Nostradamas was all about the future, rarely if ever the pas, a generalist. Accurate hindsight is the key to accurate foresight; thus understanding history surely remains integral to predicting it. Without being vague, rather as a specialist and a realist, what can you say about the geopolitical future?
People of the West have a difficult time admitting the possibility that they are just not that important any more. Some assumptions are difficult to question and criticise.
".....The US is developing new rules that the other side cannot agree to and thus disrupts stability...."
For all this, one can cut to the chase: the US strategy is one of "ful spectrum dominance" across the entire planet and human development and thriving anywhere is seen as a "threat" and the party thriving as an "adversary". Added to this is overt white supremacy, as the only "spiritual guidance" for the US and its actions.
In this framework its not possible for any country to rise peacefully, as the US is dedicated to smashing down anyone else thriving. Even a country of 1.3 billion chinese people on the other side of the planet, the US is so madly narciscisstic as to believe that they should all live a life of US vassalhood.
I think its incumbent on the realist school to also begin to put this on the table. Most people in the west do not grasp that they live in white supremasicst societies dedicated to keeping their boot on the necks of others - for ever and always - and that this puts the entire planet on the path to war.
Its not because the others on the planet would like violence - they wouldnt - but as long as the west is dedicated to keeping everone else DOWN its not realistically possible to see the current frameworks leading up to anything else but endless wars.
I have great respect for Prof. Diesen but there are a couple of points of this article that I disagree with.
The answer to the question of "Can China Rise Peacefully?" is YES, but it requires the peaceful participation of the US which up through now has decided not to peacefully allow China's rise as it wants to reacquire its hegemonic position (MAGA, etc.). To be a hegemonic power requires both military and economic supremacy. Militarily it means that one can project military power afar with impunity. This has been negated via Russia and its proven military technology of primarily rockets and precision targeting accuracy.
China is the second component to end America's hegemonic position in its projected continuing rise in economic power. China sees this as their natural condition of having been the dominant world economy for centuries until the time of the western industrial revolution and China's Century of Humiliation.
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers was researched and written about by Paul Kennedy in 1987 where he reviews the economic changes and military conflicts from 1500 to 2000. He shows that once a Great Power begins to decline (which the US has been doing for decades), it never regains its hegemonic position. The only question is will it give up its position peacefully or challenge the rising power militarily. The US has decided (like most all the other declining Great Powers) to challenge that change.
Here are the points that I disagree with Prof. Diesen.
1) The 2008 economic crisis was not the result of American spending per se but the result of 'Triffin's dilemma'. This is the direct result of the US having the world's reserve currency which results in the US running a trade deficit with almost all of its trading partners. This is the reason stated by China as to why it does not want its currency to replace the dollar as the reserve currency. It has no desire to have such a high negative trade surplus that the US does. The current U.S. monthly international trade deficit runs between $60 - $80 billion.
The whole notion of deficits being unsustainable has been brought into question with the recent Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) which is not addressed in this article. MMT, which is gaining acceptance due to its better explanation of actual economic data, states that a sovereign country that controls its currency can't go bankrupt, as it can always print more money without necessarily increasing inflation. This theory was used by both President Trump and Biden when they injected trillions of dollars into the US economy by printing money out of thin air. The older economic theories that Prof. Diesen uses states that deficits do matter as higher deficits result in higher inflation. The expected inflation has not materialized (short term 9% inflation is not significant) regardless that the US is now selling bonds to cover the interest payments on its debt. For an individual, this is not sustainable and quickly leads to default/insolvency. MMT shows that this is not the case for countries that control its currency (not the EU which does not).
The US is worried about China, not because of its debt levels or trade imbalances (which are part of having the world's reserve currency) but because so much of its GDP is the result of its 5 largest tech. companies (US supported monopolies) that constitute over 50
% of the US stock market value. The US, in its hubris, felt that China would never challenge its technological position as it felt only the US could innovate at that level. So while they and the EU complained about the stealing of western technology that only dealt with past technologies. This all came to a crisis with the issuance of the Made in China 2025 (MIC 2025) report (It is a 10-year industrial policy plan that aims to make China a leading manufacturing nation by 2025 and leader in a number of present and future technologies), and Huawei patenting a fundamental technology for cellular 5G, leapfrogging the US, and also threatening Apple's iPhone sales.
