Are the Anglos prepared to leave east Asia forever and give up Australia and New Zealand to China and respect the Pacific as the border between america and China?
Maybe I'm just getting old and lacking in ambition these days, but why would a civilization like China even want New Zealand and Australia, and just what would that look like in practice?
There's value for an empire to not
overextend itself should it wish to stay an empire.
China has the edge, now it must drive the stake into the bloodsucking anglo zionist elites.
How can white supremacy be maintained if it is China, not anglo america, that has the world's first 6th gen.
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but if you consider these identities and ideologies to be your enemies (e.g. white supremacists v. Zionists), then you really ought to let them fight each other and weaken one another before you spill your own blood and the blood of your own kind in vanquishing them.
Notice how there's no talk of human rights or national soverignty? That's because the only thing the West respects is power and fear.
To be fair, Trump's candor with regard to realpolitik is probably one of his more likable qualities, especially when compared to the average Western politician's aptitude for self-righteousness.
It's practically
refreshing !
However, just because Trump will avoid rhetorical exercises in virtue signaling doesn't mean his lieutenants and supporters will refrain from lecturing others on freedom, democracy, human rights, and so on and so forth.
No, a good something needs to be taken away from them by force to ensure they know their place in the universe, and once known, our influence should be slowly pushed until their identity evaporates like the Xiongnu and Manchu. Their value is as a subservient and reliable market, and an experiment for future global governance in hostile overseas territories.
I would caution against such statements, especially if you reside or transact in any locales where
cancel culture might still be a thing.
In all fairness, I don't see much of a difference between your outlook, and the outlook of 19th century Western imperialists who felt it was their "burden" to "civilize" the rest of the world.
TBH, your position isn't unusual or offensive from where I stand, but conflict inevitably becomes much more likely when every "Indian" believe they're the one who ought to be "Chief."
There's already a significant US military presence in Greenland, and the local population number <60 thousand.
It's going to be a lot easier to convince <60 thousand Greenlanders to join the union than it'd be to sell or insist upon such a proposal to ~40 million Canadians.
