Missing from the U.S. government spending bill is money for Ukraine. Don’t worry, the International Monetary Fund is on it! This is the same group of globalists that warned Ukraine to stop attacking it’s own people and handle its corruption in 2015. I guess they’re over that bit of conscience now. IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva said that Ukraine still needs subsidies to keep the electricity on. Ukrainian President Zelensky was not there to hear this. He is reportedly not coming because President Trump won’t meet with him. So what is the point? On Monday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Europe has to worry about funding the war in Ukraine, a clear signal that the U.S. is stepping back from that bill. This comes at an awkward moment, as Europe is already consumed with its own internal fractures and security anxieties, including the escalating Greenland dispute. This means that Europe may have to pay for its own wars for a while because the U.S. is busy with Greenland, Venezuela, and Israel. Which brings us to the moral of the story. Don’t make friends with the United States and then build your national survival strategy around American follow-through. The U.S. helped bring war to Ukraine, convinced Europe to bankroll it like useful idiots, and is now walking away while everyone else stares down an empty bank account. That’s the deal and Europe bought it. Don’t say we didn’t warn you suckers! The post The U.S. Is Done With Ukraine. Now Europe Has to Pay appeared first on Redacted.

Congress has unveiled yet another last-minute spending bill to avert a government shutdown that would begin in February. The package weighs in at roughly $1.7 trillion, fully funding the federal government through the end of September. It’s a massive omnibus that locks in spending for the rest of the year and kicks every hard budget fight down the road until fall. The bill was put forward by both parties, which means it’s unlikely to spark a long, drawn-out fight. When leadership on both sides signs on, you can safely assume that everyone’s spending wish list made it in. And indeed, this thing is a spending behemoth. It doesn’t just fund the basics of keeping the government open. It layers in new programs, expanded defense initiatives, foreign security commitments, and long-term authorizations that would never survive as standalone bills. By bundling everything together, Congress insulates controversial line items from scrutiny and pushes them through under the pressure of an artificial crisis. Here’s the real kick in the pants: Remember the health-care eligibility fight Republicans made such a big deal about in the last spending showdown? The one they swore was about stopping permanent expansions of pandemic-era programs? It’s gone. Those “temporary” pandemic expansions in health and welfare programs are now effectively baked in as permanent costs for taxpayers. That hard-fought battle last fall? Turns out it was just theater. For fun, right? And here is another kick in the pants: Buried several hundred pages deep is something Congress apparently considers non-negotiable: money for Israel. Flip to page 101 of 1,059 and you’ll find provisions allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for Israeli missile-defense programs, including Iron Dome and other joint U.S.–Israel systems. Once again, Congress has structured things so that funding the U.S. government also requires funding another country’s defense infrastructure. They sold us down the river with this one and both sides keep doing it. The post Shutdown Averted, Accountability Gone: What Congress Buried in the $1.7 Trillion Bill appeared first on Redacted.

UK Special Coverage Former Tory Chairman: The Conservatives Must Tackle Immigration to Survive The future of the Tory party depends on fixing the Boris Wave. UK Special Coverage The United Kingdom’s election of 2024 was perhaps the most cataclysmic of the postwar era—after all, we saw the annihilation and humiliation of a multi-century party. In the aftermath of the election, there were whispers of a recovery, but as time marches on, rather than recovery, it seems that the Conservatives are entering palliative care. As a man of moderate politics, I must say that the death of a mainstream, moderate, center-right party is quite worrying; I certainly am not a Faragist in spirit. I do not believe that Nigel Farage is an honest man. Nor do I believe that he is healthy for the future of British politics. It was in this depressing atmosphere that I decided to write my upcoming book about the 14 years of Conservative government and what led to the situation that the right finds itself in.  One of my first interviewees was Dominic Johnson, Lord Johnson of Lainston, former chairman of the Conservative party, who generously agreed not only to an interview but to answer quite politically awkward questions—thus I must say that, any policy-based disagreements aside, this deserves much recognition as a number of Conservatives I queried weren’t particularly keen on publicly discussing the more sensitive issues such as nationality quotas.  My first question was about why immigration surged so massively under the Boris Johnson government. So insane was this surge that in common culture it has become known as “the Boris Wave.” Lord Johnson’s answer was that he and many others in mainstream politics had held the belief for perhaps 30 years that immigration was good for the economy; that “native Brits go to university” and hence there are more menial jobs that are left over—and that immigration was necessary in order to fill said jobs.  