Have the tables ever turned this quickly, in any of our lifetimes?
Good Morning, Readers. It has only been two months since Trump took office, and so far he is as bellicose and bombastic as I hoped, exceeding my expectations in almost every way. He has upset a lot of apple carts in just nine weeks, though it remains to be seen which dance moves will have follow-through. Amidst all this whirlwind, it is hard to find a more audacious realignment than what he is doing to Europe and Ukraine.
Trump’s 180-degree change of direction was a shock, but so was Europe’s commitment to double-down on the Ukraine war. So convinced are they about Russia’s intent that they seem hell-bent on WW3 as a kind of pre-crime consequence. Europe is collectively losing its marbles in a great mental disconnect, unfolding before our eyes. Maybe because the City of London has been setting up this game for a long time, with Russia, America, Germany, and China all playing assigned roles. Hopefully the Britons will send Keir Starmer to the Fletcher Memorial Home before it is too late. (A little Pink Floyd reference there for the faithful).
But let us discuss the MAP.
Readers may recall that Trump was talking about Greenland during his first term. Now he is talking about Canada, Mexico, and Panama. Muscle-flexing, you say. Maybe, but Blackrock did just buy-out Chinese control of the canal ports in Panama. Is this a return to a Fortress America concept? Is this meant to be a leg of the new Pax Americana?
Nothing shows raw power and poker-face like redrawing the map. On my side of the world we face-off against China’s encroachment of the West Philippine Sea, which they call the South China Sea. We are very familiar with the kind of psychological affect it can have, for example renaming the Gulf of Mexico into the Gulf of America. Hutzpah. Gravitas. Sure, it ticks people off but what are you going to do about it? I thought so.
Let’s get back to Europe for second. We read articles about decoupling from the Dollar, about the potential breakup of the WHO or NATO. There is renewed talk of America leaving the UN, as if the New World Order is dead — but let’s not uncork the champagne just yet. Is this merely Trump playing Art of the Deal for European concessions, or does he have his own Reset in mind?
A Polar Alliance
No matter what we call it, there is a massive power realignment unfolding. Just turn the world map 90-degrees to see how much sense this makes. Those countries fronting on the Arctic Circle would be poised to benefit from trade agreements from Northern shipping routes. Russia is heavily invested into this sector as of late, with Trump on a mission to restore friendship. Alaska is on that polar map, a goodly chunk of Canada, and of course Greenland. If Trump gets to have his rhetorical cake and eat it too, then Russia and the America would control about 90% of the Arctic.
There should be immense untapped mineral wealth up there, and whatever else is lurking under the ice (oil, gas). An alliance in the Arctic might also co-opt some of China’s BRI (belt-road initiative) plans; plans which they seem kind of quiet about lately. There is a theory that China is angling to acquire part of Siberia from Russia, which would make it a three-way Alliance, or four-way if Canada can permanently break free from the Crown.
Such a realignment would mark an historic shift away from Euro-centrism. The three superpower nations could finally come together, after 150 years of machinations from Crown, Vatican, and Zionist globalists. Is it hopeless to imagine Trump, Putin, and Xi as the de-facto grown-ups in the room, who could sit down amiably and chart a beneficial path forward for the citizens of Earth? Probably hopeless, but I’m in a good mood.
This kind of idealism seems to have been the path we were on in the 1800s, before becoming entangled in foreign wars and sidetracked by globalism. China and Russia were not always our mortal enemies. Much historical common ground on this topic has been explored by Matt Ehret at Canadian Patriot, who I recommend. From domed polar cities to railroads linking Asia to North America through the Bering strait, many thinkers, strategists, and politician have explored these concepts. Even recently.
What would be the consequences of a Big Boy club that calmly worked together to improve the state of mankind? Allow me some naïve spitballing:
- Reduction in global macro-level tensions, i.e. much less threat of WW3.
- Nuclear weapons expenditures turned into mutual defense systems, which could even include natural disasters, solar flares, meteor impacts, etc.
- Multiple space programs working together to explore, mine, and colonize the solar system.
- Removal of the City of London and Vatican from the power structure.
- Potential for Europe to benefit greatly by a train system from Europe to Patagonia. A land route potentially reaching every continent.
- Alliance population of at least 2 Billion people, a sizeable plurality / influence number.
Fallout
Would a Polar Alliance sow the seeds of future conflict with the Global South? Difficult to say, but the alternative is to continue with today’s maniacal system. One which has brought us to the brink of WW3, ushered in engineered ‘pandemics’, and sought to crush freedom and cull humanity at every turn. No, the Orwellian police state is not what any of us want for the future.
Could Europe survive such a loss of stature in global affairs? I can hear their screams already. They would likely revert to some kind of neo-fascist alliance of their own. They would have a choice between pushing back against their Southern invasion, or allowing themselves to be subsumed in a new Caliphate. I hope Europe could finally abandon notions of carbon neutrality and other Malthusian dreams, for their own survival.
