The Apostle of Greenland

 

Wikipedia:

Hans Poulsen Egede (31 January 1686 – 5 November 1758) was a Danish-Norwegian Lutheran missionary priest who launched mission efforts to Greenland, which led him to be styled the Apostle of Greenland. He established a successful mission among the Inuit and is credited with revitalizing Danish-Norwegian interest in the island after contact had been broken for about 300 years. He founded Greenland's capital Godthåb, now known as Nuuk.

. . . Haabet ("The Hope") and two smaller ships departed Bergen on 2 May 1721 bearing Egede, his wife and four children, and forty other colonists. On 3 July they reached Nuup Kangerlua and established Hope Colony (Haabets Colonie) with the erection of a portable house on Kangeq Island, which Egede christened the Island of Hope (Haabets Ø). Searching for months for descendants of the old Norse colonists, he found only the local Kalaallit people and began studying their language.

A common myth states that, as the Inuit had no bread nor any idea of it, Egede adapted the Lord's Prayer as "Give us this day our daily seal". Egede at first tried the word "mamaq" but it does not mean "food", as Hans Egede thought, but "how delicious!" This first attempt stems from 1724, when he had only been in the country for three years and he has probably often heard someone say "mamaq!" It was not long before he came up with the word "neqissat", "food". When Egede's son Poul published the four Gospels in print in 1744, he used the word "timiusaq". This word was already written down by Hans in 1725 and is used by Greenlanders as an explanation of how bread looks. The old dictionaries suggest that at that time one could use the word “timia” in the sense of “bone marrow” or, as Samuel Kleinschmidt wrote in his dictionary in 1871, “the inner, porous part of the leg or Horn". “Timiusaq” therefore originally means “it which resembles bone marrow ”. Today, this word is used in it ecclesiastical languages in the sense of "wafer" and in North Greenland in the sense of "ship's biscuit".

Egede holds the legacy of a national "saint" of Greenland. The town of Egedesminde (lit. "Memory of Egede") commemorates him. It was established by Hans's second son, Niels, in 1759 on the Eqalussuit peninsula. It was moved to the island of Aasiaat in 1763, which had been the site of a pre-Viking Inuit settlement. His grandson and namesake Hans Egede Saabye also became a missionary to Greenland and published a celebrated diary of his time there.

The Royal Danish Geographical Society established the Egede Medal in his honour in 1916. The medal is in silver and awarded 'preferably for geographical studies and researches in the Arctic countries'.

An excerpt from, "Takeaways from AP's report on why so many Greenlanders are Lutheran" The Press Democrat: 

About 90% of the 57,000 Greenlanders identify as Inuit and the vast majority of them belong to the Lutheran Church today, more than 300 years after a Danish missionary brought that branch of Christianity to the world’s largest island.

For many, their devotion to ritual and tradition is as much a part of what it means to be a Greenlander as is their fierce deference to the homeland. The one so many want U.S. President Donald Trump to understand is not for sale despite his threats to seize it.

Greenland is huge — about three times the size of Texas; most of it covered in ice. Still, its 17 parishes are located across many settlements in the icy land and people endure the frigid Arctic climate to fill up church pews on Sundays.

Some even tune in to radio-transmitted services on their phones on a break from fishing and hunting for seals, whales and polar bears, as their ancestors have done for generations.

That rugged yet vulnerable lifestyle helps fuel people’s devotion, said Bishop Paneeraq Siegstad Munk, leader of Greenland’s Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Claudius Clavus

He who names it claims it. That's a law of history.  Greenland belongs to the Danes. If military conquest is on the table then that opens Pandora's box.

Wikipedia:

Claudius Clavus (Suartho) also known as Nicholas Niger, (Danish: Claudius Claussøn Swart), (born 14 September 1388), was a Danish geographer sometimes considered to be the first Nordic cartographer.

. . .In 1412–13 at the age of 25 he started to travel around Europe and appeared eleven years later (1423–24) in Rome. It is believed he travelled as far north as the 70°10' N. lat. In Rome he became friends with the cardinal Giordano Orsini and the pope's secretary Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini, who were among those working to update the old Roman cartography. Claudius contributed to a more realistic description of Nordic countries, in particular Iceland and Greenland, and was probably the first cartographer to put Greenland on a map. He is also known for having named Greenlandic places by using lyrics from old folk songs.

