy"? Please read Kimball in the Spectator 6 Jan, Pippa Malmgren, Unherd 8 Jan, Scott Greer on his Substack Highly Respected on15 Jan, Whitehouse in the Spectator 15 Jan. Maybe methods could have been more diplomatic with an ally like Denmark, but remember he and earlier administrations have tried everything short of annexation over many years.
they have as much military access as they want as it is. the downsides - alienating all their European allies - seem far worse than any potential mineral extraction. it will also feature the added pain in the backside of dealing with native affairs. it's a burden.
The Americans could easily stop the Danes allowing the Chinese to take Greenland. Trump could have blocked the Chagos Island deal easily - we were desperate for him to do so. The Europeans are happy for the Americans to have de facto military rule of Greenland - alienating them like this is so unneccessary.
My focus is on the strategic necessity and I somewhat regret the methods employed to achieve the strategic aim. What I was objecting to is the claim that the Greenland policy is deeply irrational (i.e. a claim that appears to cover both aims and methods) and have provided articles to help understanding it. That the methods have some downsides cannot overshadow the strategic wisdom of the aims; Denmark is a puny little state full of weaselly leftists....it is by definition alienated from the new style rightwing US. I fail to see how it can get any worse in terms of alienation.
I do know the Chinese have given visa-free travel to Danes since (I think) last year, so relations are obviously warming, and the US behaviour must be a factor. I only know this because I'm keen to visit Britain hasn't been given the visa-free option, because we're still in their bad books.
There are two serious arguments in favor of extending American sovereignty over Greenland. There are also costs which I am not going to address here.
(1) Insurance. Future European or Greenlandic governments can change their policies, which (as we have seen in Latin America) can require costly U.S. action to reverse. Moreover, we don't know if the U.S. will be able to act extraterritorially with as much ease as it currently does in ten or twenty years. This insurance has a value; it is very similar to the arguments for retaining the Chagos even though the negotiated deal is favorable to British security interests.
(2) Oil and mining. This has two parts. The first is that the Greenlandic government is very institutionally hostile to oil and mining projects. The second is that the future flow of mineral royalties has value. (A third worry, about hostile access, really falls under the first argument above.)
These are not specious arguments -- although neither addresses the obvious costs. Which are MUCH higher if the U.S. attempts to strongarm an agreement, rather than simply making the Greenlandics a large cash offer per family.
I wrote about Greenland and the Chagos deal in my own inimitable focus-on-the-accounting way:
We do not need to take over Greenland outright to make sure it does not become a base for unfriendly foreign powers*. We already have a military presence and that can be expanded easily-- the Danes would not object as long as diplomatic niceties are observed.
* See also: WWII when Denmark was overrun by the Nazis, yet we kept Greenland away from the Reich without needing to annex it.
Re: Denmark is a puny little state full of weaselly leftists.
Yeah, right there is a shiny example of an Attitude Not To Adopt. News flash: Western Europe has long been even more liberal than the US-- and so what-- Vive la différence. We do not need ideological uniformity on every jot and title with other nations to form solid alliances-- we didn't in 1949, or in 1980, and we don't now. Moreover Denmark (and even its leftists) are the sanest nation in western Europe when it comes to immigration. That needs to be fostered not kicked to the curb because they refuse to kowtow, do the dance of seven veils and finally kiss Donald Trump's ample derriere.
An absolutely excellent compendium of the madness - and the Sam Ashworth-Hayes quote that you include ... ‘The principle problem of the sensitive middle aged right winger is that reality is so absurd and the actions of the state so malign that you sound like a conspiratorial lunatic when you set out a straightforward factual description of events.’ ... sums the situation up perfectly.
Walter, my dear chap, how are you? I fear the world has gone completely mad … or maybe it’s just evil? … and Ed does a cracking job of helping one feel that maybe, just maybe, one is not deluded or entirely alone.
Hmm ... yes ... we seem to have taken a turn for the worse.
There's a huge gap between the political theatre the MSM try to force-feed us, starring our frankly ridiculously deluded and reality-resistant politicians on one side and the real-political facts on the other. Did you know that Norway is sending two officers to Greenland to help protect it from the Evil Orange? It's a slapstick comedy at this stage ... while Our Dear Commissar Ursula ... aarrrch!
I must stop. I must have dinner. See you over at your stack -- sooner or later.
"Confucian at the grass roots". Those roots, philosophically, are about a simple humaneness in one's relationships; starting within the family and reaching outward to community and State. As regards foreign relations, Confucius advises rulers:
“... when people from a distance are unwilling to yield to your influence and rule, improve your ways and cultivate your virtue in order to attract them. Once they are attracted to you, see to it that they are content.” (Analects 16.1; tr Annping Chin)
"sustainable funding for black-led, black-focused and black-serving organizations." Whenever I hear something like this, I think about Berry Gordy setting up Motown Records because he was fed up with black artists being exploited by white record label executives. With Motown, this changed. They were now exploited by a black record label executive.
