St. Efan’s statement

Concerning his deplatforming by YouTube yesterday.

This is Stefan Molyneux. As you may have heard, 14 years of my life, thousands of videos, billions of comments, hundreds of millions of views, and nearly a million subscribers have been destroyed, has been erased from |YouTube.

The accusation is the usual one, that I’m fermenting violence and hatred and so on, which is not true at all. I have consistently promulgated the non-aggression principle and called for reason and evidence as the methodology by which we can resolve social disputes and differences. It doesn’t seem to have mattered, of course, the reality is that the book burning is underway. Myself and many other dissidents and anti-communist intellectuals and speakers have also had channels destroyed across a wide variety of platforms within the span of only one hour in what I assume is a highly coordinated effort to silence us. And it is a blow, don’t get me wrong, it is a huge blow, it is a huge challenge, and the goal of course is to remove the middle, to remove those of us who are looking for peaceful solutions, rational solutions, philosophical solutions, to social differences. To take us out so that there is no center to society and everyone can gravitate to the extremes wherein the tinderbox of violence can be lit in a revolutionary conflagration of brutality.

And I’m going to strongly urge you, my friends, to resist that temptation, resist that temptation to go to the extremes, to go to hostility, to go to rage, to go to violence. It is not too late. There is still incredible technology that we can use to further the rational and philosophical discussion of issues within society and I’m begging you please stay in the conversation. It is my dedication and my foundational goal to maintain, and possibly even grow, this philosophical conversation despite the inevitable blowbacks that philosophers always receive from the powers that be, so please help me out.

It’s going to be a pretty harsh winter and a pretty big reorientation. I’m going to beg you, please, my friends, go to freedomain.com. Help me out. I will come back stronger and better and we can avoid the escalation that could burn us all to the ground.

I very much like Stefan. I admire him. He’s a smart man. He’s a good man. He has good intentions and a good heart. But he simply does not understand the times.

The time for conversation is over. While it may take two to tango, it only takes one to war. This is not a time for peaceful, rational or philosophical solutions, it is, rather, a time to know your enemy, to know yourself, and to embrace the inevitable conflicts to come.

So, gentle readers, what is your profession?


How to fight the Woke and win

A reader suspects the author of this article is familiar with SJWAL. It’s possible, but then, the conclusions reached back then are pretty obvious to all and sundry now:

The Woke are everywhere.  They’re in our schools, in government, and at our places of work.  More importantly, the Woke are on the move.  They are coming for you, for me, and for anyone else who does not subscribe to their quasi-religion.  Don’t fool yourself — you are not safe.  The Woke are at war with anyone who opposes them, and it does not matter if you just want to be left alone.  You will have to bend the knee or fight.

Here are a dozen strategies that you can start using right now

1. Adopt the right mindset and take action.  As mentioned, we are in a cultural and political war, whether we want to be or not.  So adopt an appropriate mindset.  Get mentally tough.  Get ready for battle.  Remember that the Woke are not your friends.  They despise you.  Realize that they will lie about you, not play fair, and try to crush you into submission.  Accept that family and friends may turn on you once you show your opposition to the Woke agenda.  And understand that some of your own “leaders” and “allies” will happily betray you to virtue-signal to the Woke.  So watch your back and take action yourself, for it is action that matters, not words.

2. Become anti-fragile.  In war, you must always secure your supply lines.  One of the Woke’s most powerful weapons is economic pressure, so take that away from them as much as possible.  Grow some of your own food, start a side business, or form a self-supporting tribe (like a church group that financially supports itself in case one member gets fired by the Woke).  Being anti-fragile will allow you to stand firm when you need to speak the truth, which brings us to Point 3.

3. Speak the truth.  In our age of Woke emotionalism, truth-telling is the truly revolutionary act.  So speak the truth, and do so boldly.  This does not mean doing so in every situation, but if pressed, you cannot let the Woke steamroll you into silent submission.  Moreover, wear that MAGA hat.  Be proud.  Display your beliefs through symbols.  The fact is that boldness and visible symbolism build morale, and they will likely inspire others to speak up as well.

4. Never apologize, and never quit.  The Woke view an apology as a confession, not as a chance at reconciliation.  As such, never apologize.  You will only be made to grovel further or surrender completely.  At the same time, never quit.  That is what your spineless employer will want you to do to save him the trouble of firing you.  Don’t do it.  Make them fire you, then move to Point 5.

