Author unknown... but on the money!
Based on what I've seen... Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein met because they were both laundering millions of dollars through real estate transactions for Russians.
Trump also used his modelling service and club to funnel girls and young women through Jeffrey Epstein's "service" to wealthy and powerful individuals.
Vladimir Putin has the evidence to prove this!
I was reading the usual stuff about Drumpf when the subject of
Greenland came up.... so I asked my friendly personal A.I. SAL-9000...
Sal, anything new over the weekend about the U.S. trying to take over Greenland, and the chances of Canada accepting Greenland as a new territory?
1. U.S. Talk About Taking Over Greenland Has Escalated. President Donald Trump has renewed statements suggesting that the U.S. needs to take over Greenland, claiming it’s critical for national security and the Arctic situation (especially with Russian and Chinese activity in the region).
2. Denmark and Greenland Reject the Idea Strongly. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen has publicly said the U.S. has no right to annex Greenland and that any attempt to do so would undermine NATO since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member.
Greenland’s own Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said talk of annexation is “completely unacceptable” and insisted Greenland will remain sovereign under Danish rule unless Greenlanders decide otherwise.
3. Greenland’s Position. Much of Greenland prefers independence from Denmark, but polls have consistently shown very low support for becoming part of the United States.
There’s no political movement in Greenland advocating joining Canada, and the idea of becoming a Canadian territory hasn’t been raised by Greenlandic leaders or the public in any serious way in current reporting.
4. Canada’s Position. Canada has not signalled any interest in Greenland becoming Canadian territory. In fact, Canadian officials have affirmed support for Greenland’s and Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Canada is focusing on Arctic cooperation and security... but not on territorial claims related to Greenland.
5. International Legal and Practical Reality
International law prohibits the annexation of territory by force, especially between allied countries.
Denmark and Greenland would have to agree willingly for any territorial change, and there’s no indication of that.
Greenland is in the process of increasing autonomy, with discussions over future independence from Denmark.
Summary:
U.S. rhetoric: Renewed talk from Trump about taking over Greenland for “security” reasons.
Denmark & Greenland: Firmly reject this. Denmark warns that any military move would break NATO; Greenland insists it won’t be annexed.
Canada: Not pursuing Greenland as a territory; supports sovereignty and stability in the Arctic.
Reality on the ground: No credible diplomatic or legal movement toward Greenland joining the U.S. or Canada.
If you want, I can also summarize the geopolitical motives behind why the U.S. is talking about Greenland again (strategic location, Arctic shipping routes, resources, etc.).
You said: No, we know why... give me ways to increase interest in Greenland becoming a Canadian territory
SAL-9000 said: Below are realistic, non-coercive ways Canada could increase Greenlandic interest in a voluntary Canadian territorial association, if Greenlanders themselves ever wished to explore it.
This is framed as soft-power attraction, not annexation or pressure.
1. Frame Canada as a Stepping-Stone to Independence, Not a Replacement Ruler. Greenland’s dominant long-term aspiration is independence from Denmark, not absorption by another great power.
Canada could position itself as: A transitional federal partner. Offering autonomy + protection, not control (A model similar to Canada’s relationship with its northern territories!)
Key message: “Join Canada temporarily or conditionally as a territory, with an explicit, protected path to full independence later.”
1. That is far more appealing than: Remaining under Denmark indefinitely or becoming a U.S. possession with limited self-determination!
2. Emphasize Cultural & Arctic Parallels, Not Nationalism: Canada has credibility here that the U.S. does not.
Highlight shared realities:
- Arctic governance.
- Small, remote communities.
- Indigenous language
preservation.
- Subsistence traditions.
- Climate-frontline adaptation.
Canada should stress
parallels with Nunavut, including:
- Inuktitut language
protection.
- Local control over land
use.
- Co-management of wildlife.
- Cultural autonomy embedded
in law.
This frames Canada as: “A
country that already lives the Arctic reality... rather than exploiting it.”
3. Offer Concrete Economic Guarantees, Not Abstract Promises! Greenland’s fears include:
- Resource extraction
without local benefit.
- Becoming a strategic pawn.
- Cultural dilution.
