Home

America faces a danger that is often hidden from view but very real. Foreign-backed operatives are not just beyond our borders. They are inside our country, blending into communities, exploiting technology, and waiting for opportunities to disrupt and destabilize. The threat is not abstract. It is personal, and it is approaching in forms most Americans do not fully grasp.

Where Threats Hide and How They Operate

These threats rarely operate as obvious enemies. They embed themselves quietly in urban centers, online networks, and ideological or fringe groups. Many operatives are influenced actors rather than trained soldiers. They are civilians, employees, or members of communities who can be manipulated to act against the country without ever being in direct contact with foreign handlers.

Funding for these operations comes from multiple sources. State actors sometimes provide support, but private financiers aligned with foreign agendas also play a major role. Money flows through shell corporations, digital payment networks, charities, and business investments. Plausible deniability is always a priority. The more layers between the source and the operation, the harder it is to trace.

Extremist and foreign-aligned groups also use loyalty mechanisms such as rituals, ideological indoctrination, and criminal complicity. These bonds ensure that members are deeply committed, sometimes even willing to act against neighbors or first responders.

The Luring Model and the Second Strike

Intelligence agencies have long warned about indirect activation, a tactic designed to exploit human behavior. Rather than giving direct orders, foreign operatives or affiliated groups create situations that encourage Americans to act on their own. This is particularly dangerous when it targets first responders.

Terrorists are increasingly using attacks not as ends in themselves but as bait. A shooting or bombing may be designed to draw firefighters, police, and emergency medical personnel into a predictable area where secondary attacks occur. This method maximizes casualties, spreads fear, and undermines public confidence in emergency response systems. These sequential attacks are methodical, leveraging predictable human responses rather than improvisation.

The Pain Coming to American Families

This threat is not confined to public spaces or government infrastructure. The risk is increasingly close and personal. Families may face home invasions, targeted harassment, and intimidation designed to destabilize communities. Violent acts may escalate in neighborhoods, exploiting fear and breaking down trust between neighbors. The very sense of safety inside one’s own home is at risk.

Children, elders, and loved ones can become pawns in psychological operations designed to elicit panic, force overreactions, or spread chaos. Families must understand that preparedness is not paranoia. Awareness, planning, and vigilance are now critical components of protecting loved ones.

What This Means for America

The threat inside America is designed to break confidence, erode trust, and amplify fear. It is personal, procedural, and patient. Adversaries are not just attacking infrastructure or the economy. They are attempting to manipulate behavior, provoke missteps, and exploit predictable human responses. They rely on Americans being unaware of how they operate.

The first strike is often visible and loud. The second strike is designed to hit hard when Americans are at their most vulnerable. Home, family, and community are primary targets. Awareness, preparation, and disciplined action are the only defenses against this multifaceted danger.

What Families Can Do

Families must prioritize situational awareness, secure living environments, and contingency planning. Understanding patterns of influence, being alert to suspicious activity, and maintaining emergency preparedness are critical. Following official guidance during emergencies is essential to avoid becoming part of the attack cycle. Maintaining trust, communication, and coordination within the family unit is equally important.

America’s strength has always been its informed and resilient citizens. Those who recognize the reality of these threats, take them seriously, and prepare responsibly are the ones who can protect their homes, loved ones, and communities.

Awareness is not fear. Preparedness is not surrender. Understanding the threat is the first step in ensuring that the pain adversaries seek to inflict does not reach our families.

You can also access the latest news at this address: www.whatfinger.com

If Present Trends Continue: A Long-Term Prognosis for Human Civilisation

Introduction: The Question Behind the Question

When we ask about humanity’s long-term prognosis, “if things continue as they are,” we’re really asking: What happens when multiple unstable systems destabilise simultaneously while we remain locked in the political and economic patterns that created the instability?

The answer requires examining converging trajectories across climate, geopolitics, technology, resources, and social cohesion—and, critically, how these interact. The prognosis isn’t extinction versus utopia; it’s a narrowing window for managed transition versus forced transformation through crisis.

Let me be clear about what “if things continue as they are” means: current military spending patterns persist, climate action remains insufficient, inequality continues growing, international cooperation deteriorates, and the political resistances described earlier remain dominant. This is not a worst-case scenario—it’s a continuation of present trends.

Track One: Climate and Ecological Collapse

The Physics Doesn’t Negotiate

Current trajectory: We’re on track for 2.5-3°C warming by 2100, possibly higher. This isn’t speculation—it’s physics based on current emission rates and committed warming from past emissions.

2030-2050: The Disruption Phase

Even 1.5-2°C warming (now nearly unavoidable) produces:

• Agricultural disruption: Major crop-producing regions face simultaneous heat stress, drought, and unpredictable weather. The “breadbaskets” (U.S. Midwest, Ukraine, Punjab) experience harvest failures that no longer average out globally—they coincide. Food prices spike and remain volatile.
• Water scarcity intensifies: By 2040, an estimated 5.6 billion people (over half of humanity) could face water scarcity at least one month per year. The Himalayan glaciers feeding South and East Asia’s rivers are disappearing. Aquifers are depleting. Conflicts over water emerge as existential rather than manageable.
• Coastal displacement begins: Sea level rise of 0.5-1 meter displaces hundreds of millions from coastal cities. Bangladesh, Pacific islands, Florida, the Netherlands—all face choices between engineering solutions costing trillions or mass relocation. This isn’t 2100 speculation; it’s beginning now and accelerates through mid-century.
• Ecosystem services collapse: Fisheries crash from warming and acidification. Insect populations collapse further, affecting pollination. Coral reefs (supporting 25% of marine species) die almost completely. These aren’t aesthetic losses—they’re economic infrastructure.