5. Use lawfare.  If you have the means, then use lawfare against the Woke at any and every opportunity (which is one reason why electing President Trump and getting good judges is important).  For instance, if your employer fires you to appease the Woke mob, then make him pay for it.  Don’t go quietly.  Instead, hit him with the hardest legal counterpunch that you can.  It won’t always work, but it will sometimes, and that matters.

6. Arm yourself.  Exercise your God-given rights and arm yourself thoroughly.  After all, a sheep is much easier to cage than a lion.

He’s right. You will have to choose. You will have to fight or surrender. The time for stealth and nightwalking is over. The wicked daywalkers are being revealed and their allies are now actively seeking to root out their counterparts. It’s no longer possible to hide your light under a bushel in the darkening shadows. So, no matter how small your little torch may be, hold it up without fear or hesitation, sear their eyes with it, and when they come for you, thrust it right into their slavering jaws and down their fucking throats.

They are creatures of hate and fear. They hate and fear the God you serve. They already hate you; teach them to fear you as well.


Antifa’s Minneapolis AAR

They’re likely to make more intelligent opposition than the average suburban guy with a rifle is anticipating. This is definitely 4GW in action, being utilized to disrupt the US state. Notice how the “peaceful protesters” are not only being used as a shield, but are actively attempting to protect the violent extremists and conceal their activities:

We call the battles of the second and third days at the Precinct a siege because the police were defeated by attrition. The pattern of the battle was characterized by steady intensification punctuated by qualitative leaps due to the violence of the police and the spread of the conflict into looting and attacks on corporate-owned buildings. The combination of the roles listed above helped to create a situation that was unpoliceable, yet which the police were stubbornly determined to contain. The repression required for every containment effort intensified the revolt and pushed it further out into the surrounding area. By Day Three, all of the corporate infrastructure surrounding the Third Precinct had been destroyed and the police had nothing but a “kingdom of ashes” to show for their efforts. Only their Precinct remained, a lonely target with depleted supplies. The rebels who showed up on Day Three found an enemy teetering on the brink. All it needed was a final push.

Day Two of the uprising began with a rally: attendees were on the streets, while the police were stationed on top of their building with an arsenal of crowd control weaponry. The pattern of struggle began during the rally, when the crowd tried to climb over the fences that protected the Precinct in order to vandalize it. The police fired rubber bullets in response as rally speakers called for calm. After some time passed and more speeches were made, people tried again. When the volley of rubber bullets came, the crowd responded with rocks and water bottles. This set off a dynamic of escalation that accelerated quickly once the rally ended. Some called for non-violence and sought to interfere with those who were throwing things, but most people didn’t bother arguing with them. They were largely ignored or else the reply was always the same: “That non-violence shit don’t work!” In fact, neither side of this argument was exactly correct: as the course of the battle was to demonstrate, both sides needed each other to accomplish the historic feat of reducing the Third Precinct to ashes.

It’s important to note that the dynamic we saw on Day Two did not involve using non-violence and waiting for repression to escalate the situation. Instead, a number of individuals stuck their necks out very far to invite police violence and escalation. Once the crowd and the police were locked into an escalating pattern of conflict, the objective of the police was to expand their territorial control radiating outward from the Precinct. When the police decided to advance, they began by throwing concussion grenades at the crowd as a whole and firing rubber bullets at those throwing projectiles, setting up barricades, and firing tear gas.

The intelligence of the crowd proved itself as participants quickly learned five lessons in the course of this struggle.

First, it is important to remain calm in the face of concussion grenades, as they are not physically harmful if you are more than five feet away from them. This lesson extends to a more general insight about crisis governance: don’t panic, as the police will always use panic against us. One must react quickly while staying as calm as possible.

Second, the practice of flushing tear-gassed eyes spread rapidly from street medics throughout the rest of the crowd. Employing stores of looted bottled water, many people in the crowd were able to learn and quickly execute eye-flushing. People throwing rocks one minute could be seen treating the eyes of others in the next. This basic medic knowledge helped to build the crowd’s confidence, allowing them to resist the temptation to panic and stampede, so that they could return to the space of engagement.