An excerpt from, "Claudius Clavus and the Early Geography of the North" By Edward Heawood, The Geographical Journal, December 2010:

It must not be thought that because Clavus could thus trifle on occasion, his work was anything but a remarkable contribution to the knowledge of the far north in his time. It is, in fact, one of the most notable geographical productions of the age before Columbus, and the authors have done good service in setting clearly forth his claims to distinction on this score. In the latter part of the work they enter fully into the sources of his information, and show that while building to a slight extent on Ptolemy, he drew mainly upon his personal knowledge of northern countries, as well as on the best northern sources then available. The extent of his first-hand knowledge is a question of much interest, especially as regards his claim to have himself visited Greenland. After full consideration the authors conclude that the claim can be made good.

An excerpt from, "How The Northern Countries Were Perceived From Ptolemy To Clavus Part 2" By ourseafarersblog, March 11, 2016:

The Dane Claudius Clavus (born 1388) drew up a map of the north in 1427. The original was lost until 1886, when it was found in company with a Ptolemaic manuscript. It is now kept in the Nancy City Library in France. Clavus’ view of the north was better than those of his predecessors in many respects. Scandinavia was no longer depicted as a group of islands but as a peninsula, and Greenland and Iceland are included. But there were also some mistakes. Clavus connected Greenland to northern Russia and, in so doing, closed off the Northeast Passage. The extension of Asia far into the northwest perhaps has its origins in the Vikings’ misunderstanding of the edge of the pack ice or in their observations of Novaya Zemlya, possibly even of Spitsbergen. Norse men had in fact been sailing these waters 300 years before Clavus’ time. All in all, however, Clavus’ map was a valuable addition to our geographical knowledge of the north.

The Verdict of Battle – James Whitman

 

"The Verdict of Battle: The Law of Victory and the Making of Modern War" By James Whitman (Harvard University Press, 2012).

President Trump's transactional approach to resolving conflicts, telling Ukraine they can trade their nuclear power plants for peace with Russia, should not be dismissed as crazy talk. It is more humane, honest, and practical than leading Ukraine down the path of total devastation which was the policy of the previous administration.

Video Title: The Verdict of Battle – James Whitman. Source: Harvard University Press. Date Published: August 14, 2012. Description:

Slaughter in battle was once seen as a legitimate way to settle disputes. When pitched battles ceased to exist, the law of victory gave way to the rule of unbridled force. In The Verdict of Battle: The Law of Victory and the Making of Modern War, James Whitman explains why ritualized violence was more effective in ending carnage, and why humanitarian laws that view war as evil have led to longer, more barbaric conflicts.  

Some Thoughts On Recent Developments In The Middle East

I. The Syria File

Syria under its new al-Qaeda government will become a Sunni Arab version of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a very religious state whose security apparatus is composed of terrorists and ideologues. 

Getting rid of the Alawites in Syria's coastal mountains is part of their strategy to consolidate power and create a unified, homogeneous, Sunni Arab theocratic state. 

If Washington and Jerusalem want to dump Palestinian refugees in this hellhole they're asking for long-term disaster. 

What's the point of defeating Hamas in Gaza if you just give their kin a larger state, money, and help double their population overnight? It doesn't make sense strategically or militarily. It's very short-term thinking.

That's the Israeli angle. 

But there's more to the story. 

If I read correctly, Washington strong-armed the Kurds and the SDF into legitimatizing the terrorist government in Damascus by making them sign a deal with the head terrorist there. 

It's a bad deal and not worth the paper it was written on. Negotiating with Jihadists never works, regardless of their public attire. They want domination, not cooperation, no matter the country they occupy. 

I don't see this awkward Kurdish-Al-Qaeda partnership under American guidance lasting very long. And the deal was struck while the Alawites were being butchered in the streets so it was just bad business all around. Making deals with killers and terrorists who haven't even been elected and don't have any popular mandate is not a wise move.

II. The Red Sea Troubles

President Trump’s decision to bomb the Houthis in Yemen yesterday confirmed my original suspicions that he is Israel's first president. 