This is a belief that has always been prevalent in British society, regardless of whom you speak to or in what party; Zack Polanski recently expressed similar sentiments regarding immigration and care workers. However, the issue with this argument is that it ignores the millions of economically inactive British citizens. It is not in the national interest to import millions of foreigners and then house them, house their dependents, provide them with medical care, provide their children with education and provide their own parents with elderly and disability care merely so that these people can work as carers or Deliveroo drivers. Johnson did point out in his initial answer that evidence is emerging that mass low-skilled migration is ultimately not financially beneficial for the country.  If it was noted that immigration was too high, why did it take so long for it to be changed? After all, the Boris Wave was not a six-month event or even a 12-month event; it lasted for just under four years. Johnson’s answer to this was that there was a “slow-moving system”; to some extent this is probably true. The prohibition on carers importing dependents, introduced by Rishi Sunak, was only shown to have worked on depressing the amount of care work visas a full year after the election. The Labour government will, in total, spend a year to reform primary legislation around nationality and Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) time length. The problem therefore seems to be prevalent across party lines.  The problem with blaming a “slow-moving system,” though, is that this is exactly how you end up with Faragist types wanting to engage in slash-and-burn maneuvers towards the civil service and bureaucracy, rather than steady reform. Those of us who believe in due process have largely pro-immigration types to blame if it is ever done away with. It is also doubtful whether the “system” alone can be blamed; the surge in immigration had become apparent within a year—therefore it would be more honest to say that Boris and Rishi lacked the willpower to tackle the issue. I also raised the matter of increasing the length of residency required for ILR to 10 years instead of five. ILR is permanent residency—it allows the recipient to remain in the United Kingdom perpetually without a visa. It also grants the recipient all the financial and social benefits that citizenship would grant them, such as the ability to claim social welfare or to run for political office. In relation to ILR reform, Johnson said that he would “definitely support” this as “citizenship had become far too easy to obtain.” As part of his answer, he pointed out that the native citizens of a land are often the inheritors of previous paid dues; for example, Johnson’s own grandfather spent five years in a German prisoner of war camp. There is an interesting moral point to raise here; is the grandson of someone who risked his life for the country more likely to have the nation’s interests at heart than a newly fledged citizen who was living in the slums of Mumbai merely five years ago?  The argument does not necessarily need a causal relationship with race (I happen to have relations who spent their time in the same army as Lord Johnson’s grandfather.) Upon introspection, I do believe that the grandson of a war veteran probably does, on average, have fewer and weaker foreign ties and therefore a greater interest in the success of the nation than a South Asian or Nigerian immigrant. Perhaps citizenship could be tied to some form of compulsory military service.  The question then became, if we were in agreement, why did the Conservatives do nothing about this in their 14 years of government. The Conservatives could have extended the time required for ILR and citizenship. Instead, we had more citizenship grants under the Conservatives than any other government in British history. To this, Johnson said that “his colleagues were not strong enough” and that he was “deeply embarrassed.”  If the Conservatives are to survive their embarrassment at the polls though, something needs to be done retrospectively about the Boris Wave. There are those who predict that the Conservatives are dead, that they’ve had their time in the sun, and that it is now Reform’s day on the political stage. I don’t necessarily believe that this is correct. Reform remains a single-issue party. Farage remains a single-issue man. If immigration as an issue fades into the background, then so will Reform. Those who disagree would be wise to look at how UKIP has performed in elections post-2016. The issue of the Boris Wave must be solved. On that note, I asked, “What can be done retrospectively?”  Several things were discussed, such as retroactively increasing the time length for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years for those who are already on the five-year route. Johnson said “it’s fine” to increase it to 10 for someone who had already done four years and had a year remaining, but that it would be “difficult” in taking away ILR from those who had already been granted it.  