Finally, the concern that China has vis a vis the US in regards to the East China Sea, etc. is because the US strangled Japan in the 40s by naval blockade of its trade routes thereby forcing Japan into Pearl Harbor. As a country which needs to import energy and materials China is vulnerable to US control of its trade routes. Its concerns about these waters have little to do with it wanting to be a great military power.
China simply wants to raise the standard of living for its citizens which requires an increase in its GDP (economic power) which requires free and open trade routes. Nobody believes that the US, with its stated hegemonic goal, is not going to threaten China.
The answer to the question is it depends on the US. What Prof. Kennedy showed in his book reviewing the last 500 years of declining Great Powers is that while most countries choose military conflict (Prof. Mearsheimer position) some choose accomodation and peace. War/conflict is not inevitable but a choice.
The best thing China can do to have a peaceful rise is to ally itself with Russia resulting in such military power that the US admits it is in decline and moves to a position of accommodation.
Glenn Diesen writes "a declining US hegemon is predictably extremely vicious ". To that point, see the following article about the US Indo-Pacific commander Admiral Paparo's promise of turning the Taiwan Strait into a drone-fueled "hellscape" if China "invades" Taiwan. (https://www.wired.com/story/china-taiwan-pentagon-drone-hellscape/)
The plan is to overwhelm China's obvious geographic advantage until the U.S. and its obedient allies can marshal enough forces to thwart the PRC's attack-about a month would be needed, Paparo estimates. During that time of course, these forces would be targeted by China, so would they arrive in sufficient quantity to thwart China? Who knows. Meanwhile the effect of the US-engineered strait hellscape would be catastrophic: "New research from CSIS estimates that approximately $2.45 trillion worth of goods—over one-fifth of global maritime trade—transited the Taiwan Strait in 2022."
The impact on people globally will be extreme. Can China continue to peacefully rise without being lured into war by the desperate, declining but militarily powerful and constantly scheming hegemon?
The US will continue to do everything it can to provoke Chinese military action versus Taiwan, of that we can be sure.
China is rising peacefully - it is not trying to impose itself on the world, it is merely trying to find it's place in the world.
The only impediment to China - and the Global Rest / Global Majority - rising is the West, lead by the rogue US regime, both of whom are in sharp decline.
I think you might want to reevaluate your assumptions - you seem to be coming from a position that accepts the necessity of Western hegemony.
"China was destined to outgrow the US-led international economic system and thus challenge the dominant position of the US."
But does that conform to the western narrative?
Speaking magic words is the way to socially construct reality, and any anti-spells from China lovers are criminal acts to be censored. Facts of reality don't even actually exist, and can be ignored by the media until and unless they're socially constructed.
2+2=5 is socially constructed, and is just as authentic as any other form of math. Damn all civil engineering as just another white man's filthy power structure to excude black and brown people. The left know about this because they have magic telepathy to determine what your motives and feelings are, especially hate. Meanwhile magic juju and boogeymen like white privilege can harm random, unknown victims.
So which comes first, the symbol or that which it symbolizes? Is it Truth that there can be no real world without first casting sorcerous spells? This is what you have allowed the postmodernists/postrealists to bestow on you, dragging western civilization back to primitive, 3rd-world tribalism.
I listened to your latest excellent conversation with Mearshimer and Mercouris around this topic.
I think a deeper discussion of the role of ideology is warranted. I understand Mearshimer's theory that the USA indulged itself in ideological crusading during the unipolar moment because of the lack of urgent security competition. But even before the unipolar moment, ideology always played an important role in the security posture of the USA and indeed the West as a whole. That's why we use terms like Crusader state, isn't it?! During the Cold War, it was freedom and democracy vs communism, wasn't it. Given this, I think a deeper discussion of the role of ideology in the security competition between China and the West is necessary. What is the implication of the fact that China as no ideology or minimal ideology to export? What about the soft power of the West which has been so, so influential, but may begin to wane with a potential decline of the West? As in Taiwan, will not much of the burgeoning middle class in the Global South gravitate to liberalism at least until, like the West, it begins to slide towards nihilism? How does all this influence the Chinese geopolitical posture as well as the posture of its neighbours such as Indonesia?
The other issue I would like to hear discussed is the geographical and economic differences between China and the West. It seems to me that if we exclude the inertia of existing Western hegemony, the security competition between China and the USA would not be staged in the South China Sea. After all, the South China Sea is existential for China as it is completely dependent on trade, especially for energy! The USA, on the other hand, is much more able to lean towards autarky and is even less dependent on its waters (Pacific, Atlantic) than China. The equilibrium, it seems to me, should not be the South China Sea, but for the inertia of Western hegemony.
