The word “stereotype” began life in the late 18th century as French printer’s jargon: stéréotype, from Greek stereos (“solid”) plus type. It named a solid metal plate cast from a mold of movable type so the same page could be printed over and over without resetting every letter. By the mid-1800s the term had stretched to any image or phrase repeated without change. In 1922 Walter Lippmann borrowed it for the “pictures in our heads” about social groups, and the modern meaning was born.

Fast-forward a century and the academic orthodoxy insists those pictures are almost always toxic, inaccurate, and powered by pure bias. Rutgers psychologist Lee Jussim and a small army of inconvenient data keep refusing to play along. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in social psychology. Correlations routinely sit around 0.5; only about 5 percent of findings in the entire field clear that bar. Gender and age stereotypes perform especially well. National-character stereotypes largely miss. Political stereotypes track reality directionally, though people reliably inflate how extreme the other side actually is.

This is not fringe speculation. Multiple labs, objective criteria, and repeated replications deliver the same pattern. Yet the preferred sermon remains that noticing group averages is itself a moral failing. Reality keeps scoring higher than the sermon. Accuracy does not license treating every individual as a walking average, nor does it bless crude insults. It does mean the reflexive claim that stereotypes are “inaccurate and driven by bias!!!!” is itself the oversimplified, poorly calibrated belief. People notice regularities. Sometimes the regularities are real. Pretending otherwise does not erase the distributions; it only makes the conversation dumber and the field less honest.

Subscribe now

Richard Nixon, that sweaty, paranoid prophet in a suit, nailed it decades before Instagram turned leisure into a competitive sport. The unhappiest souls, he said, weren’t the broke ones grinding through the day. They were the ones parked in the watering holes—Palm Beach, the South of France, Newport—where the daily agenda reads like a prescription for spiritual entropy: golf, bridge, parties, drinking, talking, zero thinking. Retired. Purposeless. A slow-motion funeral with better lighting and worse conversation.

He understood something our quiet-quitting, FIRE-dreaming, scroll-addicted era still pretends not to: endless leisure without struggle isn’t freedom. It’s mild, expensive suicide. Purpose isn’t optional décor. It’s the only thing that keeps the lights on in the human animal. The battle itself—won or lost—is the point. Remove the fight and what’s left is a well-dressed corpse wondering why the champagne tastes like regret.

I’ve watched the pattern up close. Millionaires and billionaires draped in the full theatrical kit: yachts the size of small nations, mansions that could house a mid-sized cult, and the interchangeable young accessories who look great in photos and vanish the moment an actual thought is required. It’s not envy speaking. It’s observation. The whole production is high-budget emptiness. They bought the paradise Nixon warned about and discovered the real estate came with a free side of quiet despair.

In 2026 the warning lands harder. We’ve industrialized the escape from struggle while calling it self-care. Nixon’s ghost is laughing somewhere, cigar smoke curling around the punchline: the fight is the only thing that keeps the soul from rotting in place. What’s your battle today—messy, exhausting, unfinished? Cling to it. The alternative is a very pretty prison with excellent Wi-Fi.

Subscribe now

Search “most powerful country 2026” and the algorithms obediently serve up the greatest hits. China sits atop the US News Best Countries power ranking, ahead of the United States, India, Germany, and Japan. Largest nominal GDP. World’s biggest electricity producer. Manufacturing juggernaut. Belt and Road visionary. Carbon-neutral industrial superpower by 2060. Under Xi, the “China model” is supposedly about to overtake the United States within fifteen years while gently enlightening the Global South with loans and high-speed rail. It all sounds magnificent—if you never look at the actual charts.

Read more

Elon Musk has peered into the crystal ball of artificial intelligence and declared traditional retirement planning a quaint relic, destined for the dustbin of history. According to him, in 10 to 20 years, AI and robotics will obliterate labor costs, slash the price of everything, and render squirreling away money for one’s golden years utterly pointless. We’ve crossed the “event horizon,” he suggests, where scarcity evaporates and abundance rains down like so much digital manna. Why bother saving when the machines will provide?

