“Make American Great Again” is turning into “Make the World American.”
Does Trump's peaceful promise of a "Golden Age of America" mean invading Greenland and the Panama Canal, annexing Canada and Mexico, and then, on to Britain and Europe?
You can listen to me read this essay here:
One-time or recurring donations can also be made at Ko-Fi
American’s Golden Age is upon us!
In a news conference on January 7th, president-elect Donald Trump promised to usher in a “Golden Age for America. For too long, America has been a victim of its generosity and naiveté.
Trump says it starts with taking back the Panama Canal, by force if necessary, and buying Greenland.
And hey, how about Canada and Mexico? Everyone knows they want to be the 51st and 52nd states.
After that, it’s just a hop, skip and a jump over to Britain and Europe.
There’s plenty of conservative Americans who agree with Trump about the Panama Canal. There were plenty who were angry with Carter when he gave the canal away.
"The canal is ours, we bought and paid for it, and we should keep it," Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond said at the time of the canal’s return in 1977.
But it wasn’t that simple. Panamanians had resented American control over the canal and in 1964, anti-American riots broke out. The riots led to the renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties.
To think that the United States can just “take back the Panama Canal” is itself the height of naiveté.
In December, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino said that “every square meter of the canal belongs to Panama and will continue to. When it comes to our canal, and our sovereignty, we will all unite under our Panamanian flag.”
Experts in both countries are clear: Unless he goes to war with Panama, Trump can't reassert control over a canal the U.S. agreed to cede in the 1970s.
Would Trump actually seek to go to war, and would the Republican controlled government back him up on that? It’s doubtful.
Trump did not campaign on the promise of more wars. He campaigned on his legacy of peace during his first term. But the closer we get to January 20th, the more it sounds like “Make America Great Again” is turning into “Make the World American.”
Why do we hear this rhetoric when it is so irrational? I mean, why would any conservative think that giving Canadians and Mexicans voting rights is a good idea?
A recent Leger poll, reported by The Canadian Press, found a whopping 82 percent of Canadians were opposed to the idea of joining the U.S. as the next state. Another Leger poll from October found that, when asked which American candidate they’d support if they could vote in the 2024 race, roughly two-thirds of Canadians backed Vice President Harris and just 21 percent supported Trump.
“I don’t think he realizes that Canada would be a Democratic state that we would be a blue state the size of California,” said Duane Bratt of Mount Royal University, a political science professor with a focus on Canadian foreign policy.
Sharing a screenshot of a Truth Social post from President-elect Donald Trump, on making Canada the 51st state, Rogan said: “The U.S. should let Mexico in too."
I’m beginning to think Rogan isn’t too bright. Mexico is filled with Cartels, violence, corruption, not to mention millions of illegals that make their way to Mexico, the ones we’ve been trying to keep OUT of our country. Giving Mexicans voting rights seems like one of the stupidest ideas a conservative could have.
Besides which, unlike the despised Justin Trudeau of Canada, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is extremely popular, coming into office with more political power than any Mexican leader since the country’s transition away from single-party rule in the 1990s. She received a record 60 percent of the votes cast for the top office—and effectively controls a two-thirds supermajority in Congress.
The United States would have to go to war with Mexico. And then, supposing it won such a costly war, it’s absurd to think Mexicans would suddenly embrace conservative America and vote accordingly.
But maybe the plan would be to rule Canada and Mexico, denying the people voting rights. Sounds like the American dream of freedom for all, doesn’t it?
Forget all the rhetoric of potential war, Trump wants to start with something simple. Changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she would introduce legislation to that effect on Thursday.
"It's our gulf. The rightful name is the Gulf of America and it's what the entire world should refer to it as,” she said in a statement.
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, and one of Trump’s top advisors, is taking American imperialism—I mean, America’s Golden Age—even further. He took a vote on his propaganda machine X, asking if “America should liberate the people of Britain from their tyrannical government.”
The majority of Musk’s 200 billion plus conservative, braindead followers, including who knows how many bots, said yes to America “liberating Britain”:
To which Andrew Tate, one of the most offensive people in the world, said Trump and Elon should:
Is anyone surprised that European nations are angry about the Greenland threat, not to mention threats to take over Britain and Europe as well.