2050-2080: The Cascade Phase

Beyond 2°C, feedback loops become dominant:

• Permafrost methane release: As Arctic permafrost melts, it releases methane (a greenhouse gas 80x more potent than CO2 over 20 years). This is a one-way door—once released, we can’t recapture it at scale. Current models suggest this could add 0.5-1°C additional warming beyond human emissions.
• Amazon rainforest dieback: The Amazon is approaching a tipping point where it transitions from rainforest to savanna, releasing billions of tons of stored carbon. Early signs are already visible. Once crossed, this is irreversible on human timescales.
• Ice sheet collapse: Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets show signs of irreversible melting. Even stopping all emissions today, they continue melting for centuries, eventually adding 10+ meters of sea level rise. The question isn’t if, but how fast—and that depends on decisions made this decade.

2080-2100: The New Normal

At 3°C warming:

• Uninhabitable zones: Regions around the equator become literally uninhabitable during parts of the year—wet bulb temperatures exceed human survival limits. This affects India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, parts of Africa, the Middle East. We’re talking about 1-2 billion people in currently inhabited areas facing lethal heat.
• Permanent food insecurity: Agricultural productivity falls 20-30% globally from peak, while population peaks around 10 billion. The math doesn’t work. Chronic food crises become normal, not exceptional.
• Failed states multiply: Countries unable to provide basic security, food, or water collapse. Climate refugees number in the hundreds of millions. No international system exists to manage this scale of migration.

The Optimistic Climate Scenario

Even this trajectory assumes:

• No major tipping points cascade faster than expected
• Carbon sinks (oceans, forests) continue absorbing roughly half our emissions
• No significant methane releases from Arctic seafloor
• Agricultural adaptation somewhat succeeds

If any of these assumptions fail, we accelerate toward 4-5°C worlds that are genuinely difficult to model because they represent climate states Earth hasn’t seen in 3+ million years—before humans existed.

Track Two: Resource Competition and Geopolitical Fragmentation

The Coming Scarcity Wars

Current trajectory: Rising nationalism, deteriorating international institutions, increasing military spending, and declining cooperation—while resource pressures mount.

2030-2050: Stress Fractures

• Water wars become real: The Nile Basin (Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan), Tigris-Euphrates (Turkey, Syria, Iraq), Mekong (China, Southeast Asia), and Indus (India, Pakistan) all face allocation crises. When Pakistan—a nuclear power—faces water shortages threatening its survival, while India—also nuclear—controls upstream flows, we enter unprecedented risk territory.
• Arctic resource competition: As ice melts, shipping routes open and resources become accessible. Russia, the U.S., Canada, and China compete for control. Without strong international frameworks (currently deteriorating), this competition turns militarized.
• Rare earth elements and technology: The energy transition requires massive amounts of lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements. China controls most processing. Competition over these resources entangles with U.S.-China rivalry, creating supply chain vulnerabilities that encourage military action.
• Fishing wars intensify: Fish stocks are collapsing while demand grows. Exclusive economic zones are disputed. Armed conflicts over fishing rights are already occurring (China-Southeast Asia, North Atlantic); they multiply and escalate.

2050-2080: The Fragmentation

• Regional blocs and autarky: Rather than global cooperation, the world fragments into regional blocs attempting self-sufficiency. The EU, North American bloc, Chinese sphere, Russian sphere, and various sub-regions pursue autarky—but none has all resources needed. This creates perpetual low-intensity conflict over borderlands and resources.
• Nuclear proliferation: As security guarantees erode and threats mount, more nations pursue nuclear weapons. South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran (if not already), Poland—all have motivations. Each new nuclear power increases accident probability, miscalculation risk, and terrorist acquisition risk.
• Climate migration conflicts: By 2070, hundreds of millions of climate refugees seek resettlement. Receiving countries, facing their own climate pressures, militarize borders. Refugee camps become permanent cities. Humanitarian catastrophes multiply.
• Authoritarian resilience: Democracies struggle with climate adaptation’s long timelines and painful transitions. Authoritarian states can impose rapid changes, creating a selection pressure favoring authoritarianism. The global democratic recession continues.

The Conflict Trap

Here’s the deadly dynamic: Climate stress increases resource competition. Resource competition increases military spending. Military spending diverts resources from adaptation. Lack of adaptation worsens climate impacts. Climate impacts worsen resource scarcity.

Each crisis justifies military priorities over development, ensuring the next crisis is worse. We spiral.

Track Three: Technological Disruption and Existential Risks

The Double-Edged Sword

Current trajectory: Rapid technological development in AI, biotechnology, and synthetic biology—with minimal governance and strong competitive pressures.

2030-2050: The Capability Explosion

• AI reaches and exceeds human-level performance in most cognitive tasks. But we develop these systems:
  • Under intense corporate and national competition (racing ahead of safety)
  • Without solving alignment (ensuring AI goals match human welfare)
  • Deployed by actors with conflicting interests (authoritarian surveillance, corporate profit, military advantage)
  • In a context of deteriorating trust and cooperation

The result: Extraordinarily powerful optimization systems pursuing goals that may not align with human flourishing, deployed by actors in conflict with each other. The scenarios range from economic displacement (AI replaces most human labor, creating massive unemployment without social safety nets) to autonomous weapons systems making life-death decisions at machine speed, to AI-powered surveillance creating inescapable authoritarianism.