This vision sounds positively utopian—if one ignores the glaring chasms in the logic. Musk’s prophecy assumes a seamless transition to a post-scarcity paradise, where benevolent algorithms tuck humanity into comfort without a hitch. But let’s be brutally honest: betting the future on technology magically dissolving every economic friction is the height of hubris.

History is littered with techno-optimists whose timelines crumbled under reality’s weight. AI may drive efficiencies, yet it also concentrates power in fewer hands, raises thorny questions about ownership of that productivity, and risks massive displacement before any utopia arrives.

Worse, the narrative casually dismisses human purpose. A world of zero labor costs conjures not just leisure, but lists of idle souls dependent on centralized systems for their daily bread—or whatever synthetic equivalent the robots dispense. Who rations the resources? Who decides value when “work” evaporates? Musk’s math overlooks the spirit that has driven innovation through millennia of supposed scarcity: ambition, creativity, and the dignity of contribution. People aren’t mere consumption units waiting for the singularity’s crumbs.

In the end, urging folks to abandon prudent saving for this speculative fever dream is reckless. The future may dazzle with gadgets, but counting on it to erase all hardship is a gamble few can afford. Prepare for disruption, certainly—but don’t torch the safety net on faith alone.

Subscribe now

Public schools have decided that competence is overrated. Behold the new grading scale: an A starts at a generous 84%, a B at 64%, and you can still scrape a D while correctly answering fewer than half the questions. An F requires the kind of sustained failure most people reserve for New Year’s resolutions. Parents once fretted about their kids studying hard enough to earn top marks. Now the bar has been thoughtfully lowered so that showing up and breathing near a worksheet can produce a respectable report card.

This charitable approach to standards has consequences that somehow surprise the very people who engineered it. University of California professors in math and science have documented the fallout: large numbers of students arriving for calculus who still need middle-school remediation. After the shift to test-blind admissions, the equity project delivered classrooms full of young adults who possess high school transcripts glowing with inflated grades yet cannot reliably handle college-level STEM work. Faculty open letters describe teaching resources strained and readiness standards quietly adjusted downward so no one feels left behind. Progress, apparently, means the curriculum follows the students rather than the other way around.

The Academic Senate and Regents are now racing toward a 2027 review of standardized testing, spurred by thousands of professors who noticed that grade inflation does not magically install intellect. Owning a wrench, as the saying goes, does not make one a mechanic. Nor does a transcript full of A’s awarded under the new generous percentages prepare anyone for differential equations. The system has produced students who believe they are high achievers while the actual skills remain optional. One can only admire the consistency: lower the expectations far enough and nearly everyone becomes a success story—until the first college exam arrives and reality declines to participate in the feel-good experiment.

That’s the point of DEI: providing meritocracy points to humans lacking the intellectual foundation because biology is a bitch.

Subscribe now

The European Union, in its infinite bureaucratic wisdom, has blessed itself with twenty-four official languages. Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, and Swedish. Citizens may write to the institutions in any of them and receive a reply in the same tongue. Democracy, they call it. Efficiency experts call it something else entirely.

Now picture the United States, a country literally assembled by waves of those same Europeans, deciding to abandon the one practical inheritance that actually worked. English would be demoted to just another regional dialect. Congress would conduct debates in simultaneous Hungarian and Maltese. Every cereal box would require a fold-out booklet listing ingredients in all twenty-four languages so that no Latvian shopper felt linguistically oppressed by the Corn Flakes. Road signs would stretch for half a mile. Emergency calls would begin with a language-selection menu longer than the average attention span.

The result would be pure administrative theater. Translators would outnumber lawmakers. Packaging costs would rival defense budgets. Simple grocery shopping would become an exercise in multilingual archaeology. Yet the EU treats this linguistic carnival as a moral triumph rather than an expensive joke told at the taxpayer’s expense.