After I read about the video game, the ghost of George Orwell threw up in my mouth... To quote another great author, "The horror! The horror!"
I like this format.
My personal experience, for whatever it is worth:
(1) As a general rule, when a right-wing source publishes a horror story about something ridiculous or terrible happening in America, it turns out to be a nothingburger when I go to see it myself. Schools (at all levels) are the notable exception to this rule.
(2) When I expected the same thing in trips to Britain and Sweden, I have been genuinely stunned to find out that the above is not true: what right-wing sources say is happening turns out to be remarkably easy to see happening for yourself. Economic history conferences in Britain have been the major encouraging exception to this rule.
I put this out here because I am genuinely curious to know if my experiences are representative.
The videogame has me genuinely stunned.
"I would probably be standing by the side of a road somewhere, holding a bottle of meths and screaming at traffic"
This is basically my Saturday night, Ed.
We should meet up. I suspect there are many of us. It would be a roadside rant & rave.
Regarding the Greenland obsession, this year is the USA's quarter-millennial anniversary and what better way to mark it than to have a Caesaristic head of state plant the flag on fresh territory!
I have written elsewhere about the serious arguments about annexing Greenland ... but yeah, come on people. Anyone who supports it really does so because it's just cool. Kinda like a moonbase or putting an American flag on Titan, although unlike the Danes the space aliens are not old friends and do not seem to care.
I personally know an Iranian Christian (now a refugee in Europe) who was moved to convert to Christianity after having a dream. I think it happens a lot to Muslims because, in their part of the world, they are unlikely to just stumble upon a book by C.S. Lewis or Tim Keller, or to be witnessed to by a Christian acquaintance (since converting a Muslim away from Islam can carry unpleasant penalties). God meets different people in different ways.
What a great selection of subjects!
I always thought the idea that the authorities focussed on right wing "extremists" rather than islamists was a myth, until I had to read government guidance for schools on various subjects for my work. It's absolutely the case that radical religion gets no mention at all but "right wing" is specifically targeted.
As for small beer, I love this and drink it regularly. I advocate a return to this level of beer consumption. I've also rediscovered what Romans did - watering down wine makes a different but equally pleasurable drink. Maybe we should encourage these kinds of things.
Kids = children. Get down with the children, Ed.
"Every time a monarchy is restored, an angel gets his wings."
It could be a key reason why regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya failed. The monarchies of those respective countries never returned.
I sense that a Pahlavi Restoration won't quite have the vibe of the Bourbon Restoration of 1815 but there will be similar controversy.
Hopefully it works better than 1815! "Learned nothing and forgotten nothing" was not a recipe for success then, and won't be now.
Any video games designed to discourage young Muslims from adopting Muslim ‘superiority’ and anti-Semitic beliefs/behaviours?
So let’s get this straight, Starmer believes that 16yr olds can vote, but can’t drink ‘0’ beers/ciders?
correct
Is it possible to play the game?? I would love to see my score
EDIT: Ignore what I wrote previously (below the asterisks) , it seems the game works fine:
https://www.shoutoutuk.org/pathways/
Perhaps too many people were trying to play it and overwhelmed the website?
BTW, according to someone on Twitter, there are two endings - in which Charlie is radicalised but refuses help - that exist in the game code but can't be reached.
* * *
https://www.facebook.com/knowyourmeme/posts/the-uks-government-funded-pathways-game-has-been-quietly-disabled-following-a-su/1322458673259699/
However, if you are tech savvy, try here:
https://archive.org/details/government_dating_sim
"Inexplicably mad Greenland policy"? Please read Kimball in the Spectator 6 Jan, Pippa Malmgren, Unherd 8 Jan, Scott Greer on his Substack Highly Respected on15 Jan, Whitehouse in the Spectator 15 Jan. Maybe methods could have been more diplomatic with an ally like Denmark, but remember he and earlier administrations have tried everything short of annexation over many years.
they have as much military access as they want as it is. the downsides - alienating all their European allies - seem far worse than any potential mineral extraction. it will also feature the added pain in the backside of dealing with native affairs. it's a burden.
For that matter we have an open invitation to discuss mineral deals too.
You clearly haven't read the articles; it's not about the minerals but about ballistic missile defence and space militarisation.
The Americans could easily stop the Danes allowing the Chinese to take Greenland. Trump could have blocked the Chagos Island deal easily - we were desperate for him to do so. The Europeans are happy for the Americans to have de facto military rule of Greenland - alienating them like this is so unneccessary.
My focus is on the strategic necessity and I somewhat regret the methods employed to achieve the strategic aim. What I was objecting to is the claim that the Greenland policy is deeply irrational (i.e. a claim that appears to cover both aims and methods) and have provided articles to help understanding it. That the methods have some downsides cannot overshadow the strategic wisdom of the aims; Denmark is a puny little state full of weaselly leftists....it is by definition alienated from the new style rightwing US. I fail to see how it can get any worse in terms of alienation.