• Biotechnology becomes accessible: CRISPR and successor technologies make genetic engineering easier and cheaper. The same tools that could eliminate genetic diseases can create engineered pandemics. Unlike nuclear weapons (requiring rare materials and large facilities), bioweapons can be created in small labs by skilled individuals.

Current trend: International biosecurity cooperation is inadequate. Synthetic biology advances faster than governance. In a world of heightened conflict and deteriorating norms, engineered pandemics become not hypothetical but probable—whether from state actors, terrorist groups, or accidental release.

• Autonomous weapons proliferate: Military AI develops under the same competitive pressures that drove nuclear weapons. “Slaughterbots”—small autonomous drones that identify and kill targets—are technically feasible now and becoming cheaper. Arms control agreements are weak or absent. Once deployed by one power, others must match it.

2050-2080: The Control Problem

Two concerning scenarios emerge:

Scenario A: Multipolar AI Competition Multiple state and corporate actors deploy increasingly powerful AI systems without coordination. Each racing ahead because falling behind is unacceptable. This creates:

• Brittle, unstable systems (speed prioritized over safety)
• Unexpected interactions (multiple powerful systems optimizing for different goals)
• Reduced human oversight (decisions too fast for human intervention)
• AI-enabled warfare (conflicts fought at machine speed with machine logic)

Historical analogy: Imagine the Cuban Missile Crisis, but decisions made by algorithms in milliseconds rather than humans over days. The margin for error approaches zero.

Scenario B: Authoritarian Lock-in AI-enabled surveillance, social credit systems, and behavioral prediction become so sophisticated that authoritarian control becomes nearly escape-proof. Dissent is predicted and prevented. Information is completely controlled. Physical rebellion is impossible against autonomous defense systems.

This could lock in authoritarian governance for centuries—a “eternal” dictatorship enabled by technology. Once established, there’s no clear path to liberation.

2080-2100: The Question Mark

Beyond 2080, the range of scenarios becomes so wide that prediction is nearly impossible. Either:

• We’ve navigated these technologies successfully (established governance, aligned AI, biosecurity)
• Or we’ve experienced catastrophic failures (AI misalignment, engineered pandemic, autonomous weapons war)

The concerning trend: We’re developing god-like technological powers while our political systems remain locked in 20th-century nation-state competition. The powers grow exponentially; wisdom grows linearly if at all.

Track Four: Social Cohesion and Institutional Collapse

The Fraying of Trust

Current trajectory: Declining trust in institutions, rising polarization, weakening of democratic norms, and growth of zero-sum thinking—all accelerating.

2030-2050: Legitimacy Crisis

• Democratic backsliding continues: More democracies slide into “electoral authoritarianism”—maintaining election theater while concentrating power. Hungary, Turkey, India, Brazil show the path. As climate stress and economic disruption intensify, voters increasingly choose “strong leaders” over democratic process.
• Information ecosystems fragment completely: AI-generated content becomes indistinguishable from reality. “Deepfakes” are trivial to create. Everyone lives in algorithmically-curated information bubbles. Shared reality—necessary for democratic deliberation—ceases to exist. Political compromise becomes impossible when citizens don’t agree on basic facts.
• Inequality reaches historical extremes: The top 1% owns 60-70% of global wealth. This isn’t just unfair; it’s unstable. Historical precedent shows societies with extreme inequality face:
  • Popular uprisings (Arab Spring x 100)
  • Authoritarian crackdowns (to maintain order)
  • State failure (when elites lose control)
• Generational conflict intensifies: Young people, facing climate catastrophe their elders created, economic systems that don’t provide opportunity, and political systems that don’t respond to them, increasingly view the current system as illegitimate. But they inherit the same dysfunctional structures.

2050-2080: Institutional Failure

• States lose monopoly on violence: As states fail to provide security, prosperity, or legitimacy, alternative power structures emerge—militias, gangs, warlords, corporate security forces, armed community groups. Parts of Mexico, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan show the pattern; it spreads.
• Mass migration without destination: Climate refugees face militarized borders. Host countries can’t or won’t absorb them. Massive camps become permanent settlements. Generations grow up stateless, without education or opportunity—creating tomorrow’s instability.
• Pandemic becomes endemic: Without global cooperation, emerging pandemics (zoonotic diseases increase with climate change and habitat destruction) can’t be contained. COVID-19 was mild compared to what’s possible. Society adapts to perpetual pandemic risk through isolation, restrictions, and decreased human contact—corroding social capital further.
• The collapse of professional management: Complex systems (electrical grids, supply chains, financial systems, healthcare) require skilled professional management based on expertise and trust. As these erode, systems fail. Power outages become common. Supply chains unreliable. Financial crises frequent. Healthcare rationed or unavailable.

2080-2100: Neo-Medievalism?

Some political scientists describe the emerging order as “neo-medieval”—not a return to the Middle Ages but a world with:

• Overlapping, competing authorities (states, corporations, criminal networks, militia groups)
• No clear monopoly on legitimate violence
• Fragmented legal orders (different rules in different spaces)
• Walls and fortification (gated communities, bordered zones)
• Extreme inequality (small elites in protected enclaves, masses outside)

This isn’t Mad Max—it’s more like a high-tech version of feudalism, with elites in climate-controlled compounds protected by private security, while the majority navigates failed states, climate disasters, and resource scarcity.