A politically feasible solution to this would be to increase the time length that is required to apply for citizenship following the grant of ILR. Currently, the time required is merely one year for the majority of applicants. Those who are married to British citizens may apply instantaneously. Parliament is sovereign, and tomorrow it may decide that the time length you spend on ILR has to be at least five years (as in the United States.) In addition to this, we could decide that citizenship is tied to having native (C2) fluency in English, being married to a British citizen, and having done national service. The conundrum, raised by Johnson, could be fixed by creating an extra set of hoops to jump through at the final stage.  At this point, I also raised the issue of the nationality of our immigrants. I mentioned that in the United States; there was an Immigration and Nationality act, so no more than 7 percent of their visas can go to one ethnicity. In the UK, 20 percent of visas go to Indians alone (they make up the single largest immigrant group). There was strong support for this, with Lord Johnson telling me that “visa quotas have a lot of logic to them” and that otherwise immigration “swamps local communities.”  The fact that there are Conservatives, including a former party chairman, who are willing to have a conversation about this is a major positive signal. It is worth noting that visa quotas are something that can be done retrospectively as well. If tomorrow it is decided that no single nationality can be awarded more than 7 percent of ILR grants, then we have effectively created a visa quota for the previous five years. If the Conservative party is going to survive, then it is in its own interests to make sure that the problem of the Boris Wave vanishes, and there seems to be no easier route for this than ending the domination of our country’s immigration debate by a handful of nationalities.  A key part of immigration, which we also discussed, was the nation’s asylum system. I pointed out that the largest contributor of asylum claimants was Pakistan, a nation that isn’t even a warzone. I proposed that for nations not at war, we could simply have a full prohibition on asylum claims. Johnson agreed and stated there should be a “blanket prohibition” and that the asylum system was being “abused massively.” This sadly was one of the easy goals missed by the Conservative party, which spent a large amount of energy and political capital on difficult issues such as the small boats problem but failed to even look at the fact that the majority of asylum claimants had entered the country on a visa. There could have easily been a “blanket prohibition” on asylum claims from Pakistan, and we could have then refused to issue student visas, visitor visas or business visas until Pakistan took back its asylum claimants; instead, the nation was led down a wild goose chase regarding Rwanda.  Another issue of Rwanda-style corruption plaguing the nation at the moment is the ever-expanding welfare state. I pointed out that 20 percent of all new cars sold in the UK are sold on the motability scheme and 23 percent of working age adults are allegedly disabled. I asked if the definition of disabled is perhaps too broad and if it should be restricted more towards physical ailments rather than low-grade mental health issues. Lord Johnson agreed that this was a major problem that needed to be addressed, terming large amounts of the public being on welfare as “awful for the social fabric.” There was a distinction drawn between those who have severe disabilities and those with ADHD getting subsidized cars; the latter was termed as “ridiculous”. There is an important moral distinction to be made here. It is not wrong to be severely disabled; no one can seriously argue that a person with quadriplegic paralysis is at fault for not having a job. At the same time it is quite different for someone with dyslexia or ADHD to willingly avoid any serious attempt to look for work and go onto the dole for life.  As we were in agreement, the obvious follow up question was why did the Conservatives not tackle the issue during their years in government. In relation to disability fraud, Johnson admitted that the Conservative party “totally failed to reform that” and he also said that “we did not have the guts to tackle” the issue. This latter answer is one that is often given in response to the question “why didn’t you do it?” – I heard it during this interview; but to be honest I’ve heard a variation of this phrase in almost any conversation I’ve had with a Conservative after July 2024. I don’t know whether it’s a question that the Conservatives can ever come up with a more pleasant answer for. Fortunately for them, most people have short memories. Provided that the party survives, the question will be irrelevant within the decade.  The Tory party can be revived, although I do not know whether it will be. They acknowledge that they went wrong, and that severe measures must be taken to get the party out of the hole it is in. Only God knows whether these steps will be taken. The Conservatives should, at the very least, propose dynamic solutions: policies such as nationality caps, lengthening ILR time, and tying citizenship to national service are interesting and bold policy proposals that have yet been adopted by Reform.  