America’s original European settlers, for all their rivalries, eventually settled on one working language because they valued results over symbolism. The modern EU prefers the reverse: maximum linguistic dignity, minimum operational clarity. One continent proves that shared speech accelerates progress. The other proves that infinite official languages mainly accelerate the production of thick, unread reports.

Life, it turns out, is quite simple when people agree on a common tongue instead of demanding twenty-four simultaneous versions of every form, label, and speech. You’re welcome, shmuck.

Subscribe now

The celebrated debt-to-GDP ratio is a charming little statistic that keeps economists and politicians busy while the real arithmetic sits in the corner, ignored. Without interest rates, it is roughly as useful as a speedometer with no engine attached. Glance at the stretch from 1995 to 2008 and the needle barely twitches. Debt hovered in a polite range while growth did some of the heavy lifting and rates drifted downward like a polite guest leaving early. Then 2008 arrived, caution was shown the door, and the ratio began its determined march upward. COVID delivered the final shove, launching the figure into the 120-percent neighborhood where it now lounges with the confidence of someone who never plans to pay the check.

Read more

The clairvoyant souls of 1965 who cleverly swore up and down that ditching national origins quotas for cuddly “family reunification” would leave America’s demographic wallpaper untouched hit the jackpot—sadly. Ted Kennedy and Emanuel Celler, those polyester prophets of immigration serenity, looked the nation square in the eye and promised: nothing to see here, folks. No waves of low-skilled arrivals, no strain on the public purse, and certainly no snobbish concerns about wages or entitlements. Opponents? Just bigoted quota-clingers clutching their pearls.

How’d that age? Like milk in a Miami heatwave. Chain migration didn’t just knock on the door—it kicked it in, invited the cousins, and enrolled grandma in Medicaid before the ink dried. Low-skilled inflows from Latin America and Asia didn’t politely assimilate; they surged, documented in study after study showing immigrant households hitting means-tested benefits harder than natives in categories like food stamps, housing aid, and Medicaid. By the 1990s, even the Urban Institute had to admit the obvious: the rosy assurances were fertilizer.

Congress tried slapping on the 1996 welfare reforms to slow the gravy train for new arrivals—five-year bar and all—but the underlying demographic shift kept chugging like a freight train loaded with irony. Every fresh arrival seemed pre-programmed to sponsor parents for Social Security credits they never earned. Critics called it exactly: bigger, less skilled inflows feeding entitlement pressure. Supporters delivered the precise opposite of their sales pitch.

This wasn’t ancient history; it’s the operating system for today’s replacement-and-dependency machine. Politicians who profit from the chaos now demand we trust their next brilliant reset. Read the Congressional Record again. The 1965 Act didn’t just open doors—it bulldozed the frame, handed out the keys, and acted shocked when the house got crowded. The bears in the mountains aren’t the only ones noticing the mismatch between promises and results. The data won. The narrative lost. Destruction of Western civilization has been in motion since the United Nations was founded in 1945. You’re welcome.

Subscribe now

Must we respect the sacred incantations of our enlightened age? Whenever the narrative priesthood begins chanting “studies suggest,” “experts are saying,” or that golden oldie “according to research,” you can set your watch to the incoming avalanche of fragrant nonsense. It’s the verbal equivalent of a used car salesman kicking the tires while swearing on his mother’s grave that this rust bucket gets 50 miles to the gallon.

The pattern is as predictable as it is pathetic. Some policy needs selling—be it climate doomsday timelines that shift like goalposts in a hurricane, dietary guidelines that flip-flop harder than a politician in an election year, or the latest miracle social experiment guaranteed to fix society if we just ignore human nature. Out come the magic phrases. “Scientists believe.” “The majority of people agree.” “Polls indicate.” Translation: we’ve got a stack of cherry-picked data, funded by interested parties, interpreted by folks whose careers depend on finding the “right” result. Anonymous sources say it’s solid. Translation: trust us, bro.