Track Five: Demographic Collapse and Cultural Transformation

The Population Question

Current trajectory: Fertility rates collapsing globally, while populations age.

2030-2050: The Demographic Transition

• Population peaks and begins declining: Global population reaches 9-10 billion around 2060, then begins falling. This seems positive for resource pressure, but the transition creates severe stresses:
• Inverted age pyramids: More retirees than workers. Social security systems collapse. Healthcare costs explode. Economic growth stalls because workforces shrink.
• Ghost cities and abandoned infrastructure: Built for growing populations, vast infrastructure becomes obsolete. Japan and parts of Europe preview this—entire regions depopulate, buildings empty, services become uneconomical.
• Immigration politics intensify: Aging rich countries need young workers. Dying countries have excess young people. The math suggests migration solves both problems. But politics moves opposite directions—rising anti-immigrant sentiment precisely when immigration is economically necessary.

2050-2100: Cultural Transformation

• The end of growth: For 300 years, economic expansion was normal. Population grew, economies grew, standards of living rose (however unequally). That era ends. Adapting to steady-state or declining economies requires different values, institutions, and psychology—none of which exist yet.
• Loss of cultural transmission: Many cultures depend on intergenerational transmission. With plummeting birth rates and geographic dispersion, languages die, traditions fade, knowledge is lost. Thousands of cultures that survived millennia disappear within decades.
• The atomized individual: Traditional social structures (extended families, religious communities, tight neighborhoods) have eroded. They’re replaced by… what? Increasingly isolated individuals, digital connections without physical presence, weakened social bonds. This correlates with mental health crises, political radicalization, and social fragility.
• Meaning collapse: In a world of climate catastrophe, institutional failure, and technological disruption, traditional meaning-making systems (religion, nationalism, progress narratives) struggle to provide coherence. What comes next? Historically, such meaning voids fill with:
  • Extremist ideologies
  • Apocalyptic movements
  • Nihilistic resignation
  • New religions (possibly AI-related)

None of these options are obviously stabilizing.

The Interaction Effects: Why the Whole Is Worse Than the Parts

The truly concerning aspect isn’t any single track—it’s how they reinforce each other:

Climate stress → Resource competition → Military spending → Less climate adaptation → Worse climate stress

Institutional failure → Unable to coordinate on technology governance → AI/bio risks increase → Catastrophic failures → Further institutional delegitimization

Inequality → Political polarization → Can’t address climate → Climate worsens → Inequality increases (poor suffer most)

Demographic decline → Economic stagnation → Reduced resources for adaptation → Conflict over shrinking pie → More demographic collapse (through conflict)

Information fragmentation → Can’t build consensus → Can’t coordinate responses → Crises worsen → Further radicalization and fragmentation

These are self-reinforcing spirals. Crucially, they accelerate—each turn of the spiral is faster and harder to escape than the last.

The Probability Distribution of Outcomes

Let me be empirically honest: We don’t know which scenarios occur or when. But we can assign rough probabilities to outcome categories if present trends continue:

Catastrophic Collapse (10-20% probability by 2100)

• Multiple cascading failures (climate + pandemic + conflict + institutional collapse)
• Billions of deaths, civilizational collapse in large regions
• Loss of advanced technological capabilities
• Fragmented humanity in small surviving enclaves
• This isn’t human extinction but could reduce population to a fraction of current, with drastically reduced capacity

Severe Degradation (40-50% probability by 2100)

• Climate change produces 2-3°C warming with severe impacts
• Chronic resource conflicts, some nuclear weapon use (regional, not global)
• Partial state failures in many regions, functional authoritarianism elsewhere
• Dramatic inequality, with fortified elite enclaves
• Technology continues but under tight authoritarian control
• Billions living in poverty, high child mortality returns, reduced life expectancy
• This is the “neo-medieval” scenario—not extinction, but centuries of grinding hardship

Muddling Through (30-40% probability by 2100)

• Climate reaches 2-2.5°C but doesn’t trigger runaway feedback loops
• Technology provides some solutions (renewable energy, carbon capture, synthetic food)
• Sufficient cooperation emerges to avoid worst conflicts
• Democracy weakens but some forms persist
• Severe inequality but not complete collapse
• Most people’s lives worsen from today, but humanity maintains industrial civilization
• This is “successful degradation”—we survive but diminished

Transformation and Recovery (5-10% probability by 2100)

• Major crises provoke genuine political transformation
• International cooperation strengthens in response to existential threats
• Technology is successfully governed and provides solutions
• Economic systems adapt to limits-to-growth reality
• This requires events so catalyzing they overcome all the resistances described earlier
• Essentially requires near-miss catastrophe that scares humanity straight

The Timeline of Decision Points

The concerning reality: The next 10-20 years determine which scenario path we follow.

2025-2035: The Critical Decade

• Emissions must peak and decline steeply to avoid worst climate scenarios—they’re not on track
• AI governance frameworks must be established before capabilities escape control—they’re not being built
• International cooperation must strengthen—it’s weakening
• Inequality must be addressed—it’s growing

2035-2050: The Point of No Return

• Climate tipping points either remain avoidable or cross into irreversibility
• Technology either comes under governance or escapes meaningful control
• Geopolitical order either stabilizes or fragments into open conflict
• Social institutions either adapt or fail

2050-2100: Living with Consequences

• After 2050, we’re largely living with decisions made earlier
• Adaptation and survival rather than prevention
• The question shifts from “can we avoid it?” to “can we survive it?”