Third, perhaps the crowd’s most important tactical discovery was that when one is forced to retreat from tear gas, one must refill the space one has abandoned as quickly as possible. Each time the crowd at the Third Precinct returned, it came back angrier and more determined either to stop the police advance or to make them pay as dearly as possible for every step they took.

Fourth, borrowing from the language of Hong Kong, we saw the crowd practice the maxim “Be water.” Not only did the crowd quickly flow back into spaces from which they had to retreat, but when forced outward, the crowd didn’t behave the way that the cops did by fixating on territorial control. When they could, the crowd flowed back into the spaces from which they had been forced to retreat due to tear gas. But when necessary, the crowd flowed away from police advances like a torrential destructive force. Each police advance resulted in more businesses being smashed, looted, and burned. This meant that the police were losers regardless of whether they chose to remain besieged or push back the crowd.

Finally, the fall of the Third Precinct demonstrates the power of ungovernability as a strategic aim and means of crowd activity. The more that a crowd can do, the harder it will be to police. Crowds can maximize their agency by increasing the number of roles that people can play and by maximizing the complementary relationships between them.

Non-violence practitioners can use their legitimacy to temporarily conceal or shield ballistics squads. Ballistics squads can draw police fire away from those practicing non-violence. Looters can help feed and heal the crowd while simultaneously disorienting the police. In turn, those going head to head with the police can generate opportunities for looting. Light mages can provide ballistics crews with temporary opacity by blinding the police and disabling surveillance drones and cameras. Non-violence practitioners can buy time for barricaders, whose works can later alleviate the need for non-violence to secure the front line.

Here we see that an internally diverse and complex crowd is more powerful than a crowd that is homogenous. We use the term composition to name this phenomenon of maximizing complementary practical diversity. It is distinct from organization because the roles are elective, individuals can shift between them as needed or desired, and there are no leaders to assign or coordinate them. Crowds that form and fight through composition are more effective against the police not only because they tend to be more difficult to control, but also because the intelligence that animates them responds to and evolves alongside the really existing situation on the ground, rather than according to preexisting conceptions of what a battle “ought” to look like. Not only are “compositional” crowds more likely to engage the police in battles of attrition, but they are more likely to have the fluidity that is necessary to win.

Of course, the only reason they won is that the local and state authorities were on their side and preventing the police from taking the sort of actions that allowed the National Guard to easily control and disperse them.


The People of Color Revolution

It is becoming obvious to everyone who has witnessed the so-called Color Revolutions performed by the Deep State that the Black Lives Matter / Antifa “protests” are simply the same weapon now aimed at the American people and the U.S. government:

Why has the media failed to show the vast destruction of businesses and private property? Why have they minimized the effects of vandalism, looting and arson? Why have they fanned the flames of social unrest from the very beginning, shrugging off the ruin and devastation while cheerleading the demonstrations as a heroic struggle for racial justice? Is this is the same media that supported every bloody war, every foreign intervention, and every color-revolution for the last 5 decades? Are we really expected to believe that they’ve changed their stripes and become an energized proponent of social justice?

Nonsense. The media’s role in concealing the damage should only convince skeptics that the protests are just one part of a much larger operation. What we’re seeing play out in over 400 cities across the US, has more to do with toppling Trump and sowing racial division than it does with the killing of George Floyd. The scale and coordination alone suggests that elements in the deep state are probably involved. We know from evidence uncovered during the Russiagate probe, that the media works hand-in-glove with the Intel agencies and FBI while–at the same time– serving as a mouthpiece for elites. That hasn’t changed, in fact, it’s gotten even worse. The uniformity of the coverage suggests that that same perception management strategy is being employed here as well. Even at this late date, the determination to remove Trump from office is as strong as ever even though, in the present case, it has been combined with the broader political strategy of inciting fratricidal violence, obliterating urban areas, and spreading anarchy across the country. This isn’t about racial justice or police brutality, it’s about regime change, internal destabilization, and martial law….

The United States has never experienced two weeks of sustained protests in hundreds of its cities at the same time. It’s beyond suspicious, it points to extensive coordination with groups across the country, a comprehensive media strategy (that probably preceded the killing of George Floyd), a sizable presence on social media (to put people on the street), and agents provocateur whose task is to incite violence, loot and create mayhem.