The comedy writes itself. These aren’t humble seekers after truth; they’re high priests of the grant-funded echo chamber. Real science doesn’t need marketing slogans. When engineers say gravity works, they don’t poll the village or cite “experts believe.” Planes fly or they don’t. But for anything touching power, money, or control? Suddenly it’s all “according to research” from the same revolving door of institutions that swore eggs would kill you, then didn’t, then maybe, then definitely not. The majority of people believe... what their television tells them this week. Polls indicate the public supports whatever framing the pollster was paid to produce.

It’s not conspiracy; it’s incentives. Careers, funding, status, and institutional survival all reward consensus over uncomfortable reality. Dissenters get the heretic treatment—defunded, deplatformed, declared “anti-science.” The real tell? When the “studies” collapse under scrutiny, the experts never face consequences. They just issue a new set of studies suggesting the opposite, with fresh polls to back it.

Subscribe now

The Crusades and the Reconquista weren’t polite debates over real estate. They were blunt instruments of survival: kick the invaders out, reclaim the land, and stop pretending tolerance equals strength. Medieval Christians didn’t clutch pearls and lecture about “diversity is our strength” while mosques went up in Toledo or Jerusalem fell to the sword. They expelled. They reconquered. They drew a line because losing meant cultural erasure, and they weren’t interested in becoming tax-paying dhimmis in their own backyard.

Fast-forward to 2026. Europe’s cities look like open-air third-world bazaars with better Wi-Fi. No-go zones multiply faster than birth rates in the banlieues. Grooming gangs operate with the casual efficiency of a government program. Politicians babble about “integration” while indigenous populations become minorities in their own capitals. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, American border policies have turned the country into a global flophouse. The third world isn’t immigrating; it’s colonizing, complete with parallel societies, welfare extraction, and open contempt for the host civilization that built the very systems keeping it afloat.

Add AI to the mix and the powder keg gets a flamethrower. Automation is already gutting low-skill jobs—the exact sector flooded by mass migration. What happens when millions of idle, low-IQ, high-fertility imports realize the welfare state can’t sustain them and the natives they despise are no longer needed as cash cows? Nothing good. Civilization doesn’t gently fade; it gets torched by resentment when the power grid flickers and the EBT cards stop working.

An educated prediction: the next wave won’t be called a Crusade or Reconquista. It will have a harsher name because the stakes are final. Expulsion worked when there was somewhere else to send people and when the hosts still had the numbers and will to enforce it. Those days are ending. When native populations face replacement-level demographics, collapsing social trust, and AI-driven economic irrelevance, “nothing to lose” becomes the dominant operating system.

People don’t politely negotiate with existential threats once the illusion of endless prosperity dies. History shows civilized societies tolerate a surprising amount of nonsense right up until they don’t. The Reconquista took centuries but succeeded because the Spanish eventually decided enough was enough. The coming reaction won’t have centuries. It will be faster, uglier, and focused on extermination because partial measures invite repetition. You don’t half-remove a tumor.

The irony is delicious. The same progressives who cheered open borders and sneered at “Islamophobia” will discover that biology, culture, and mathematics don’t care about their hashtags. When the power goes out and the fridge is empty, virtue signaling evaporates. Starving, cornered populations historically don’t reach for policy papers; they reach for whatever ends the threat permanently.

Call it the Great Clearing, the Final Reckoning, or whatever bitter meme history assigns it. The point remains: expulsion had limits. Extermination doesn’t. Civilizations under siege eventually choose survival over sentimentality. The third world and unchecked AI are delivering the siege. The response, when it comes, won’t be measured. It will be brutal, terminal and far wider than people may envision — and not open for debate. Third time will be a charm.