But according to Fox news, Greenlanders love the idea, with one saying that he wanted Trump to “free us of the Danish government.”
"We get ripped [off] every year [with] our minerals,” he explained. “We are the richest nation in the world. And we don't get to use it. Denmark's using us too much."
Richest nation in the world, you say? Could that be why Trump wants to buy Greenland for a song and a dance—or else, throttle them into submission?
For years, American billionaires have been quietly funding a massive treasure hunt in Greenland.
Greenland’s untapped energy and mineral wealth could significantly reduce the United States’ dependency on China and redefine America’s global positioning in an AI-driven era. Check out the map:
In August 2023, I warned about all of this in one of my most important essays (that not many people read). Here is a quote from ARCTIC WARS: World War III's Newest Battlefield:
How can the United States gain dominance over more Arctic land?
Alaska represents a mere 1060 miles of Arctic coastline. Even that land was purchased from the Russian Empire in 1867 for $7.2 million.
In 2019, the press made fun of President Donald Trump’s interest in buying Greenland, the world's largest island. Greenland wasn't for sale but given the United States’ desire to increase its Arctic coastline, Trump’s desire to buy it was understandable.
Greenland’s riches have the possibility to severely cut into China’s 90 percent dominance of global rare earth extraction. China is wooing Greenland while establishing firm relations with Russia.
While the press convinces the public that governments care about cutting greenhouse emissions, mining companies have been pushing for rights to exploit rare earth deposits in Greenland, which is estimated to hold one-quarter of the world’s rare earth deposits that are essential for everything from technological devices to electric vehicles to military weapons to wind turbines.
Behind the United States government’s designs on exploiting Greenland are the billionaires.
A 2022 Vanity Fair article describes how “Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and other masters of the universe are betting big on Greenland as mining in the Congo gets too dirty for even Elon Musk”.
Almost every lithium-ion rechargeable battery in the world has cobalt in it, and almost three-fourths of that cobalt is mined in appalling conditions in the Congo. “Never in human history has there been so much suffering that generated so much profit that directly touched the lives of more people around the world,” says Siddarth Kara, author of the book, "Cobalt Red."
In 2019, “a landmark legal case was launched against the world’s largest tech companies including Dell, Microsoft and Tesla, by Congolese families who say their children were killed or maimed while mining for cobalt used to power smartphones, laptops and electric cars”, the Guardian revealed.
In the court documents, the Congolese families describe how their children were driven by extreme poverty to seek work in large mining sites, where they claim they were paid as little as $2 (£1.50) a day for backbreaking and dangerous work digging for cobalt rocks with primitive tools in dark, underground tunnels.
The families claim that some of the children were killed in tunnel collapses while others were paralyzed or suffered life-changing injuries from accidents.
One of the central allegations in the lawsuit is that Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla were aware and had “specific knowledge” that the cobalt they use in their products is linked to child labor performed in hazardous conditions and were complicit in the forced labor of the children.
Shockingly (or perhaps not so shocking), the lawsuit was dismissed. The billionaires have since turned their hungry eyes to Greenland, claiming (as always) that they can save the planet while turning a profit. A company called KoBold Metals has received backing from Andreessen Horowitz and Breakthrough Energy Ventures, a multibillion-dollar funding vehicle created by Microsoft cofounder Gates and seeded by Bezos, Bloomberg, Ray Dalio, David Rubenstein, Jack Ma, Reid Hoffman, and Sir Richard Branson to search for rare earth minerals in Greenland.
It’s a mockery to claim that such mining is part of a clean energy strategy. Cobalt mining produces radioactive emissions, cancer-causing particles, and particles which may cause vision problems, vomiting and nausea, heart problems, and Thyroid damage. In addition, mineral mining produces pollution that leaches into neighboring rivers and water sources. Dust from pulverized rock is known to cause breathing problems for local communities as well.
Charlie Angus, who wrote a history of Cobalt, had some unpleasant things to say about these billionaires and their do-good hypocrisy to Popular Mechanics:
The image of the billionaires Gates, Bezos, and Bloomberg digging out the fragile and disappearing ice shields of the planet in order to gain more wealth is a perfect symbol for our dystopian times. Cobalt may play a role in the transition to a clean energy economy, but the exploitation of these resources have had serious environmental and human rights impacts. The name of their company literally means ‘demon metals.’ I wonder if they are aware of the dark and troubling mythologies associated with the metal and the Kobold demons.