At this point the Conservatives really need to be trendsetters. Unfortunately for them, their policies actually need to be implemented, and soon. If they are not implemented today, Reform’s raison d’etre will continue—and if it exists at the time of the election, the Conservatives face extermination. We are in a strange situation in which the survival of the Tory party depends upon the success of a Labour government in tackling the Boris Wave. The post Former Tory Chairman: The Conservatives Must Tackle Immigration to Survive appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs Partitioning Iran Would Backfire Spectacularly Don’t believe the neocons’ latest fantasy. A veiled Iranian woman carrying an Iran flag while attending a gathering out of the former U.S. embassy in Tehran to mark the anniversary of the seizure of the U.S. embassy, also known as the student’s day or national day against global arrogance, November 4, 2022. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images) Following the Islamic Republic’s brutal crackdown on protests this past week, an air of inevitability continues to surround the possibility of American military intervention. But what would such an intervention look like? Voices in U.S. and Israeli media are once again floating the idea of breaking Iran apart along ethnic lines. A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece argues that a “fractured Iran” could frustrate Russia and China, reduce threats to Israel, and benefit Turkey by creating a larger Azerbaijani state—while downplaying the risks of state collapse.  The Jerusalem Post, apparently disillusioned with the dimming chances that Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the deposed Shah of Iran, will bring down “the mullahs,” has reverted to openly advocating for the country’s dismemberment.  This is dangerous nonsense, and America First advocates of realism and restraint in U.S. foreign policy must unambiguously reject it. It is also déjà vu, reminiscent of the political atmosphere that preceded the Iraq debacle—and it promises an even more catastrophic failure in a country four times the size of Iraq. In the wake of the 2003 invasion, some neoconservatives and liberal interventionists—including then-senator Joe Biden—pushed a “soft partition” plan to divide Iraq into three autonomous ethno-sectarian zones: Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni. Sold as a pragmatic way to manage the nation’s diverse make-up, this idea ignored Iraq’s deeply intertwined communities and national identity.  The result of American intervention in the country was not stability but a cascading disaster which exacerbated sectarian divisions, fueled terrorism, empowered genocidal extremists like ISIS, and turned the nation into a proxy battlefield where Iran gained the upper hand. Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives later, the region is still reeling from that reckless adventure. Ethnic fragmentation, or balkanization, is not a new idea. It has long circulated in certain Israeli strategic circles: The 1982 Oded Yinon Plan highlighted Israel’s Arab neighbors’ ethno-confessional diversity as a vulnerability to be exploited. All adjacent Arab states—including Egypt, with which Israel had concluded a peace agreement in 1979—had to be dismembered. The influential neoconservative historian Bernard Lewis applied the same template to Iran. Yet this view fundamentally misunderstands Iran. It is not an artificial, multiethnic construct held together only by an authoritarian power. Proponents fixate on diversity—Azeris (Iran’s largest minority, comprising an estimated 15–23 million), Kurds, Baloch, Arabs—while ignoring the powerful, unifying force of Iranian nationalism, the product of a millennia-old Persianate civilization and 20th century nation-building. Modern Iranians, regardless of ethnicity, share a profound connection to their land and history. While ethnic grievances exist, often exacerbated by government repression—under monarchical and, later, Islamic regimes—the protests that have shaken the country have overwhelmingly demanded universal rights, dignity, and an end to theocracy, not secession. To reduce Iran’s complex national story to a map of ethnic enclaves is an intellectual failure.There is no American interest in Iran’s disintegration at all. U.S. priorities in Iran are to ensure it doesn’t acquire a nuclear bomb or disrupt the global oil supplies and, ideally, to see it tone down and ultimately eschew the “Death to America” rhetoric.  Trump’s strike on Iranian nuclear facilities during the 12-day war last June halted uranium enrichment. Restrainers were right to oppose that strike, preferring a deal that seemed to be achievable until Israel launched a surprise offensive. But Trump, to his credit, refused then to be drawn into a prolonged war with Iran, and it’s a fact that he set back Tehran’s nuclear program. A policy of partition, however, would catastrophically undermine that achievement. The collapse or fragmentation of the state would create a security vacuum, which armed and dangerous men would inevitably fill. Moreover, a besieged rump regime would have every incentive to clandestinely pursue a nuclear deterrent. The know-how remains, despite the bombing, and the motive would be overwhelming. That would draw the U.S. into another endless war. As for the “Death to America” chants, the looming succession in Tehran could open the way for a less ideologically rigid leadership more amenable to finding a modus vivendi with Washington. Even the current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei occasionally displays a pragmatic streak, like when he allowed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal to be negotiated and signed. The interests of the U.S. would be served far better by exercising strategic patience to see what kind of leadership emerges once Khamenei exits the scene. The U.S. can afford to wait: There is no security threat posed by Iran that demands a swift, drastic action.  