Subscribe now

Picture the scene: the yen, battered, bruised, and trading like a punch-drunk boxer after forty years of slow-motion collapse, finally hits the canvas near multi-decade lows. Cue the U.S. Treasury and Japanese authorities rushing in with the financial equivalent of smelling salts and a defibrillator. They coordinated a rare intervention—first since the Clinton era—buying yen not by dumping dollars (that would be too honest) but by unloading euros first. How thoughtful. Protect the greenback’s dignity while pretending the patient isn’t terminal.

Read more

God help the ignominious progressive heart, that luminous beacon of infinite tolerance! In their utopian fever dream, cultures are these adorable, interchangeable IKEA flat-packs—slap ‘em together, no assembly required, and voilà, eternal harmony. Who needs boring old continuity when you can import the vibrant future by the boatload? After all, the French, Germans, and Italians have had their turn with cathedrals, symphonies, and decent plumbing. Time to hand the keys to the new majority, right? Demographics are just a social construct, darling.

Jean Raspail nailed the punchline decades ago in The Camp of the Saints. The weary, hungry arrivals don’t arrive as eager apprentices to Western genius; they arrive ready to repurpose your oak doors as kindling, redecorate the terrace with fresh fertilizer, and use your leather-bound Montaigne as emergency Charmin. The beautiful becomes passé, the useful gets laughed out of the room, and the absurd reigns supreme. But fear not! The resulting ethnic stew will surely birth a renaissance any day now—once the power stays on and someone figures out who maintains the aqueducts.

Instead, we get a glorious mosaic of “enrichment” where the dominant impulse is Islamic assertiveness layered atop enthusiastic scavenging of the ruins. No independent cultural rocket fuel here, just the confident recycling of other people’s inheritance. Why innovate when you can squat in Chartres and call it progress? The Occident, forged over centuries by people who actually showed up to build it, dissolves into a low-trust bazaar of competing grievances. Libraries become kindling, art becomes offensive, and the music? Well, at least the call to prayer carries.

The comedy writes itself: elites in gated compounds clucking about diversity while the host civilization—exhausted, guilt-ridden, and demographically kaput—quietly vanishes. Cultures aren’t immortal; they’re carried by peoples. Replace the carriers, and the whole show folds like a cheap suit. But by all means, keep importing the future. The oak doors won’t burn themselves.

Subscribe now

Look at what Mother Nature coughed up from under the Alps like a bad hangover: a hefty Swiss stone pine trunk, perfectly preserved, dated to around 6,000 years ago. Today, that altitude is a frozen no-go zone for such trees—too cold, too inhospitable, better suited for polar bears doing TikToks about existential dread. But back then? These pines were thriving, stretching their woody limbs toward a sun that apparently didn’t need permission from IPCC spreadsheets.

This little discovery lands smack in the Holocene Climate Optimum, that inconvenient warm spell when global temperatures ran hotter than a Greta tantrum, and atmospheric CO2 levels were notably lower than our current “emergency.” Fewer fossil-fueled SUVs, no private jets for climate summits, yet the planet was toasty enough for alpine forests to throw a block party. Funny how that works. Earth’s climate, it turns out, is a cyclical drama queen—ice ages, warm spells, Roman vineyards in Britain, medieval warm periods, little ice ages—all self-regulating without a single carbon tax or windmill subsidy in sight.

The doom brigade, however, insists we’re all doomed unless we hand over the keys to the economy, our freedoms, and probably our thermostats. “Unprecedented!” they screech, while ignoring tree rings, ice cores, and now this resurrected pine that basically flips them the branch. These narratives aren’t science; they’re a power grab dressed in lab coats. Fear sells control: trillion-dollar green boondoggles, lifestyle hectoring, and endless guilt for breathing. Mother Nature doesn’t do guilt trips or net-zero deadlines—she just cycles on, burying evidence under glaciers only to exhume it when the cult needs humbling.

Time to dismantle this scam with the cold, hard logic of a 6,000-year-old stump. The climate changes. Always has. Politicians exploiting it for dominance? That’s the real heat we should extinguish. Pass the chainsaw—let’s clear out the deadwood of alarmism.