A related point is the fact that China neigbhours two powers - Russia and India - with which it has to balance, whereas the USA has nothing similar. I would also like to hear and learn more about the implications of this on the security equilibrium.
China cannot rise peacefully if one of the three factors exists (1) Xi in power (2) US neocons refuse to accept multi-polarity (3) traditional CCP ideology in power. Xi is a leader very different from his multiple predecessors: he has not been to the West during his formative years (growing up during the Culture Revolution), has not managed economy well in any scope (his years at Fujian were lucky), and ideologically wants to copy Mao and achieve a permanent position in CCP and Chinese history.
However, China can move into a total democracy and will still get suppressed if neocons in USA holds unipolar world view. Just look at India and how USA treats India.
The less obvious factor is the nature of the CCP. CCP is different from the communists in USSR, North Korea, or North Vietnam, and therefore most difficult to change. Russians could decide to disband USSR on their own because Russians look inwardly. North Korea is a dynasty. As long as it remains a dynasty, it behaves like a dynasty. North Vietnam started as nationalists who embraced communism but did NOT morph into a personal dynasty. After NV swallowed SV and American influences driven out, Vietnam also can start to relax its domestic control. It is still a somewhat authoritarian government and Vietnamese Communists will not release power any time soon. However, Vietnamese Communists are quite willing to change, partially because Vietnam had been invaded many times before and understand the value of adaptation.
CCP is different. It started as a mix of bandits and ivory tower intellectuals. It started trying to grab power too early, and the subsequent long-term struggle against the Chinese Nationalist government produced a specific personality for the whole party. Xi is the perfect example of the second generation of the original cadets. In comparison, two of his predecessors started as cogs in the party, effectively more of products of bureaucracy than of the core CCP power struggle mentality. Can this change? yes, if after Xi, someone who rises from the bureaucracy and not a descendant of the original CCP top-rank cadets, then China has a hope to return to the reformist path. The third generation of the original CCP top rats so far has not shown potential of future leaders. However, China will not follow the path of Gorbachev. China will be corrupted by the west again but still hold its own. Therefore, USA will try to suppress China then just like today, perhaps only with a difference in intensity. Between now and then, expect China to continue to steal secrets from USA and continue to influence and bribe US politicians.
In answer to the question you pose, it would be in the world’s interest to allow the US to continue to basically run the show. In exchange for this privilege the US would have to change its ways.
I know this goes against the realist theory but it would be the best way to forge onward…
(The process of forging onward in the best manner possible is what my “course” is all about).
As I’ve mentioned I the past, you might want to take my “course”.
I agree with everything you’ve had to say in this article and I’ve agreed with everything you’ve had to say in the past.
I think if you go back in time and look at the relatively recent history of what’s gone on in the international system you’d have to agree that during the Cold War, and then especially after the US became the only superpower during the unipolar moment, the US would have done well to have listened to the peace activists starting in the 1950s, and then George Kennan and John Mearsheimer since then.
In a sort of roundabout way, the process of listening to these voices of reason and pragmatic reality is summed up in my “course”.
Since the unipolar moment has come and gone, and we in the US have done the exact opposite of what we should have, we’re now faced with a different situation.
Oddly enough, the principals outlined in my “course” are timeless and they lay out what we should be striving for as a species and how we should be trying to modify our behavior so that we avoid unnecessary conflict and self destruction.
Unfortunately what I’ve tried to convey has fallen on deaf ears.
Unfortunately rather than moving in what would be our in our best interest we’re continuing to move in a direction that is not in our best interest.
The situation might be best summed up by the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
In the case of the sensible, rational ideas I’ve come up with I haven’t even been able to lead the horse to the water.
This is why if you’re interested in actually solving our problems you’d be reasonable enough and intellectually curious enough you’d be interested in what I have to say and then ask me a few good questions.
The sun is setting on the empire on which the sun "never sets".
Adios New Rome!
You were brutal 96% of your 250 years history.
You killed and maimed millions of innocents around the world,
You lied,
you cheated
and you stole natural resources,
trampled upon the corpses of your victims during your looting.
You financed genocides,
you carried out genocides
and laughed at your victims.
Your victims were branded as insects, amaleks, etc...
You signed 100s of treaties with some of your victims and never respected your signatures.
