TOTALLY SATIRE ... IT'S A JOKE!!!
Geography:
Greenland has 57 Million people. Give each one 1 Million Dollars and have them affiliate with us. Denmark isn't providing them jobs. China and Russia are trying to move in.
We need to take Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, snatch Canada, and check the possibilities in Mexico. We can be the 'Capitalist Block'.
Oh, I forgot, we can take Gaza, and Iran ... I want Lebanon for the FOOD!!!
You get a country, you get a country, you get a country ... etc ...
The Peril of the " Block": Why Conservative Principles Reject Imperial Fantasy
The recent social media post advocating for the United States to essentially “collect” nations—from Greenland and Venezuela to Canada and Iran—under a so-called “Capitalist Block” is a troubling departure from the core tenets of conservative thought. While cloaked in the language of free enterprise and strategic competition, this fantasy of neo-imperial acquisition represents everything authentic American conservatism stands against: reckless adventurism, a disregard for national sovereignty, fiscal insanity, and a fundamental betrayal of the principles of ordered liberty and self-determination.
At first glance, the post’s frustration is understandable from a conservative viewpoint. The geopolitical maneuvering of adversaries like China and Russia is a legitimate national security concern. The notion that Denmark isn’t “providing jobs” for Greenlanders, or that hostile regimes in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere destabilize their regions and threaten U.S. interests, touches on real issues. The instinct to assert American strength and promote economic freedom is not, in itself, misguided. However, the proposed solution—a glib, Oprah-esque distribution of nations (“You get a country!”)—is a grotesque caricature of both sound strategy and conservative philosophy.
First Principles: Sovereignty and the Limits of Power
True conservatism is rooted in a sober understanding of human nature and the limits of power, both individual and national. The Founding Fathers, deeply influenced by conservative Enlightenment thinkers, constructed a republic, not an empire. They designed a system of limited government intended to secure the blessings of liberty for its own citizens, not to administer a global collection of territories. The conservative foreign policy tradition, from John Quincy Adams’ warning against going “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” to the Reagan doctrine of supporting those fighting for their own freedom, has emphasized that America’s power is at its most potent and moral when it serves as a beacon, not a conqueror.
The proposal to “take” nations violates this foundational respect for sovereignty. It conflates leadership with domination. To a conservative, the sovereignty of other nations is not a triviality; it is a recognition of the right of all peoples to determine their own political destiny. “Snatching” Canada—our closest ally, trading partner, and a fellow democracy—is not a strategic proposal; it is an act of war against a peaceful neighbor, an idea so antithetical to the conservative value of alliance and treaty that it borders on the absurd. Similarly, the casual acquisition of Gaza or Lebanon “for the FOOD” reduces complex nations with ancient histories and profound internal conflicts to mere commodities, revealing a shocking lack of seriousness and empathy.
Fiscal Conservatism Versus Imperial Overreach
The fiscal implications of this “Capitalist Block” scheme are staggering and fly in the face of every principle of fiscal conservatism. The post’s opening suggestion—to give Greenland’s (fictional) 57 million people one million dollars each—represents a proposed expenditure of $57 trillion, a sum exceeding the entire U.S. national debt. This is not capitalism; it is the worst form of profligate clientelism, a bankrupting bribe masquerading as policy.
Furthermore, true capitalism is not imposed at gunpoint; it emerges organically from cultural values, the rule of law, and respect for property rights. You cannot “give” a country capitalism through annexation. The administrative, military, and financial cost of occupying, securing, and governing unwilling populations from Venezuela to Iran would dwarf any conceivable economic benefit, draining the U.S. treasury, overextending our military, and crippling our economy. Conservatives understand that unsustainable spending is a path to national decline, not strength. An empire is a fiscally draining enterprise, as history has repeatedly shown, and it ultimately undermines the liberty and prosperity of the citizens at home who are forced to pay for it.
Strategic Realism Versus Reckless Expansion
A conservative foreign policy is realist and pragmatic. It focuses on concrete national interests and understands that power must be balanced with prudence. The post correctly identifies adversaries like China and Russia, but its prescribed remedy—wholesale, unilateral land-grabs—would achieve the exact opposite of containment. It would instantly unite the entire world against the United States, transforming current allies into fearful neutrals and hardening the resolve of our enemies. It would make America the rogue state, the aggressor that validates every piece of anti-American propaganda.
A realist conservative strategy focuses on strengthening alliances (like NATO), competing economically and technologically, and using diplomatic and financial leverage to check adversary influence. It means supporting democratic movements within countries like Venezuela and Cuba, not invading them. It means offering Greenland a mutually beneficial economic partnership, not treating its people like lottery winners in a geopolitical game show. It means maintaining such overwhelming conventional and nuclear deterrence that nations like Iran are contained without needing a ground war. Expansionism dissipates strength; focused deterrence and alliance-building concentrate it.
The Moral Hazard of "Easy" Solutions
Finally, the flippant tone of the post exposes a deeper moral hazard: the attraction of easy, drastic solutions to complex problems. Conservatism is inherently skeptical of grand schemes and utopian visions, recognizing that societal change is slow, difficult, and often messy. The problems of international relations—terrorism, economic coercion, ideological subversion—are not solved by drawing new lines on a map. They are managed through persistent, disciplined statecraft.
.png)
The desire for a “Capitalist Block” is, in essence, an impatient rejection of the hard work of diplomacy, economic competition, and cultural persuasion. It is the foreign policy equivalent of demanding a single pill to solve obesity rather than committing to the daily disciplines of diet and exercise. It promises a quick, clean victory that does not and cannot exist.
In conclusion, the vision of a neo-imperial “Capitalist Block” is a profound betrayal of conservative values. It swaps the sober realism of limited government and national sovereignty for the intoxication of limitless power. It trades fiscal responsibility for fantasy economics. It abandons the moral high ground of leading by example for the morally bankrupt path of conquest. True American strength does not lie in how many countries we can “take,” but in how successfully we uphold our own principles at home, how reliably we stand with our allies, and how wisely we deter our adversaries. We do not need an empire; we need to faithfully conserve the exceptional republic we already have.
#ForeignPolicy #Venezuela #Cuba #Greenland #Iran