Canada could counter with specific, written guarantees, such as:
- Greenland-controlled
resource royalties.
- Mandatory local employment
quotas.
- Canadian investment in
ports, housing, broadband, and healthcare.
- Arctic research hubs
headquartered in Greenland, not Ottawa
This contrasts sharply with U.S. perceptions of:
- Military-first priorities.
- Corporate extraction.
- Washington-centric
decision-making.
4. Position Canada as a Shield Against U.S. Pressure, Not a Proxy! This is delicate... but powerful. Canada could quietly signal:
- Greenland within Canada
would be inside NATO already
- No U.S. annexation
pressure
- No “buyout” politics
- No sudden militarization
beyond existing defence agreements!
In other words: “Canada is boring... and that’s the point.” For a small population, boring governance is often preferable to the attention of great powers!
5. Promote a Greenland-Led Referendum + Constitutional Convention... Interest increases when people feel ownership of the process!
Canada should never “propose annexation.” Instead, it could support:
- Greenland-initiated public discussions.
- Academic exchanges on
governance options.
- Joint commissions
exploring all futures: independence, association, confederation.
This mirrors how Canada
handles internal constitutional change... slow, legal, consent-based!
6. Use Climate & Science Leadership as the Primary Hook! Greenland is ground zero for:
- Ice melt
- Sea-level rise
- Climate research
- Arctic data sovereignty
Canada could propose:
- A Greenland-based Arctic
Climate Authority
- Joint stewardship of polar
science.
- Long-term funding without
political strings.
This frames Canada as a partner in survival, not a bidder in a real-estate deal!!!!!
7. What Not to Do! (This Matters.)
Any of the following would kill interest instantly:
- Public Canadian political enthusiasm for “acquiring” Greenland!
- Military framing!
- Economic leverage threats!
- U.S.-style “security
necessity” language!
Media speculation driven by
outsiders!
Greenlandic interest only grows if: The idea feels like Greenland’s idea.
Bottom Line: Could Canada increase Greenlandic interest?
Yes... but only by offering:
- Autonomy before authority!
- Partnership before power!
- Exit options before
permanence!
- Cultural respect before
economics!
Canada’s strength here is not ambition... It’s restraint!
Compare Canada vs. the U.S. vs. Independence from a Greenlandic perspective, point by point.
Below is a Greenland-centric comparison, written from the perspective of Greenlanders deciding their own future, not outside powers arguing over them.
***
Greenland’s Strategic Futures... A Ground-Level Comparison:
Option A: Full Independence. (Greenland stands alone as a sovereign Arctic state)
Advantages:
- Complete political self-determination.
- Full control over
resources, foreign policy, and identity.
- Strong symbolic and
cultural fulfillment of long-held aspirations.
- Ability to choose
partnerships case-by-case.
Risks / Challenges:
Extremely small population managing:
- Defence.
- Currency stability.
- International diplomacy.
- Infrastructure costs.
- High vulnerability to
pressure from larger powers. (U.S., China, EU)
- Economic dependence on
resource extraction and tourism.
- Climate costs borne alone.
Greenlandic Reality Check: Independence is emotionally compelling, but structurally fragile unless paired with a powerful, non-dominating partner!
Option B: Association with Canada: (Greenland becomes a Canadian territory or associated entity by consent)
Advantages:
- Retains strong local autonomy. (territorial governance model)
- Embedded Indigenous rights
framework. (proven, legal, constitutional)
- Stable currency,
healthcare system, and social safety net.
- Shared Arctic governance
experience
- NATO membership without
U.S. political dominance.
- Lower geopolitical profile
→ less great-power pressure.
Risks / Tradeoffs:
- Some loss of symbolic sovereignty
- Cultural dilution concerns
if poorly handled
- Ottawa distance (though
less than Copenhagen in practice.)
* Requires constitutional innovation! (but Canada has precedent!)
Greenlandic Reality Check:
- Canada offers boring
stability, cultural respect, and legal predictability.
- For a small Arctic
population, boring can be a feature—not a flaw.
Option C: Association with the United States.
(Greenland joins or is
absorbed by the U.S.)
- Massive economic capacity.