I'm not an expert on Danish-Chinese relations but I know they have been frosty, as the Danes have been very critical of their human rights abuses. Danes also blocked Chinese infrasture in Greenland (this is straight from Wiki from me, again no expert https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/09/07/how-a-potential-chinese-built-airport-in-greenland-could-be-risky-for-a-vital-us-air-force-base/
I do know the Chinese have given visa-free travel to Danes since (I think) last year, so relations are obviously warming, and the US behaviour must be a factor. I only know this because I'm keen to visit Britain hasn't been given the visa-free option, because we're still in their bad books.
Also Denmark had the highest per capita casualties of America’s allies in Afghanistan (I think) it’s been a good ally to America
There are two serious arguments in favor of extending American sovereignty over Greenland. There are also costs which I am not going to address here.
(1) Insurance. Future European or Greenlandic governments can change their policies, which (as we have seen in Latin America) can require costly U.S. action to reverse. Moreover, we don't know if the U.S. will be able to act extraterritorially with as much ease as it currently does in ten or twenty years. This insurance has a value; it is very similar to the arguments for retaining the Chagos even though the negotiated deal is favorable to British security interests.
(2) Oil and mining. This has two parts. The first is that the Greenlandic government is very institutionally hostile to oil and mining projects. The second is that the future flow of mineral royalties has value. (A third worry, about hostile access, really falls under the first argument above.)
These are not specious arguments -- although neither addresses the obvious costs. Which are MUCH higher if the U.S. attempts to strongarm an agreement, rather than simply making the Greenlandics a large cash offer per family.
I wrote about Greenland and the Chagos deal in my own inimitable focus-on-the-accounting way:
Greenland: https://www.noelmaurer.com/p/the-price-of-greenland
Chagos: https://www.noelmaurer.com/p/abandoning-diego-garcia and https://www.noelmaurer.com/p/the-4-billion-withdrawal
We do not need to take over Greenland outright to make sure it does not become a base for unfriendly foreign powers*. We already have a military presence and that can be expanded easily-- the Danes would not object as long as diplomatic niceties are observed.
* See also: WWII when Denmark was overrun by the Nazis, yet we kept Greenland away from the Reich without needing to annex it.
Re: Denmark is a puny little state full of weaselly leftists.
Yeah, right there is a shiny example of an Attitude Not To Adopt. News flash: Western Europe has long been even more liberal than the US-- and so what-- Vive la différence. We do not need ideological uniformity on every jot and title with other nations to form solid alliances-- we didn't in 1949, or in 1980, and we don't now. Moreover Denmark (and even its leftists) are the sanest nation in western Europe when it comes to immigration. That needs to be fostered not kicked to the curb because they refuse to kowtow, do the dance of seven veils and finally kiss Donald Trump's ample derriere.
As someone wrote recently, "if he had just asked the Danes nicely, they probably would have given it to him"
An absolutely excellent compendium of the madness - and the Sam Ashworth-Hayes quote that you include ... ‘The principle problem of the sensitive middle aged right winger is that reality is so absurd and the actions of the state so malign that you sound like a conspiratorial lunatic when you set out a straightforward factual description of events.’ ... sums the situation up perfectly.
thank you!
Sums up some of my extended family dinner table conversations too, unfortunately.
Absolutely. Good point.
Hi David!
Walter, my dear chap, how are you? I fear the world has gone completely mad … or maybe it’s just evil? … and Ed does a cracking job of helping one feel that maybe, just maybe, one is not deluded or entirely alone.
Hmm ... yes ... we seem to have taken a turn for the worse.
There's a huge gap between the political theatre the MSM try to force-feed us, starring our frankly ridiculously deluded and reality-resistant politicians on one side and the real-political facts on the other. Did you know that Norway is sending two officers to Greenland to help protect it from the Evil Orange? It's a slapstick comedy at this stage ... while Our Dear Commissar Ursula ... aarrrch!
I must stop. I must have dinner. See you over at your stack -- sooner or later.
Live well, my friend!
John Carter wrote a great piece about the Amelia meme generated from that Pathways game here: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/amelia-sans-merci?utm_source=%2Finbox%2Fpaid&utm_medium=reader2&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
"Confucian at the grass roots". Those roots, philosophically, are about a simple humaneness in one's relationships; starting within the family and reaching outward to community and State. As regards foreign relations, Confucius advises rulers:
“... when people from a distance are unwilling to yield to your influence and rule, improve your ways and cultivate your virtue in order to attract them. Once they are attracted to you, see to it that they are content.” (Analects 16.1; tr Annping Chin)
Let us pray that the CCP never becomes Confucian.