Giving Israel billions of dollars since his inauguration is one thing, but starting a war primarily in defense of Israel crosses the line. Trump can no longer claim he's acting in the best interests of his country. He is either another blackmailed slave in high office, or he genuinely cares more for Israel's security than America's, because on this front their interests do not align. 

There's a path to peace, to talk the Houthis down, and dissuade them from any interference in international shipping. But Trump isn't interested. He is taking his cues from the madman Netanyahu instead of sitting down and talking with the other side.

III. The Looming American-Israeli-Iranian War

The Houthi-American exchange of fire could very rapidly turn into a broader war, engulfing the whole region. Such a war won't be limited to the Red Sea or the Middle East. It would cripple the world economy unless it's a quick war.

Any such war is tragic and counterproductive, much like the Ukraine-Russia war. 

Iran, America, and Israel should be strategic allies in this region, as should Russia and Ukraine since they share a common history, language, and border.

Historically the enemies of Iran in the modern era have been Britain, Russia, and Turkey. It was American political intervention at the end of WWII that ended the illegal British-Russian occupation of Iran at that time. 

Russia's present day alliance with Iran is a historic anomaly and it's purely a matter of politics, not based in shared geopolitical interests or a long-term vision for the region. I highly doubt Russia and Iran will remain allies in the future. I anticipate a falling out. 

So why wage war when it's against one's national interests? Why commit strategic suicide? 

Both Washington and Tehran are behaving irrationally from a strategic point of view because they are ruled by elites who do not have their countries' best interests in mind. Both nations are led by very nasty people. 

The satanic pedophiles and child rapists who rule in Washington are wholly owned by Israel. To even speak of American sovereignty at this point in history is laughable. Israel is the true soverign in Washington. It is at war with Islam, not just Hamas, Iran, the Houthis, or this or that little group. And it needs America and the West to fight this war because alone it would get crushed.

The funny thing is there's no Islam to speak of. The Ummah doesn't exist. Muslim solidarity is a myth. After the end of the Ottoman Caliphate in WWI there hasn't been a worthy successor. 

Israel's existence could have been recognized and legitimatized had it sought peace with the Palestinians after WWII instead of advancing on the path of total conquest. The Ayatollahs in Iran would not have had a leg to stand on in the region all these years had Israel been led by wiser rulers.

But, with that said, they're still wiser than the idiots in charge of America and Iran.

In the war between Israel and Islam, America and Iran would be the main losers.

Tehran would be happy to see Iran burn to the ground if it meant the flag of Islam flying high in Jerusalem. Whether they have the military capabilities to storm Jerusalem is another matter. With Assad gone and Hezbollah decapitated, it's in no position to start any trouble. 

The most essential factor they're lacking, which is a prerequisite for the waging of any major war, is popular legitimacy. Mobilizing a population to fight an unpopular war could be achieved for a year or two, like in Ukraine, but it's not sustainable. 

Sure, people can be rounded up like sheep, and driven to war against their will, but how effective can such an army be? As we're seeing in Ukraine, not effective at all.

Terrorist groups, mercenaries, rogue regimes, nuclear pariahs, and puppet governments can't wage war, they can only inflict terror. Only true sovereign powers, with widespread popular support, strong military capabilities, and government legitimacy, can wage wars to the end. In the world today that list is fewer than five. America, the EU, Israel, the Gulf states, and Iran are not among them. 

Trump's Ukraine Strategy: A Permanent Ceasefire Or A Ruse To Continue The War?

"French President Emmanuel Macron and chiefs of staff from countries willing to send troops to Ukraine will attempt on Tuesday to figure out the details of a potential peacekeeping force – including how many troops might be needed." - Laurent Geslin, "Macron assembles top generals in fresh push for Western troops in Ukraine" Euractiv, March 11, 2025.

"In April, Emmanuel Macron visited Beijing with every intention of reshaping the existing world order in France’s image. Amid an already controversial summit with Chinese President, Xi Jingping, Macron outlined his vision of Europe as a ‘third superpower’, a ‘strategically autonomous’ bloc independent of both America and China in a world of multipolar competition. Macron’s remarks that, in the face of a looming crisis in Taiwan, ‘the worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction’ were particularly controversial. Indeed, while Macron demurred from a full break with Washington in favour of a Euro-American partnership in pursuit of a shared commitment to a ‘rules based’ world order, his words were taken by the Americans as a veritable declaration of independence by the Elysée.