- Infrastructure investment
potential.
- Military protection
guaranteed.
- Immediate global influence.
Risks / Red Flags:
- Militarization prioritized over civilian life.
- Federal governance is weak
on Indigenous autonomy.
- Cultural marginalization is
likely.
- Strategic value outweighs
local voice.
- Domestic U.S. political
volatility spills over.
- Greenland becomes a
military asset first, society second!
Greenlandic Reality Check:
This option offers power, but not patience. Greenland will become a strategic outpost rather than a lived homeland!
Option D: Status Quo with Denmark. (Expanded autonomy, gradual reform)
Advantages:
- Known system, low disruption.
- Financial support
continues
- Strong welfare model
- International legitimacy
intact
Risks / Limitations:
- Persistent colonial undertone.
- Cultural distance.
- Limited strategic leverage.
- Slower path to true
self-determination.
- Growing generational
dissatisfaction.
Greenlandic Reality Check:
Denmark is safe... but increasingly feels like the past, not the future!
Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)
Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)
|
Criterion |
Independ |
Canada |
United States |
Denmark |
|
Cultural Autonomy |
★★★★★ |
★★★★☆ |
★★☆☆☆ |
★★★☆☆ |
|
Economic Stability |
★★☆☆☆ |
★★★★☆ |
★★★★★ |
★★★★☆ |
|
Political Voice |
★★★★★ |
★★★★☆ |
★★☆☆☆ |
★★★☆☆ |
|
Defence Without Domination |
★☆☆☆☆ |
★★★★☆ |
★☆☆☆☆ |
★★★☆☆ |
|
Long-Term Resilience |
★★☆☆☆ |
★★★★☆ |
★★★☆☆ |
★★★☆☆ |
From a Greenlandic
perspective:
- Independence = dignity with risk.
- United States = power with
loss of agency.
- Denmark = security with
stagnation.
- Canada = autonomy with
stability.
Canada’s unique appeal is that it offers:
- Protection without possession
- Structure without
spectacle
- Partnership without
urgency
***
Trump invaded Venezuela so that the U.S. won't need Canadian oil...
Well!
By the time they get all that old infrastructure back into shape....
Canada will have built more pipelines to tidewater...
So we won't need the States anymore anyway! (ha ha)
DRUMPF WAS RIGHT... HE DOESN'T NEED OUR OIL... HE'S GETTING IT FROM VENEZUELA!
.jpg)
Sal, is there any talk on social media about the US not needing Canadian oil anymore... because they now have Venezuelan oil?
Yes — there is chatter on social media and in public commentary about the idea that the United States might not need Canadian oil anymore if Venezuelan oil production were revived, but it’s very important to separate online speculation from economic and industry reality.
Here’s a clear snapshot of the situation as it’s being discussed online and in the news today:
Popular posts on Reddit, X (Twitter), and LinkedIn show people talking about:
Canadian oil’s importance to the U.S. — many users point out that Canada supplies by far the largest share of foreign crude to the U.S. — much more than Venezuela currently does. X (formerly Twitter)
Speculation that Venezuelan oil could replace Canadian exports if Venezuela ramped up production. Some posts assume that once the U.S. controls Venezuelan oil infrastructure, Canadian barrels would no longer be needed. Reddit
Debate about technical and practical limitations — for example, discussions about infrastructure, the type of crude, and how long it would take to restore Venezuelan output before any real displacement could happen. Reddit
Many of these posts are opinions, memes, or hot takes rather than evidence-based analysis.
Here’s what reputable reporting and energy market data show:
🔹 Venezuela’s oil production is still far below what it historically was — even though it holds the world’s largest proven reserves, production is only a fraction of that because of sanctions, mismanagement, and infrastructure decay. Reuters
🔹 U.S. imports of Venezuelan oil are relatively small compared to Canadian imports. In 2024, U.S. crude from Venezuela averaged around ~222,000 barrels/day versus Canada’s multiple millions of barrels per day. X (formerly Twitter)
🔹 Official U.S. policy statements have included rhetoric about not needing foreign oil, but analysts note that such comments are often negotiating tactics or political messaging rather than statements of economic fact. S&P Global