By contrast, forced partition would accelerate the very threats it’s meant to neutralize. Far from “taking Iran off the geopolitical chessboard”, as the Journal’s op-ed argues, it would set that board on fire. American policymakers should acknowledge a broad regional consensus against Iran’s fragmentation that also includes their allies and partners in the region. They would work to bolster a rump Tehran to prevent total collapse.  Turkey, for whom Kurdish separatism is an existential threat, would be a natural ally of Tehran in crushing any new Kurdish project on its border. Pakistan, battling its own Baloch insurgency, would cooperate closely with Tehran to prevent contagion. This regional counter-alignment means Iran, though weakened, wouldn’t be isolated, since powerful neighbors, including the Gulf Arab monarchies, would be interested in preserving the status quo ante.  A conservative administration that prioritizes the protection of Christians worldwide, as the Trump White House does, must consider the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of such a scheme. We need only look again to the grim precedent in Iraq, where the Christian community was decimated from over 1.5 million before the 2003 invasion to fewer than 200,000 today due to the chaos of war and the rise of ISIS. In Iran, a violent breakup would place ancient indigenous Christian communities—Armenians and Assyrians, who number around 250,000 and have some constitutional protections under the current system—in extreme peril. It would inevitably inflame the Azerbaijani nationalism that the Journal and neoconservative DC think tanks like Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Hudson Institute recklessly cheer.  As we saw in the neighboring Republic of Azerbaijan, such irredentist fervor leads directly to the ethnic cleansing of Armenians and the obliteration of their millennia-old Christian heritage. To advocate for policies that could subject Iran’s Christians to a similar fate is not statecraft; it is a profound moral and strategic error.  The hard-earned Iraq experience demands that we oppose the siren song of partition and chaos in another Middle Eastern country. America’s security interests in Iran are narrow and well-defined. They most certainly do not include a violent redrawing of that faraway nation’s map. The post Partitioning Iran Would Backfire Spectacularly appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs How Greenland Could Destroy Half the World President Donald Trump is freaking out Europe and Canada for no good reason. The annual meeting of elites in Davos this week is shaping up to be super awkward, and for an odd reason: President Donald Trump’s got Greenland on the brain. “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” Trump wrote this weekend to Norway’s prime minister. In normal times, Americans don’t fret much about Greenland—a Danish territory and the least aptly named island on the planet—and American presidents don’t declare they must seize it to save the world. But these are not normal times.  Due to global warming, ice in Greenland and the Arctic broadly is melting fast, and new shipping routes are opening. In our age of “multipolarity,” that means the far north is becoming a theater for great power competition. Look at a globe, not a 2D map: The Russians are closer than you might think. Even in eras past, Washington coveted the island’s geostrategic location, humongous size, and suspected wealth of natural resources. The administrations of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Harry Truman tried to buy it, as did Trump in his first term. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, as now, Copenhagen wasn’t looking to sell. Unlike those other presidents, however, Trump has pressed on. This weekend he threatened to slap 10 percent tariffs on Denmark and seven other European nations that oppose a U.S. takeover of Greenland, and he said the rate would rise to 25 percent until a deal is reached. That’s a shakedown, not a negotiation. And Trump hasn’t ruled out military force. Last week he warned that, if Denmark doesn’t give up Greenland “the easy way,” then the U.S. will take it “the hard way.” The president’s imperial appetite has grown since the successful capture of Venezuela’s then-president Nicolas Maduro three weeks ago. On Tuesday, Trump posted a doctored image on social media that showed him presenting to European leaders a map of an enlarged America that included Venezuela, Greenland, and Canada. Trump’s unorthodox, brash approach to international politics has yielded more benefits than his critics acknowledge, as I laid out in my column last week. But on Greenland (and Canada), he’s making a huge mistake, perhaps the biggest of his political career.  