Subscribe now

The UK government rolled out a magnificent plan to shield delicate under-16s from the horrors of social media by demanding every single adult prove they’re not a sneaky teen via digital IDs, facial recognition, passports, or credit cards. It’s not a ban on kids, you see. Perish the thought! It’s a polite “papers, please” for everyone until the state nods approvingly. How progressive. How very “for the children.” How Hiterlish.

Elon Musk called it a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and the man’s underselling it. This isn’t protection; it’s a national rollout of digital leashes dressed up as nanny-state virtue. Selected platforms get the axe for the unverified, which means the regime picks winners and losers while building a lovely database of who’s who online. Track everyone “to keep the kids safe.” Where have we heard that before? The Left’s eternal greatest hits album: control wrapped in compassion, ID checks that smell suspiciously like the old registries they love to lecture us about. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the whole authoritarian family reunion—same tactics, updated UI. It never fails. The substance is pure power grab, the rhetoric pure sanctimony.

Trump? Merely a speed bump on this highway to a brutal revolution. Imagine the script with a successful hit in Butler, Pennsylvania, and with Kamala Harris nominally in charge, plus the same shadowy crew pulling Biden-era strings. The censorship machinery wouldn’t skip a beat; it’d accelerate with extra lectures on “disinformation” and “hate.” The future they’re scripting makes 1860 look like a garden party—polarized, surveilled, and primed for something uglier than brother-against-brother.

This isn’t governance; it’s the administrative state cosplaying as savior while chaining the public. Sarcastic compliance will be mandatory, of course, but the joke’s on them when the bears in the mountains and the free thinkers everywhere start laughing too loud. The velvet glove is slipping, revealing the iron fist underneath. Classic Left: tyrannical, tone-deaf, and terminally convinced it’s moral. History’s punchline writes itself. And it goes well beyond implementation or the eventual repeal as promised by the opposition. It’s about intent and who the Left-wing truly is and why their destruction, the way Nazis were destroyed, is inevitable.

Subscribe now

Can you taste the delicious irony? In South Africa, where the sacred script demands that any pushback against mass migration be branded “far-right racism” by the usual Western sermonizers, reality delivers a plot twist worthy of a fever dream. Crowds of locals—proud sons and daughters of the soil, decked in traditional garb, chanting in the streets—have been protesting week after week against illegal immigrants from Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and beyond. Their crime? Being sick and tired of job theft, crime spikes, and the economic squeeze in a nation already wrestling 32% unemployment.

The protesters aren’t some ghostly horde of European reactionaries. They’re Black South Africans invoking basic sovereignty: enough with the undocumented flood straining services, businesses, and neighborhoods. Signs wave, voices rise, and the “you’re a racist!” incantation collapses like a cheap biltong stand in a windstorm. How exactly does that slur glue itself to citizens defending their own backyard from fellow Africans and Asians? The high priests of open borders in London or New York must be sweating through their virtue-signal hoodies. Turns out, when your sacred victim narrative meets actual lived hardship, the script doesn’t just falter—it face-plants into the dust.

This isn’t abstract theory; it’s South Africa 2026, where groups like March and March demand a June 30 deadline for illegals to pack up. Locals point to crime, resource drain, and businesses favoring cheaper foreign labor. The same dynamics playing out in Europe or the U.S.—overburdened systems, cultural friction, wage suppression—get a free pass when painted as “diversity.” Here? The rainbow nation’s own colors are waving the opposite flag. Sarcastic applause for the globalists watching their favorite gotcha evaporate: turns out borders and belonging aren’t a White people problem. They’re a human one. South Africans are simply saying, loudly and in leopard print, what millions elsewhere whisper: charity begins at home, and unlimited influx isn’t compassion—it’s chaos.