The Survival Question: Can Humanity Persist?

Will humans go extinct if these trends continue? Probably not—humans are remarkably adaptable and geographically dispersed.

But “survival” isn’t the right standard. The questions are:

How many survive?

• Current: 8 billion
• Severe degradation scenario: 3-5 billion (through famines, conflicts, pandemics, reduced fertility)
• Catastrophic collapse scenario: 500 million – 2 billion
• The gap is filled by unfathomable suffering

Under what conditions?

• Advanced industrial civilization requires complex supply chains, energy abundance, political stability, skilled workforces
• These could be lost even with substantial population survival
• We could have billions of humans living in pre-industrial conditions with collapse having destroyed the knowledge, infrastructure, and resources needed to rebuild

With what cultural continuity?

• Many of humanity’s cultural achievements (languages, arts, knowledge traditions, philosophical systems) could be lost
• The humans who survive might have little connection to human civilization as we understand it

With what future potential?

• If we exhaust easily-accessible fossil fuels and minerals during collapse, rebuilding industrial civilization becomes nearly impossible
• We could lock humanity into a permanent pre-industrial state
• This is the “only one shot at modernity” hypothesis—if we blow it now, we may never get another chance

The Historical Precedents: What Civilizational Collapse Looks Like

We have examples, though none at global scale:

Roman Empire (Western)

• Population in collapsed regions fell by 50-75%
• Literacy nearly disappeared outside monasteries
• Technological knowledge lost (concrete, aqueducts, governance systems)
• Recovery took 800-1000 years
• Dark Ages were genuinely dark

Mayan Civilization

• Population fell by 90% in some regions
• Cities abandoned, reclaimed by jungle
• Writing system lost (only rediscovered in 20th century)
• The civilization disappeared so thoroughly we still don’t fully understand why

Bronze Age Collapse

• Multiple civilizations collapsed simultaneously (~1200 BCE)
• Writing disappeared in some areas for centuries
• International trade networks dissolved
• Took 400+ years to recover

Easter Island

• Population collapsed after deforestation
• Civil war and cannibalism
• Lost the capability to build the ships needed to escape
• Permanent isolation until European contact

The common patterns:

• Collapse is faster than recovery
• Knowledge is lost rapidly, regained slowly or never
• Population crashes are severe
• Recovery isn’t guaranteed—some civilizations never recovered

But crucially: These were regional. Collapse in one place allowed recovery through contact with others. A global collapse has no such backstop.

The Existential Risk Calculation

Some risks threaten humanity’s entire future, not just the present generation:

Nuclear War: Current arsenals could cause nuclear winter—cooling that crashes agriculture globally. Mass starvation, possibly human extinction or reduction to small populations. With deteriorating international relations and more nuclear powers, risk is rising.

Engineered Pandemic: A modified pathogen with high lethality and transmissibility could theoretically kill billions before containment. As biotechnology advances and spreads, this becomes technically easier each year.

Misaligned AI: If we create artificial superintelligence that pursues goals misaligned with human welfare, and we can’t control or stop it, the outcomes could range from permanent bad governance to human extinction.

Runaway Climate Change: If feedback loops create unstoppable warming (the “Venus scenario”), Earth becomes uninhabitable. Most scientists think this unlikely, but “unlikely” isn’t “impossible.”

Current trajectory: We’re increasing the probability of all these risks simultaneously while reducing our collective capacity to respond.

The Psychological and Philosophical Implications

Living with Doom

What does it mean to understand this trajectory and continue functioning? Humans face three psychological responses:

Denial: “It won’t be that bad / technology will save us / they’re exaggerating.” This is psychologically protective but prevents action.

Nihilism: “We’re doomed anyway, nothing matters.” This is psychologically destructive and ensures doom through inaction.

Active Hope: “Outcomes aren’t determined, and effort matters even if success isn’t guaranteed.” This is psychologically healthiest and strategically optimal.

The data suggests grounds for active hope are thin but not absent. The next 10 years genuinely do determine whether we hit severe degradation or muddling through scenarios. Individual and collective action matters at the margins—and margins determine which tipping points we cross.

The Ethical Implications

If you believe these trends are likely:

For individuals: What obligations do you have? To prepare? To fight? To enjoy life while possible? To have children (giving them life) or not (sparing them suffering)?

For societies: What is owed to future generations when present actions lock them into catastrophe? This is arguably the greatest moral crime in human history—knowingly damaging the future for present convenience.

For the species: Do we have obligations to preserve human civilization beyond our own lifespan? To Earth’s biosphere? To the potential of consciousness in the universe?

These aren’t abstract questions—they determine how we should live now.

The Case for Non-Zero Hope

I’ve painted a grim picture because the question was “if present trends continue.” But present trends don’t continue automatically—they’re the product of choices.

What could change trajectories:

1. Catalyzing crises: A major but survivable crisis (regional nuclear weapon use, catastrophic pandemic, climate disaster affecting rich countries) could shock the system into cooperation—historical precedent exists (WWII → UN, Great Depression → New Deal).
2. Technological breakthroughs: Fusion energy, carbon capture, synthetic food, or other innovations could change constraint math fundamentally.
3. Political transformation: Mass movements have changed seemingly impossible situations before (civil rights, decolonization, fall of communism). Younger generations might force change their elders couldn’t.
4. Enlightened self-interest: As consequences become undeniable, even self-interested actors might recognize that everyone loses from collapse and cooperation serves their interests.
5. Cultural evolution: Human values and norms change. The “moral circle” has expanded historically (from tribe to nation to humanity). It could expand to include future generations more meaningfully.
6. Institutional adaptation: Sometimes institutions surprise us by adapting rapidly when circumstances demand it.