The upsides of acquiring the world’s largest island are smaller than they appear, while potential downsides are catastrophic if Trump seizes it by force or strong-arms Denmark into relinquishing it. Most notably, a divorce between America and Europe looks more and more likely, as European capitals start viewing Washington, its historic ally, as an expansionist enemy. Despite what Trump says, “total control” isn’t required to bolster Greenland’s defenses. Washington already has a security pact with Copenhagen, one of its most pliant allies, that lets it establish an extensive military presence across the island. At present, the U.S. doesn’t take advantage of that lopsided 1951 agreement, maintaining only one military installation on the territory. Moreover, the U.S. needn’t take the lead in fortifying Greenland. Five other NATO countries also hold significant territory lying within the Arctic Circle: Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark itself. Why not work with them, rather than taking yet another security burden onto America’s shoulders? Call the group “the Arctic Six” and nudge its non-U.S. members to boost their commitments. Trump has said that Russia and China pose a threat to Greenland, but experts deny his claim that military vessels from those countries surround the island. The White House should heed the risks of self-fulfilling prophecy: As with Ukraine before Russia invaded it, efforts to militarize Greenland could backfire by prompting Moscow to overreact. Some supporters of Trump’s push for Greenland warn that its indigenous Eskimos might declare independence from Denmark and join up with China. But the Arctic Six can cross that hypothetical bridge—together—if they come to it. And Trump’s current approach is making an anti-Western independence movement in Greenland more likely. If Trump does acquire the island, Washington will be responsible for tens of thousands of frightened, anti-American foreigners in the Arctic. And that might be the least of the downsides. For not just Greenlanders, but also Canadians and Europeans, are freaking out, even as they’ve managed to keep cool in public. They’re accelerating efforts to hedge between China and the U.S. and derisk from the latter—precisely the opposite of what America should want. Analysts judge that NATO is approaching collapse. We’ve even begun to imagine a U.S.–European war. After Trump started escalating threats last week, eight European nations deployed a small number of troops to Greenland. Officially, the troops were on a routine training mission, but that struck both Trump and international media as a pretext. In truth, they served as a tripwire force to demonstrate Europe’s resolve and make Trump think twice about invading. That the Europeans stationed troops on Danish territory to deter U.S. aggression marks a disturbing transformation of world affairs. These were the eight European nations on which Trump, afterwards, imposed punitive tariffs. Fortunately, the escalation spiral seems to have mostly ended there, notwithstanding Trump’s continued rhetorical hostility. Germany withdrew its forces, and European leaders talked about a “misunderstanding.” Still, Denmark on Monday sent more troops to Greenland. Of course, the Europeans don’t want a shooting war with America, but they are warming to the possibility of an economic one. Since the much-ballyhooed critical minerals of Greenland are difficult to extract, the potential economic costs of alienating Europe aren’t worth the candle. And the Europeans really could burn America. “For all its military and economic strength, the U.S. has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits,” a senior researcher at Deutsche Bank told Bloomberg. “In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the Western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part.” It’s also unclear why the Americans would threaten the stability of the Western alliance. While the White House has pushed Europe to shoulder more of the burden of its security, it’s also promoted a civilizational view of Europe as the wellspring of America’s cultural inheritance. Vice President J.D. Vance has been the administration’s most eloquent spokesman for this nuanced perspective. He’s in good company. America’s sharpest paleoconservative nationalists—Sam Francis, Joseph Sobran, and Pat Buchanan—were staunch Western civilizationists. They put America first, but they understood that America was, in essence, a European nation. And after the Cold War, they acknowledged that Russia was too. The White House should learn from them and look for opportunities to unite the Global North. Greenland looks symbolic from this point of view, situated as it is between the three pillars of Greater Europe: Russia, North America, and Europe proper. Leaders from these regions can either watch their shared civilization perish or collectively take on the existential challenges of mass migration, anti-white ideologies, and low fertility rates. In a more enlightened world, the Northmen might meet once a year in Greenland, not Davos, to address Russian–Western tensions and discuss their common European future. Instead, the frozen island could become the iceberg upon which the West founders and sinks. The post How Greenland Could Destroy Half the World appeared first on The American Conservative.

A musical dynasty. The post Loudon Wainwright III’s finest album: “Part of his lonely London period” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Democrats Celebrate Their Earmarks