The lesson? Substance over slogans. When locals bear the costs, the “far-right” boogeyman looks as ridiculous as it always was.

Subscribe now

European consumer confidence has spent forty years mostly underwater, a long blue trench of negative readings interrupted only by two brief, almost accidental spikes. One arrived near the dot-com bust—because nothing lifts spirits like watching markets melt. The other flickered around 2018 for reasons still unexplained by the 2,300 surveyed citizens. Everywhere else the bars dive: early nineties, sovereign-debt years, pandemic, inflation surge. Higher numbers are supposed to signal optimism and buoy the euro. The chart suggests the opposite has been the default setting.

Read more

Delicate snowflakes insist all political violence is created equal, like some cosmic buffet where communists and conservatives load up identical plates of bad behavior. Let’s clear the fog for the willfully blind: Marxist and leftist violence isn’t a tragic side effect—it’s the main course. They smash windows, torch cities, and guillotine norms not because someone stepped on their lawn, but because your very existence offends the sacred revolutionary script. Property? Bourgeois poison. Free speech? Fascist microaggression. Peaceful coexistence? Only after the last kulak is re-educated with a brick to the face. It’s violence as evangelism, a holy crusade to drag everyone into their glittering utopia of equal misery, one Molotov at a time.

Far-right violence, by contrast, tends to arrive fashionably late—like a grumpy dad finally snapping after the third home invasion. It’s reactive, defensive, the rhetorical equivalent of locking the door after the ideological burglars have looted the silver and set the curtains ablaze. Someone’s got to guard the remnants of civilization while the red-flag crowd is busy “mostly peacefully” protesting by burning cop cars and toppling statues of dead guys who committed the unforgivable sin of building things. The proof? It’s splattered across headlines like cheap ketchup: Antifa dress rehearsals for the revolution versus the occasional fed-up local who finally says “enough” when his neighborhood turns into a socialist petri dish.

The real comedy gold is watching pundits perform Olympic-level mental gymnastics to equate the two. One side dreams of gulags and calls it justice; the other just wants to grill in peace without a lecture on privilege. Spare us the both-sides drivel. Leftist violence pushes the ideology. Right-wing violence protects the porch. One builds nothing but body counts. The other clings to what’s left. If that distinction escapes you, dear reader, the problem isn’t nuance—it’s that your head’s been marinating in the propaganda brine too long. You’re welcome.

Subscribe now

In the year 2000, Washington’s finest salesmen peddled Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China like miracle tonic. Open the floodgates, they cooed, and American jobs would bloom while consumers feasted on cheap imports. Factories would hum, towns would thrive, and every generation would climb higher. What a charming fairy tale.

Reality delivered a different script. Thousands of manufacturing plants shuttered as production sprinted overseas. Gen X watched parents’ stable careers evaporate while entire communities lost their economic spine. The “huge new markets” materialized—mostly for Chinese factories humming with outsourced American work. China dodged a Soviet-style reckoning, propped up by Western capital and know-how, while U.S. manufacturing towns absorbed the body blows.

The numbers tell the sour joke. Labor force participation cratered as displaced workers vanished from official counts, inflating the gap between rosy “official” unemployment and the harsher adjusted reality. Meanwhile, public debt exploded from manageable post-war levels to towering mountains exceeding GDP, financing the very consumption that masked the hollowing out. By recent years, the debt-to-GDP ratio had climbed past 120%, a monument to deferred consequences.

Politicians of both parties cheered the “free trade” gospel while communities paid the tab. The promised mutual prosperity became a one-way street: wealth concentrated elsewhere, losses localized here. Factories closed, skills atrophied, and debt piled higher to paper over the damage. The 2000 deal didn’t just reshape trade; it rewired America’s economic geography, leaving rusting legacies where vibrant towns once stood. Brilliant strategy—if the goal was exporting opportunity.