You're a scum that does not deserve a place under the sun.
Adios!
Adios!
Adios!
Nostradamas was all about the future, rarely if ever the pas, a generalist. Accurate hindsight is the key to accurate foresight; thus understanding history surely remains integral to predicting it. Without being vague, rather as a specialist and a realist, what can you say about the geopolitical future?
Thank you, Glenn Diesen, for your clear and succintly described perspectives of China's alternatives
Maybe ask whether the US can decline peacefully?
Exactly!
People of the West have a difficult time admitting the possibility that they are just not that important any more. Some assumptions are difficult to question and criticise.
I thought China has already risen peacefully?
".....The US is developing new rules that the other side cannot agree to and thus disrupts stability...."
For all this, one can cut to the chase: the US strategy is one of "ful spectrum dominance" across the entire planet and human development and thriving anywhere is seen as a "threat" and the party thriving as an "adversary". Added to this is overt white supremacy, as the only "spiritual guidance" for the US and its actions.
In this framework its not possible for any country to rise peacefully, as the US is dedicated to smashing down anyone else thriving. Even a country of 1.3 billion chinese people on the other side of the planet, the US is so madly narciscisstic as to believe that they should all live a life of US vassalhood.
I think its incumbent on the realist school to also begin to put this on the table. Most people in the west do not grasp that they live in white supremasicst societies dedicated to keeping their boot on the necks of others - for ever and always - and that this puts the entire planet on the path to war.
Its not because the others on the planet would like violence - they wouldnt - but as long as the west is dedicated to keeping everone else DOWN its not realistically possible to see the current frameworks leading up to anything else but endless wars.
I feel I got a very informative lecture from you, Glenn. Please keep them coming!
I have great respect for Prof. Diesen but there are a couple of points of this article that I disagree with.
The answer to the question of "Can China Rise Peacefully?" is YES, but it requires the peaceful participation of the US which up through now has decided not to peacefully allow China's rise as it wants to reacquire its hegemonic position (MAGA, etc.). To be a hegemonic power requires both military and economic supremacy. Militarily it means that one can project military power afar with impunity. This has been negated via Russia and its proven military technology of primarily rockets and precision targeting accuracy.
China is the second component to end America's hegemonic position in its projected continuing rise in economic power. China sees this as their natural condition of having been the dominant world economy for centuries until the time of the western industrial revolution and China's Century of Humiliation.
The Rise and Fall of Great Powers was researched and written about by Paul Kennedy in 1987 where he reviews the economic changes and military conflicts from 1500 to 2000. He shows that once a Great Power begins to decline (which the US has been doing for decades), it never regains its hegemonic position. The only question is will it give up its position peacefully or challenge the rising power militarily. The US has decided (like most all the other declining Great Powers) to challenge that change.
Here are the points that I disagree with Prof. Diesen.
1) The 2008 economic crisis was not the result of American spending per se but the result of 'Triffin's dilemma'. This is the direct result of the US having the world's reserve currency which results in the US running a trade deficit with almost all of its trading partners. This is the reason stated by China as to why it does not want its currency to replace the dollar as the reserve currency. It has no desire to have such a high negative trade surplus that the US does. The current U.S. monthly international trade deficit runs between $60 - $80 billion.
The whole notion of deficits being unsustainable has been brought into question with the recent Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) which is not addressed in this article. MMT, which is gaining acceptance due to its better explanation of actual economic data, states that a sovereign country that controls its currency can't go bankrupt, as it can always print more money without necessarily increasing inflation. This theory was used by both President Trump and Biden when they injected trillions of dollars into the US economy by printing money out of thin air. The older economic theories that Prof. Diesen uses states that deficits do matter as higher deficits result in higher inflation. The expected inflation has not materialized (short term 9% inflation is not significant) regardless that the US is now selling bonds to cover the interest payments on its debt. For an individual, this is not sustainable and quickly leads to default/insolvency. MMT shows that this is not the case for countries that control its currency (not the EU which does not).
The US is worried about China, not because of its debt levels or trade imbalances (which are part of having the world's reserve currency) but because so much of its GDP is the result of its 5 largest tech. companies (US supported monopolies) that constitute over 50
% of the US stock market value. The US, in its hubris, felt that China would never challenge its technological position as it felt only the US could innovate at that level. So while they and the EU complained about the stealing of western technology that only dealt with past technologies. This all came to a crisis with the issuance of the Made in China 2025 (MIC 2025) report (It is a 10-year industrial policy plan that aims to make China a leading manufacturing nation by 2025 and leader in a number of present and future technologies), and Huawei patenting a fundamental technology for cellular 5G, leapfrogging the US, and also threatening Apple's iPhone sales.