What this means is that martial law is coming to the USA, and probably sooner than you might imagine. Moreover, its institution will be absolutely justified by the level of treason involved. The events of the hot summer to come may turn out to be the ultimate Q proof, and also explain the God-Emperor’s uncharacteristic equanimity and relative taciturnity concerning the ongoing riots; he knew what was coming, he knows it is going to get worse, and he is waiting for the correct moment to strike at those who are behind it.

The average white American is rapidly getting to the point of seeing the actions of the Deep State provocateurs as treason. But he isn’t quite there yet. And I doubt the God-Emperor will launch The Storm until he is, because the actions that he absolutely has to take in order to deal with this attack on America will be very upsetting to the average Fox News viewer.

FDR had to wait for Pearl Harbor and a German declaration of war before he was able to declare war on Germany. The neocons had to wait until 9/11 to get their long-sought war with Iraq. Trump has to wait until the Deep State crosses a similar line before acting, which is precisely why the “protesters” and their allies in state and local government have been seeking to bait him into premature anti-revolutionary action.


Every Marine’s wife

Mattis was our Country’s most overrated General. He talked a lot, but never “brought home the bacon.” He was terrible! Someday I will tell the real story on him and others – both good and bad!
– Donald J. Trump

I suspect the real story will have something to do with the serious violation by Gen. Mattis of the USMC’s erstwhile Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. That famous story of him prowling around alone on Christmas Eve in order to relieve young Marines on duty tends to take on a darker tone once you realize that there may well have been an alternative meaning to the description of a confirmed bachelor being “married to the Corps”.

It was once said of another general, Julius Caesar, that he was “every man’s woman and every woman’s man.” And it occurs to me that another way of describing a man who is “married to the Corps” is “every Marine’s wife.”


The Promethean playbook

The Atlantic is literally spelling it out for those who are too slow to recognize the obvious pattern of a color revolution playing out:

What the United States is witnessing is less like the chaos of 1968, which further divided a nation, and more like the nonviolent movements that earned broad societal support in places such as Serbia, Ukraine, and Tunisia, and swept away the dictatorial likes of Milošević, Yanukovych, and Ben Ali.

And although Trump’s time in office will end with an election and not an ouster, it is only possible to grasp the magnitude of what we’re seeing and to map what comes next by looking to these antecedents from abroad.

As in the case of many such revolutions, two battles are being waged in America. One is a long struggle against a brutal and repressive ideology. The other is a narrower fight over the fate of a particular leader. The president rose to power by inflaming racial tensions. He now finds his own fate enmeshed in the struggle against police brutality and racism.

The most important theorist of nonviolent revolutions is the late political scientist Gene Sharp. A conscientious objector during the Korean War who spent nine months in prison, Sharp became a close student of Mahatma Gandhi’s struggles. His work set out to extract the lessons of the Indian revolt against the British. He wanted to understand the weaknesses of authoritarian regimes—and how nonviolent movements could exploit them. Sharp distilled what he learned into a 93-page handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, a how-to guide for toppling autocracy.

Sharp’s foundational insight is embedded in an aphorism: “Obedience is at the heart of political power.” A dictator doesn’t maintain power on his own; he relies on individuals and institutions to carry out his orders. A successful democratic revolution prods these enablers to stop obeying. It makes them ashamed of their complicity and fearful of the social and economic costs of continued collaboration.

Sharp posited that revolutionaries should focus first on the regime’s softest underbelly: the media, the business elites, and the police. The allegiance of individuals in the outer circle of power is thin and rooted in fear. By standing strong in the face of armed suppression, protesters can supply examples of courage that inspire functionaries to stop carrying out orders, or as Sharp put it, to “withhold cooperation.” Each instance of resistance provides the model for further resistance. As the isolation of the dictators grows—as the inner circles of power join the outer circle in withholding cooperation—the regime crumbles.

This is essentially what transpired in Ukraine in 2014. When the country’s president backed away from plans to join the European Union, a crowd amassed in Kyiv’s central square, the Maidan. The throngs initially had no avowed intention or realistic hope of overthrowing the kleptocratic president, Viktor Yanukovych. But instead of letting the demonstrators shout themselves hoarse in the thick of subfreezing winter, Yanukovych set about violently confronting them. This tactic backfired horribly. A movement with limited aims became a full-blown revolution.

Essentially… there is the key tell that assures us the writer knows he is misleading his readers. The Maidan protesters were not “violently confronted” by the Yanukovych regime, they were murdered by mercenaries in the employ of the people who were pulling their strings, the very same people who are now pulling the strings of BLM and Antifa in the USA’s own would-be color revolution.