Subscribe now

PIMCO, those stern-faced bond overlords with headquarters in beautiful Newport Beach, California, a former home of mine, just dropped the financial equivalent of a wet blanket on the eternal bull market parade. A sustained credit default cycle is firing up for the first time in years, they warn, with credit analysts once again playing the grim reaper to…

Read more

If a search is conducted for why Chinese people are so smart, one will encounter an abundance of articles and opinions that simply validate the perception based on IQ results and school performance driven by parroted memorization. As with plenty of “popular” knowledge, the premise is simply repeated without context or critical thinking, and that’s how myths are born.

The map above is the product of “IQ and Global Inequality,” a study conducted by two professors.

These numbers came from a work carried out from 2002 to 2006 by Richard Lynn, a British Professor of Psychology, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish Professor of Political Science, who conducted IQ studies in more than 80 countries. Richard and Tatu argue that differences in national income are correlated with differences in the average national intelligence quotient (IQ). They further argue that differences in average national IQs constitute one important factor, but not the only one, contributing to differences in national wealth and rate of economic growth. These results are controversial and have caused much debate, they must be interpreted with extreme caution.

Obviously the study is controversial because establishes a connection between wealth and intelligence, while underscoring African ineptitude which is sacrilegious. But IQs must be ignored and the aggregate socio-techno-economic achievement of various civilizations must be considered.

According to the study, China is tied for 3rd place with Japan, with Hong Kong and Singapore tied for 1st. But if the Chinese are more intelligent than the Europeans — and please let the chips fall where they may — why didn’t they advance at the same or faster rate over the last three centuries? Chairman Mao would have been extremely pleased if Chinese technological prowess had propelled his failed state to the moon.

Since China became a member of the World Trade Organization, it used its cheap labor to fill its communist coffers with the money from Western Civilization, courtesy of the short-sighted CEOs and boardrooms seeking a quicker buck. And why didn’t Western Civilization outsource its manufacturing to a wide array of African countries?

Potentially one of the most amusing articles is titled “How to Raise Smart Kids Chinese-Style,” as if a human’s natural intelligence can be modified. Obviously if a race or ethnic group — prefer the term “sub-species” — is capable of developing on its own, there isn’t a need to steal intellectual property, or to send armies of students abroad to acquire STEM knowledge. However, Chinese enrollment in US colleges and universities increased 376% over the last decade, which paints Chinese-style kids as yet another academic silly solution.

One of the most recognizable Chinese companies is Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. because it has been on the news due to national security concerns as 5G networks are deployed. But what has been largely forgotten is that Huawei is hardly a repository of intelligence and creativity, as illustrated 7 years ago.

Folklore within the routing and switching community was that Huawei stole router product secrets from Cisco, down to the chassis, IOS and all the way down to the spelling errors in the manuals. Many have said it for years, but 60 Minutes put it on worldwide television tonight for everyone to know. Cisco did file suit and it was settled out of court, so we will never know what really happened. But Huawei did it, they know it, we know and Cisco knows it. Otherwise they would have never settled the court case.

That’s the Huawei way!

But Huawei is not alone because that’s how the Chinese prop their widely acclaimed IQs, as current news from the U.S. Department of Justice indicates.

At the same CSIS event, FBI Director Christopher Wray said Beijing was seeking to steal American technology by “any means necessary.” He said the bureau currently had about 1,000 open investigations of Chinese technology theft across its 56 regional offices, while FBI counterintelligence chief John Brown said it had arrested 24 people last year in China-related cases and another 19 already in 2020.

In addition to outright IP theft and academic instruction provided by Western Civilization’s lower IQ, the irony extends to “China’s Lavish Funds Lured U.S. Scientists.”

For years, China’s Thousand Talents recruitment plan attracted U.S. scientists with its grants. Investigators now say China used the program to steal sensitive technology.

Those that view China as the next superpower obviously haven’t embraced logic and skipped the unbiased and simple examination of the evidence. If a wall is built to stop technology access, China will wither back to 1949 within one generation.

Subscribe now