Finally, the concern that China has vis a vis the US in regards to the East China Sea, etc. is because the US strangled Japan in the 40s by naval blockade of its trade routes thereby forcing Japan into Pearl Harbor. As a country which needs to import energy and materials China is vulnerable to US control of its trade routes. Its concerns about these waters have little to do with it wanting to be a great military power.
China simply wants to raise the standard of living for its citizens which requires an increase in its GDP (economic power) which requires free and open trade routes. Nobody believes that the US, with its stated hegemonic goal, is not going to threaten China.
The answer to the question is it depends on the US. What Prof. Kennedy showed in his book reviewing the last 500 years of declining Great Powers is that while most countries choose military conflict (Prof. Mearsheimer position) some choose accomodation and peace. War/conflict is not inevitable but a choice.
The best thing China can do to have a peaceful rise is to ally itself with Russia resulting in such military power that the US admits it is in decline and moves to a position of accommodation.
We'll see.
Glenn Diesen writes "a declining US hegemon is predictably extremely vicious ". To that point, see the following article about the US Indo-Pacific commander Admiral Paparo's promise of turning the Taiwan Strait into a drone-fueled "hellscape" if China "invades" Taiwan. (https://www.wired.com/story/china-taiwan-pentagon-drone-hellscape/)
The plan is to overwhelm China's obvious geographic advantage until the U.S. and its obedient allies can marshal enough forces to thwart the PRC's attack-about a month would be needed, Paparo estimates. During that time of course, these forces would be targeted by China, so would they arrive in sufficient quantity to thwart China? Who knows. Meanwhile the effect of the US-engineered strait hellscape would be catastrophic: "New research from CSIS estimates that approximately $2.45 trillion worth of goods—over one-fifth of global maritime trade—transited the Taiwan Strait in 2022."
The impact on people globally will be extreme. Can China continue to peacefully rise without being lured into war by the desperate, declining but militarily powerful and constantly scheming hegemon?
The US will continue to do everything it can to provoke Chinese military action versus Taiwan, of that we can be sure.
China is rising peacefully - it is not trying to impose itself on the world, it is merely trying to find it's place in the world.
The only impediment to China - and the Global Rest / Global Majority - rising is the West, lead by the rogue US regime, both of whom are in sharp decline.
I think you might want to reevaluate your assumptions - you seem to be coming from a position that accepts the necessity of Western hegemony.
"China was destined to outgrow the US-led international economic system and thus challenge the dominant position of the US."
But does that conform to the western narrative?
Speaking magic words is the way to socially construct reality, and any anti-spells from China lovers are criminal acts to be censored. Facts of reality don't even actually exist, and can be ignored by the media until and unless they're socially constructed.
2+2=5 is socially constructed, and is just as authentic as any other form of math. Damn all civil engineering as just another white man's filthy power structure to excude black and brown people. The left know about this because they have magic telepathy to determine what your motives and feelings are, especially hate. Meanwhile magic juju and boogeymen like white privilege can harm random, unknown victims.
So which comes first, the symbol or that which it symbolizes? Is it Truth that there can be no real world without first casting sorcerous spells? This is what you have allowed the postmodernists/postrealists to bestow on you, dragging western civilization back to primitive, 3rd-world tribalism.
I listened to your latest excellent conversation with Mearshimer and Mercouris around this topic.
I think a deeper discussion of the role of ideology is warranted. I understand Mearshimer's theory that the USA indulged itself in ideological crusading during the unipolar moment because of the lack of urgent security competition. But even before the unipolar moment, ideology always played an important role in the security posture of the USA and indeed the West as a whole. That's why we use terms like Crusader state, isn't it?! During the Cold War, it was freedom and democracy vs communism, wasn't it. Given this, I think a deeper discussion of the role of ideology in the security competition between China and the West is necessary. What is the implication of the fact that China as no ideology or minimal ideology to export? What about the soft power of the West which has been so, so influential, but may begin to wane with a potential decline of the West? As in Taiwan, will not much of the burgeoning middle class in the Global South gravitate to liberalism at least until, like the West, it begins to slide towards nihilism? How does all this influence the Chinese geopolitical posture as well as the posture of its neighbours such as Indonesia?