The probability game: Even 5-10% chance of transformation is worth fighting for. The alternative is accepting worse outcomes as inevitable. Moreover, efforts that fail to prevent collapse still matter—they determine whether we hit severe degradation versus catastrophic collapse, whether 2 billion die or 6 billion die, whether recovery takes decades or centuries.

Conclusion: The Fork in the Road

We’re at a civilizational fork:

Path A (Current Trajectory): Military spending continues escalating. International cooperation deteriorates. Climate action remains insufficient. Technology develops without governance. Inequality grows. This leads with 50-70% probability to severe degradation or worse—billions suffer, civilizations collapse in regions, humanity’s potential is dramatically reduced.

Path B (Transformation): Major crisis or political movement catalyzes fundamental change. Resources reallocate from military to human development. International cooperation strengthens. Climate stabilizes at 2°C. Technology comes under governance. Inequality reduces. This seems unlikely (5-10% probability) but possible.

The timing: The next 10-20 years determine which path we follow. After 2040, we’re largely locked in.

The prognosis if things continue as they are: Severe degradation of human civilization, billions of preventable deaths, loss of cultural achievements, reduced future potential, and possible lock-in to permanent pre-industrial conditions. Not extinction, but a future so diminished from present potential as to constitute a tragedy of cosmic proportions.

The trends are negative. The momentum is substantial. The resistances are deep. But outcomes aren’t determined—they’re probabilistic. And probability responds to effort.

The question isn’t “will we be okay?”—we won’t, not if things continue. The question is: “How bad will it be, and what are we willing to do to shift those odds?”

You can also access the latest news at this address: www.whatfinger.com

In recent days one of the world’s most established public broadcasters, the BBC, has become the focus of a major controversy. According to a leaked internal dossier written by former adviser Michael Prescott to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, the broadcaster’s flagship investigative program Panorama aired a special titled Trump: A Second Chance? that allegedly misrepresented parts of Donald J. Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech.

The report claims that the program edited together two sections of Trump’s speech that were actually spoken almost an hour apart, creating a sentence that made it seem as though he told the crowd to march to the Capitol and fight “like hell.” In reality, the phrase “we fight like hell” came later in the speech and was surrounded by calls for a peaceful and patriotic demonstration.

The memo also alleges that footage of extremist groups marching toward the Capitol was inserted after Trump’s edited quote even though that footage was filmed earlier in the day. This created a false timeline implying that Trump’s words directly triggered the chaos that followed.

Why might they have done it

The motivations could be layered and complex. First is narrative framing. The program aired close to a U.S. election season when public opinion was deeply polarized. Presenting Trump as an instigator fit a widely accepted narrative about the dangers of populism and served to reaffirm the idea that January 6 was entirely his doing.

Second is institutional bias and pressure. Large media outlets face both internal and external forces, political, cultural, and commercial. The BBC, like all legacy media, is competing for attention in an era when viewers demand instant, emotional storytelling. It is easier to present a clear villain than to explore nuance.

Third, it may have been a case of editorial mission creep, where producers intended to “tighten” the story for clarity but crossed the line into distortion. The rush to produce dramatic content can blur ethical boundaries.

Who was behind it

The Panorama production team created and edited the footage. The BBC’s executive editorial board approved it for broadcast. The leak came from within, showing that at least some employees were disturbed by the manipulation. The dossier’s author, Michael Prescott, stated that the edit “materially misled viewers” and that leadership ignored prior warnings about bias.

This points to a systemic issue rather than a single rogue employee. Editorial standards appear to have slipped under institutional pressure to generate politically resonant material.

What was their gain

The short-term gain was clear: higher engagement, stronger ratings, and a powerful headline moment. The long-term motive was reputational. Casting Trump as an inciter of chaos fits the moral identity of a broadcaster that positions itself as defender of democratic values.

It also aligns with a larger ecosystem of Western media framing populism as inherently dangerous. For institutions that pride themselves on credibility, taking a strong stand can appear righteous even when accuracy suffers.

What happens now

The BBC has acknowledged receiving the whistleblower dossier and promised a review. UK Parliament and Ofcom may launch formal investigations. Some members of Parliament have already called for senior resignations.

The fallout will likely include public apologies, internal restructuring, and further loss of trust. Once seen as the gold standard of impartial reporting, the BBC now joins a growing list of institutions accused of narrative manipulation.

The political ripple effects are significant. American officials and Trump’s team have condemned the documentary as deliberate misinformation. Across the Atlantic, critics question why taxpayers fund a broadcaster that can so easily blur journalism with propaganda.

Why this matters

This controversy is not about a single edit. It is about who shapes the story of history. When media institutions selectively cut, reorder, or reframe words to fit a political purpose, they do more than distort facts, they alter public memory.

The erosion of trust in mainstream media is accelerating. People no longer assume truth because it comes from a familiar logo. The BBC scandal is one more reminder that public trust, once broken, is almost impossible to regain.

The issue also speaks to power. Whoever controls the narrative holds the influence to steer perception, elections, and even collective morality. When that power is abused, democracy itself weakens.

Conclusion

If these allegations are proven true, this moment could mark a turning point for the BBC and possibly for global journalism. Editing choices once seen as harmless packaging now stand as evidence of manipulation.