That’s why there are now anti-sniper snipers in position around the White House and other protest locations. They are not there to shoot the protesters, they are there to prevent the puppets from being publicly sacrificed by the puppetmasters.


The assault on Olympus

Neon Revolt observes that the USA is now experiencing its own attempted Color Revolution and reaches a genuinely startling conclusion:

We’re now in the midst of a full-blown Soros-backed Color Revolution in America.

What do I mean by that?

Well, for those unfamiliar, Soros has been in the business of disrupting governments and nations for some time now. There have been a number of color revolutions around the world, and many of them have been both directly and indirectly funded by George Soros – which means, they’ve been funded by taxpayer dollars.

How does this work? Well, Soros, through his NGO, the Open Society Foundation, will take funds in, and then donate those funds to other radical leftist/neo-Marxist funds and activist groups.

So the Open Society will take in millions and then say, “Hey, we don’t like the frontrunner in that Moldovan election. What can we do about that?”

And some sniveling intern from the bowels of hell rubs his palms together and responds, “Well, there’s a humanitarian group comprised of local artisans in the area called Masonry United For Justice, and they share our values, so why don’t we donate to them?”

And so they donate millions to Masonry United but it turns out that, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, they were actually brick-chucking Communists this whole time, and the only redistribution they want to do, is redistribute pallets of bricks through the windshields and windows and faces of everyone who disagrees with them.

And then Masonry United may turn around and give part of the funds they received to the Frozen Urine Bag Bros (who hold weekly secret meetings on Wednesdays). and the Frozen Urine Bag Bros will donate to the Molotov Cocktail Crew. And so on, down the line.

That’s a vast, vast oversimplification of course, but the important effects to note are: Soros gets to keep his money machine “clean” because he’s not responsible with what the groups “down the line” do with the donations. In fact, they get to keep publishing high-minded articles, interviews, and pieces of media to maintain their outward image, and at the same time, these groups that would otherwise languish if left to their own devices like the societal detritus they are get sudden funding.

So now Harmony with the dreadlocks in her arm pits and Flynn with the infected earplugs get to have enough money to buy Cheerios and matching sets of Portland chic so they can have enough energy to drive to your town and throw M-80s at the cops while screeching about the evils of the Free Market.

It’s trickle-down economics for the Bolshevik set.

Read the whole thing and don’t worry about the boring bit in the middle, it will be worth it.


Back to the bipolar world

It’s a bit ironic that David Goldman, who was once at the forefront of the planned Leap to China, has now turned in alarm to talking up a nonexistent “American” unity between Americans, Paper Americans, Fake Americans, and Not Americans, now that the US empire has squandered its brief period of global dominance on the invasion and occupation of a few of Israel’s enemies.

There is a line of American commentary on China, argued most clearly and persistently by David Goldman at Asia Times (now apparently with Gordon Chang also on board) telling us that we Americans should consider ourselves to be in a Sputnik Moment: a moment in history where, if we don’t stop the fruitless squabbling and begin engaging in some serious, co-ordinated national effort, the ChiComs will eat our lunch, breezing past us in key technologies like artificial intelligence, big data, microchip fabrication, and quantum computing.

The problem with that prescription is that the original Sputnik Moment, to which America reacted with such spectacular success, occurred in 1957, a whole decade B.S.—”Before Sontag.”

White ethnomasochism was not entirely unknown in 1957, but it was restricted to tiny cliques of urban intellectuals.

We could make a united national response to Sputnik sixty years ago because we were a sufficiently united nation. You need that qualifying word “sufficiently” there because there was what people of the time called “the Negro Problem.”

White Americans didn’t think about black Americans any more than they absolutely had to, though, and the race issue didn’t split whites down the middle as clearly and angrily as in what I call today’s Cold Civil War.

Sputnik-wise, we were a sufficiently united nation—sufficiently to co-operate in a colossal national effort with a minimum of bickering.

The US empire is now about as well-equipped to withstand the Chinese challenge as the Austro-Hungarian military was ready to face the Russian army in 1914. No amount of talking up the value of words and ideology and paper identity is going to substitute for genuine nationalism.