The other issue I would like to hear discussed is the geographical and economic differences between China and the West. It seems to me that if we exclude the inertia of existing Western hegemony, the security competition between China and the USA would not be staged in the South China Sea. After all, the South China Sea is existential for China as it is completely dependent on trade, especially for energy! The USA, on the other hand, is much more able to lean towards autarky and is even less dependent on its waters (Pacific, Atlantic) than China. The equilibrium, it seems to me, should not be the South China Sea, but for the inertia of Western hegemony.
A related point is the fact that China neigbhours two powers - Russia and India - with which it has to balance, whereas the USA has nothing similar. I would also like to hear and learn more about the implications of this on the security equilibrium.
China cannot rise peacefully if one of the three factors exists (1) Xi in power (2) US neocons refuse to accept multi-polarity (3) traditional CCP ideology in power. Xi is a leader very different from his multiple predecessors: he has not been to the West during his formative years (growing up during the Culture Revolution), has not managed economy well in any scope (his years at Fujian were lucky), and ideologically wants to copy Mao and achieve a permanent position in CCP and Chinese history.
However, China can move into a total democracy and will still get suppressed if neocons in USA holds unipolar world view. Just look at India and how USA treats India.
The less obvious factor is the nature of the CCP. CCP is different from the communists in USSR, North Korea, or North Vietnam, and therefore most difficult to change. Russians could decide to disband USSR on their own because Russians look inwardly. North Korea is a dynasty. As long as it remains a dynasty, it behaves like a dynasty. North Vietnam started as nationalists who embraced communism but did NOT morph into a personal dynasty. After NV swallowed SV and American influences driven out, Vietnam also can start to relax its domestic control. It is still a somewhat authoritarian government and Vietnamese Communists will not release power any time soon. However, Vietnamese Communists are quite willing to change, partially because Vietnam had been invaded many times before and understand the value of adaptation.
CCP is different. It started as a mix of bandits and ivory tower intellectuals. It started trying to grab power too early, and the subsequent long-term struggle against the Chinese Nationalist government produced a specific personality for the whole party. Xi is the perfect example of the second generation of the original cadets. In comparison, two of his predecessors started as cogs in the party, effectively more of products of bureaucracy than of the core CCP power struggle mentality. Can this change? yes, if after Xi, someone who rises from the bureaucracy and not a descendant of the original CCP top-rank cadets, then China has a hope to return to the reformist path. The third generation of the original CCP top rats so far has not shown potential of future leaders. However, China will not follow the path of Gorbachev. China will be corrupted by the west again but still hold its own. Therefore, USA will try to suppress China then just like today, perhaps only with a difference in intensity. Between now and then, expect China to continue to steal secrets from USA and continue to influence and bribe US politicians.
In answer to the question you pose, it would be in the world’s interest to allow the US to continue to basically run the show. In exchange for this privilege the US would have to change its ways.
I know this goes against the realist theory but it would be the best way to forge onward…
(The process of forging onward in the best manner possible is what my “course” is all about).
As I’ve mentioned I the past, you might want to take my “course”.
I agree with everything you’ve had to say in this article and I’ve agreed with everything you’ve had to say in the past.
I think if you go back in time and look at the relatively recent history of what’s gone on in the international system you’d have to agree that during the Cold War, and then especially after the US became the only superpower during the unipolar moment, the US would have done well to have listened to the peace activists starting in the 1950s, and then George Kennan and John Mearsheimer since then.
In a sort of roundabout way, the process of listening to these voices of reason and pragmatic reality is summed up in my “course”.
Since the unipolar moment has come and gone, and we in the US have done the exact opposite of what we should have, we’re now faced with a different situation.
Oddly enough, the principals outlined in my “course” are timeless and they lay out what we should be striving for as a species and how we should be trying to modify our behavior so that we avoid unnecessary conflict and self destruction.
Unfortunately what I’ve tried to convey has fallen on deaf ears.
Unfortunately rather than moving in what would be our in our best interest we’re continuing to move in a direction that is not in our best interest.
The situation might be best summed up by the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
In the case of the sensible, rational ideas I’ve come up with I haven’t even been able to lead the horse to the water.
This is why if you’re interested in actually solving our problems you’d be reasonable enough and intellectually curious enough you’d be interested in what I have to say and then ask me a few good questions.