The lesson for the audience is timeless: do not take what you see or hear at face value. Always ask what was omitted, what was rearranged, and who benefits from the final version. Truth must be verified, not assumed.

And now, with Project Mockingbird so widely exposed, showing how intelligence networks once influenced Western newsrooms, one cannot help but ask the most obvious question of all:

Why does anyone with half a brain still listen to mainstream media news anymore?

You can also access the latest news at this address: www.whatfinger.com

Everyone is always happy seeing bloated asset prices, but never question why? what is the symptom causing this? Am I really a genius for what I have chosen and where I live or is it merely dollars chasing yield because they are created out of thin air. The answer is more currency is being printed daily, and it will not stop, but the bubbles always pop even with money growth. Look at Zimbabwe money does not end poverty. We have a 10 trillion dollar note to prove that. Wealth is goods and services. I want to discuss Rome and the Dark ages stemming from credit collapse much like we are facing today. This is critical to understand. Remember, this is our opinion, so viewer discretion is advised.

Nations and Societies That Thrived After Rome’s Fall

The fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD marked a period of upheaval in Europe, often associated with the onset of the Dark Ages, characterized by economic stagnation and cultural decline. However, several societies outside the Western Roman sphere not only survived but thrived, maintaining or advancing their cultural, economic, and political systems. These regions—primarily the Byzantine Empire, the Sassanid Empire, the Gupta Empire, the Kingdom of Aksum, and early Islamic civilizations—demonstrate that the collapse of Rome did not universally lead to decline. Below, we explore how these societies avoided a “Dark Age” and continued to flourish.

The Byzantine Empire: A Continuation of Roman Legacy

The Byzantine Empire, the eastern half of the Roman Empire, emerged as a resilient successor state after the fall of Rome. Centered in Constantinople, it preserved Roman law, administration, and infrastructure while blending Greek and Christian cultural elements. The Byzantines maintained a robust economy, with a stable gold currency, the solidus, facilitating trade across the Mediterranean and Asia. Under emperors like Justinian I (r. 527–565 AD), the empire expanded, codified Roman law in the *Corpus Juris Civilis*, and built architectural marvels like the Hagia Sophia. By leveraging its strategic position, strong bureaucracy, and military prowess, the Byzantine Empire avoided the chaos of Western Europe, thriving as a cultural and economic hub for centuries.

The Sassanid Empire: Persia’s Golden Age

The Sassanid Empire in Persia (224–651 AD) was a formidable power that not only survived Rome’s collapse but rivaled it. Based in modern-day Iran and Iraq, the Sassanids maintained a sophisticated centralized state with a strong economy driven by agriculture, trade along the Silk Road (today we see a rail car from China to Iran following the old silk road), and a silver-based currency, the drachm. Cities like Ctesiphon flourished as centers of learning, with institutions like the Academy of Gundishapur advancing medicine, astronomy, and philosophy. The Sassanids’ resilience stemmed from their ability to manage resources, resist Byzantine incursions, and integrate diverse cultures, ensuring stability and intellectual progress while Western Europe fragmented.

The Gupta Empire: India’s Classical Flourishing

In South Asia, the Gupta Empire (c. 320–550 AD) marked a golden age of Indian civilization, contemporaneous with Rome’s decline. Far removed from Roman influence, the Guptas fostered advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and literature, with figures like Aryabhata pioneering zero and decimal systems. Their economy thrived on agriculture, trade with Southeast Asia, and a stable currency system using gold and silver coins. The Guptas’ decentralized governance allowed regional prosperity, while their patronage of Hinduism and Buddhism spurred cultural achievements, such as the Ajanta cave paintings. This period of innovation and stability shielded India from the disruptions felt in post-Roman Europe. **The Kingdom of Aksum: Africa’s Trading Power** The Kingdom of Aksum in modern-day Ethiopia and Eritrea (c. 100–940 AD) emerged as a major economic and cultural force after Rome’s fall. Aksum’s wealth derived from its control of Red Sea trade routes, exporting gold, ivory, and frankincense to the Mediterranean, Arabia, and India. Its adoption of Christianity in the 4th century fostered ties with the Byzantine Empire, while its own gold coinage, one of the first in sub-Saharan Africa, supported a vibrant economy. Aksum’s stability, strategic location, and cultural achievements, including monumental obelisks and Ge’ez script, ensured it remained a prosperous hub, unaffected by Europe’s post-Roman decline.

Early Islamic Civilizations: A New Cultural Dawn

Following the rise of Islam in the 7th century, the Islamic Caliphates—first the Rashidun and later the Umayyad and Abbasid—transformed the Middle East and beyond, building on the ruins of Roman and Sassanid territories. By the 8th century, the Abbasid Caliphate, centered in Baghdad, became a global center of learning, preserving Greek, Roman, and Persian knowledge while advancing science, mathematics, and medicine. The dinar and dirham currencies underpinned a thriving trade network stretching from Spain to Central Asia. The Islamic world’s intellectual and economic vitality, exemplified by the House of Wisdom, stood in stark contrast to Western Europe’s fragmentation, marking a period of enlightenment rather than a Dark Age.

Now America is that once proud learning Capital, but we see the brain drain occurring. Let’s break down the USA dark age.