France’s postwar approach to international politics has long been characterised by an intransigent attitude towards US leadership. Macron’s declaration that France, and Europe, should chart a course between Washington and Beijing could easily be seen as nothing more than a continuation of De Gaulle’s ‘neither Washington nor Moscow’ policy, assiduously followed by his Cold War successors. But Macron’s vision of Europe as a superpower in its own right is bolder than de Gaulle’s strategy of playing East and West against each other. His dream of a world of regional political blocs, implicitly organised around a hegemonic power, in which France would occupy the position of primus inter pares in a new, sovereign, and politically integrated Europe, is far bolder than Gaullist realpolitik. But where the so-called ‘Macron Doctrine’ and its blueprint for a multipolar world break with the Gaullist imaginary, they find another, largely forgotten, antecedent in the writings of the elusive philosopher-statesman Alexandre Kojève." - Angus Brown, "The Stalinist who wrote the playbook for French foreign policy" Engelsberg Ideas, May 31, 2023.

"Paradoxically, it was the dominance of the Western liberal world order that laid the ground for the return of civilizational states. The great economic and technological convergence forged by globalization did not lead toward a singular cosmopolitan order. It engendered instead a cultural divergence as prospering emerging nations, most notably China, once again attained the wherewithal to chart a path forward rooted in their own civilizational foundations. Economic and technological strength fosters, not diminishes, cultural and political self-assertion. 

What exists today is thus an interdependence of plural identities, neither fully convergent nor divergent. One result of the cross-pollination of globalization has been the exacerbation of cleavages within civilizations. We see this not only in the liberal values cultivated by an autonomous Taiwan vis-a-vis mainland China. We see it as well in the battle of the unshrouded women against the ayatollahs in Iran. And we see it in the West itself in the long-simmering culture wars between conservative traditional values of family and religion and an ever-more liberalizing secular modernity that I once described as the Pope vs. Madonna (the pop singer.)

These cleavages notwithstanding, it is the geopolitical clash between the open civilization of the West and China that is the most dangerous and difficult to navigate. Never before in history have two civilizational realms challenged each other at the global level where the extent of their integration is itself the terrain of contestation." - Nathan Gardels, "The Clash Of ‘Civilizational States’" Noema, November 18, 2022.

"War is father of all, and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free." - Heraclitus.

War incubates a lot of things. It brings into being new religions, dynasties, and nations, consolidates regimes, expands empires, regenerates cultures and civilizations, elevates heroes, crowns kings, transfers wealth, and creates new boundaries. It is the most creative force available to societies and to men. 

Who wages it, and to what ends is rarely a matter of popular opinion.

The war in Ukraine, brought about by decades-long policies engineered in Washington and Brussels, has served as the battleground for the forging of a more militaristic European Union, as it faces the wrath of a reborn Christian Russia. 

So while Ukraine is being depopulated, enslaved, and stripped of its resources, the civilizations and empires competing for it have received new life. 

Mainly on the defensive, Russia has been reacting to events instead of being pro-active. The fact that Putin has had to dedicate resources, political capital, and manpower to recover Russian territory on Russian speaking lands is a loss in itself because this should have been a matter of diplomacy and dialogue. 

The U.S., NATO, and Europe were on the front foot from the start of the war, and even before the first shots were fired. Washington, under the sway of the neocons for over a generation now, captured the minds of Ukrainians, and primed them for war since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They set the stage, lit the fuse, and laughed as Ukraine burned, with brother killing brother. 

Russia was initially slow to act against NATO aggression, but when it finally did it took the upper hand on the battlefield. 

Now that it is winning comfortably and seeking to reclaim its territories, the engineers of the war in Washington and London want to postpone the war for 30 days. 

They are playing stupid little games with lives far away. 

Putin was right to express doubts about the Trump administration's ceasefire proposal. 

If President Trump is serious about wanting peace he would propose a plan for a permanent ceasefire, the termination of all funds and military equipment to the thieves in Kiev, and an immediate end to all sanctions on Russia. 

Anything less would be a continuation of the war that Ukraine is losing.