The Syracuse moment approaches

Now the professional wargamers are figuring out that the US military is an overextended, technologically backwards paper tiger:

“In our games, when we fight Russia and China … blue gets its ass handed to it,” RAND senior researcher David Ochmanek said during a panel discussion at the Center for a New American Security think tank last week. “We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” he added.

Ochmanek said the scenarios often end with the “red” – Russia and China – destroying U.S. fighter jets while still on the runway, sinking U.S. warships, and destroying U.S. military bases and other vital military systems.

“In every case I know of, the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense and an expert war game analyst. “But it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

U.S. aircraft carriers are also considered more vulnerable to enemy attacks. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said.

The Chinese would “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time,” Work said. “On our side, whenever we have an exercise, when the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise and say, ‘Let’s restart.’”

There is a widespread assumption that paints America as a leading military power who wins handily in any wartime scenario, Ochmanek pointed out.

However, he noted that this isn’t the case, and people are shocked to learn the truth – that all five warfare domains are contested.

“We do not have air superiority over the ballast space at the outset of these wars. We do not have maritime superiority. Our space assets are under attack with kinetic and non-kinetic means. Our command-and-control is under attack by electromagnetic attacks and cyber,” he continued.

The “brain and the nervous system that connects all of these pieces is suppressed, if not shattered,” Ochmanek said.

He also explained that the forward bases U.S. forces operate from are eliminated in war scenarios, taking away critical points of operation; researchers are unsure of what that means for America’s fate.

U.S. bases in Europe also pose a vulnerability due to their scattered proximity and insufficient defense capabilities.

“If we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein [in Germany]. And that’s it,” Work noted. “We have 58 Brigade Combat Teams, but we don’t have anything to protect our bases. So what difference does it make?”

The researchers stressed that a military defeat is imminent unless the U.S. employs a major change in strategy.

Even these gloomy predictions are optimistic. The truth is that the F-35 does not rule the skies, as the 5th-Gen Russian fighters are proving to be superior in practice to the USAF’s ill-designed superplane. The US empire is failing and will collapse within 13 years, most likely within 10, although the core polity should survive until 2033.

That may still sound shocking now, but it probably won’t even strike most intelligent observers as much of a surprise by the time it happens.


Theory vs practice

It’s not a good sign that every argument in support of the USA’s continued global ascendancy is based on pure theory:

In a recently published book, Why Nations Fail, economists Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson characterize China’s ruling elites as “extractive”—parasitic and corrupt—and predict that Chinese economic growth will soon falter and decline, while America’s “inclusive” governing institutions have taken us from strength to strength. They argue that a country governed as a one-party state, without the free media or checks and balances of our own democratic system, cannot long prosper in the modern world. The glowing tributes this book has received from a vast array of America’s most prominent public intellectuals, including six Nobel laureates in economics, testifies to the widespread popularity of this optimistic message.

First, there is no ruling elite as extractive and parasitic, and few as observably corrupt, as the current US ruling elite.. Second, these theoretical strengths are mostly imaginary and based on the historical American posterity rather than actual US demographics. Consider the reality:

Over the last few years one of the most ambitious Chinese projects has been a plan to create the world’s largest and most advanced network of high-speed rail transport, an effort that absorbed a remarkable $200 billion of government investment. The result was the construction of over 6,000 miles of track, a total probably now greater than that of all the world’s other nations combined.

Meanwhile, America has no high-speed rail whatsoever, despite decades of debate and vast amounts of time and money spent on lobbying, hearings, political campaigns, planning efforts, and environmental-impact reports. China’s high-speed rail system may be far from perfect, but it actually exists, while America’s does not. Annual Chinese ridership now totals over 25 million trips per year.

Of course, the most significant development of the last decade is one that has gone almost entirely unnoticed by everyone, which is of course, the Chinese rejection of one faction of the US ruling elite’s gracious offer to transfer the benefits of their wise and impartial guidance from the USA to China. It would appear the Chinese elite is content with their extant extractive abilities.

It increasingly appears that Ron Unz had it right back in 2012 when he cast his vote with Richard Lynn:

Richard Lynn, a prominent British scholar, has been correct in predicting for a decade or longer that the global dominance of the European-derived peoples is rapidly drawing to its end and within the foreseeable future the torch of human progress and world leadership will inevitably pass into Chinese hands.

I don’t know about you, but I, for one, hope that other dark meat tastes a lot better than it looks.