The word cobalt comes from the German word kobold, meaning goblin. These folklore figures live in the rocks deep underground and serve a dual purpose for miners, both warning them—like tommyknockers in the U.K. and the U.S.—and causing dangerous mischief.
But nothing, not even the specter of demons, nor the rising threat of nuclear war, can deter these greedy billionaires and their sidekicks, the leaders of the world’s most powerful nations, our own Donald Trump included, from fighting over dominance of the Arctic.
Trump will no doubt try to take back the Panama Canal, but all this other talk of taking over Canada, Europe and Britain is a smokescreen, so it won’t look so bad when the United States takes over the real prize, Greenland.
I mean, I’m being optimistic here. I sure hope Trump and his gang won’t get so full of themselves they’ll decide to invade Canada, Mexico, Britain and Europe.
With this broader view, it’s a good idea to look back and remember what Trump said during his campaign for president when he promised to usher in “America’s New Golden Age”. Get out and vote “like we’ve never seen before,” he urged.
The people listened and they did vote, and Trump was elected as president. It was quite a sight to see Kamala Harris certifying the election.
In his victory speech, Trump again promised the Golden Age of America:
Trump promised the American people that “every problem facing America could be solved.”
And he won on that promise. We are now finding out what it really means.
Very well written, as usual. I am all for the taking of Greenland in any way but with military force. I don't think Trump intends military force where Greenland is concerned, but I do believe he will use his usual powerful rhetoric and perhaps other devices to grease the wheels, so to speak. That's an important stronghold for us in opposition to China, whose dominance over the world would certainly be worse than that of America's.
As for Canada, Mexico, Panama Canal, I think that is mostly rhetoric used in order to make a deal, we'll see. It has already worked in getting Justin Trudeau to step aside and once Pierre gets in control, Canada actually has a chance again. If Trump actually pursues some of these other ideas more forcefully, I will be the first to say that's not what I voted for. I'm not on the record on Substack but I'm on the record in my personal life among my family and friends as having a very big issue with Elon Musk being made essentially part of the government. Just like you, I was concerned about this a long time ago. I was glad at least to see that he was not given an actual cabinet position but all the same, it seems an odd choice if for no other reason than the fact that the optics are not in Trump's favor.
I can see why the liberal media is pushing this idea that Elon is really in charge because honestly, what other conclusion would you draw? It's a little strange that Trump is suddenly unconcerned about people around him speaking about his agenda on his behalf or just generally hogging the spotlight. He is typically more conservative about who he allows into his orbit and how brightly they shine—I'm wondering if Elon Musk is becoming a problem that's tricky for him to solve, seeing that you don't want somebody like Elon as an enemy, but he probably shouldn't have made him such a good friend. Perhaps difficult to ignore considering how much Elon did to get him elected, so it's complex, no doubt.
This all feels a bit like bait and switch, and so one of two things is happening: it's a bait and switch and Trump was thinking about this stuff all along but just didn't talk about it during the campaign, or Elon Musk really is the problem that some of us suspect he might be. My vote is the latter, sadly. I say sadly because it would require me to accept that Trump has given up his usual position as truly the guy with the upper hand.
I hope it is mostly rhetoric, especially with respect to Canada and Mexico (no offense to either nation but I wouldn't want them as states, very much for the reasons you mentioned) nor do they have any interest in that. It's not as though these people have some tough economic times and suddenly lose their own nationalistic pride. We certainly haven't and wouldn't. And if all of this is rhetorical in order to strike deals that are more profitable for us and more stabilizing for the world, I'm all for it. And even though I lean as I described above, I also tend to think rhetoric is mostly what this is, even if influenced by people like Elon Musk.
That said, nothing would make me happier than to see Musk's orbit slowly degraded until he just falls back to Texas and lets the country get on with its business.
I keep wondering who Trump is pandering to when he discusses Greenland and the Panama Canal. The average American could not even locate them on a map much less care whatsoever.