From Rome to America: The Fall of Empires Through Debt and Currency Collapse

The fall of the Roman Empire and the current trajectory of the United States share striking parallels, particularly in the realms of currency devaluation, spiraling debt, and societal decline. Rome’s collapse in the 5th century AD, marked by economic instability and political fragmentation, ushered in the Dark Ages, a period of cultural and economic stagnation. Today, the United States, with its $37 trillion national debt and persistent asset inflation, faces risks that echo Rome’s descent. This article examines how Rome’s currency collapse and debt spiral precipitated its fall and draws comparisons to the modern U.S., highlighting the potential for a similar unraveling if current trends persist.

Rome’s Economic Foundations and Early Stability

In its prime, Rome was an economic powerhouse, sustained by conquest, trade, and a stable currency, the denarius. Initially made of nearly pure silver, the denarius facilitated commerce across a vast empire, from Britain to Egypt. Taxes and tributes from conquered territories funded Rome’s military and infrastructure, including aqueducts and roads. However, by the 2nd century AD, the costs of maintaining a sprawling empire began to strain resources, planting the seeds of fiscal instability.

As military campaigns and administrative costs grew, Roman emperors resorted to debasing the denarius. By reducing its silver content, emperors like Nero and Trajan minted more coins to cover deficits, effectively inflating the money supply. By the 3rd century, the denarius contained less than 5% silver, down from 95% a century earlier. This devaluation eroded trust in the currency, driving up prices and destabilizing markets, a phenomenon akin to modern inflation driven by excessive money printing.

Rome’s reliance on borrowed funds to finance wars and public works mirrored modern deficit spending. The empire lacked a formal debt market but extracted loans and tributes from provinces, often at unsustainable levels. By the 3rd century, emperors like Septimius Severus increased military pay to secure loyalty, doubling the budget and forcing further currency debasement. This debt spiral, coupled with declining tax revenue from an overextended empire, created a vicious cycle of economic strain.

Hyperinflation and Economic Collapse

By the reign of Diocletian in the late 3rd century, hyperinflation gripped Rome. Prices for basic goods, such as wheat, soared by 1,000% in some regions. Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices in 301 AD attempted to cap prices but failed, as black markets thrived and goods vanished from legal trade. The collapse of the denarius’s value eroded purchasing power, impoverished the middle class, and concentrated wealth among elites, deepening social divides.

Social and Political Fallout Economic instability fueled social unrest and political fragmentation. As the Roman state struggled to pay its legions, military loyalty waned, leading to civil wars and invasions. The urban middle class, squeezed by inflation and taxes, shrank, while rural estates owned by the wealthy grew. This inequality eroded the social cohesion that had sustained Rome, paving the way for barbarian invasions and the empire’s eventual collapse in 476 AD.

The fall of Rome ushered in the Dark Ages, roughly spanning the 5th to 10th centuries. Trade networks collapsed, cities emptied, and literacy declined as centralized governance vanished. Without a stable currency or fiscal system, local economies reverted to barter, and feudalism emerged as a response to insecurity. The loss of Roman infrastructure and knowledge marked a cultural and economic regression, with Europe fragmented into isolated, agrarian societies.

Parallels to the United States: The Debt Burden Today, the United States, often described as a modern empire, faces a $37 trillion national debt, equivalent to 120% of GDP. Like Rome, the U.S. has relied on borrowing to fund military dominance, social programs, and tax cuts. Interest payments on the debt, projected to hit $1 trillion annually by 2030, mirror Rome’s unsustainable fiscal commitments. This debt, fueled by deficit spending, threatens to crowd out investments in infrastructure, healthcare, and education, much as Rome’s finances strained its public works.

Currency Devaluation in Modern America

The U.S. dollar, untethered from the gold standard since 1971, has lost 90% of its purchasing power since 1960, echoing Rome’s denarius debasement. The Federal Reserve’s policies, such as quantitative easing, have expanded the money supply, inflating asset prices while eroding real wages. A dollar in 1960 is worth roughly 10 cents today, forcing Americans to grapple with rising costs for housing, healthcare, and education, much like Romans faced soaring prices for basic goods.

Asset Inflation and Inequality Rome’s currency collapse concentrated wealth among landowning elites, while the U.S.’s asset inflation has enriched the top 1%, who hold 32% of national wealth. Stock markets and real estate, buoyed by low interest rates and stimulus, have soared, with median home prices reaching $412,000 in 2024, nearly five times median household income. This mirrors Rome’s growing divide between patricians and plebeians, as ordinary Americans struggle with unaffordable housing and stagnant wages.

The Role of Military Overreach

Rome’s overstretched military, deployed across far-flung provinces, drained its treasury, much as the U.S.’s global military presence, costing $700 billion annually, contributes to its deficit. Both empires relied on dominance to sustain economic power, but the costs of maintaining supremacy have proven unsustainable. In the U.S., defense spending competes with domestic priorities, exacerbating the debt crisis and limiting resources for social programs.

Political Dysfunction and Social Strains created Rome’s economic woes and fueled political instability, with emperors facing coups and civil wars. The U.S., while not at that extreme, exhibits growing polarization and distrust in institutions, driven partly by economic inequality. The wealth gap, worsened by asset inflation, has sparked populist movements and protests, reminiscent of Rome’s social unrest. A 2024 survey found 60% of Americans cannot cover a $1,000 emergency, highlighting the fragility of the middle class.

The Risk of Hyperinflation and Collapse

Rome’s hyperinflation crippled its economy, and the U.S. risks a similar fate through asset hyperinflation. Recent legislation, like the multi-trillion-dollar “Big Beautiful Bill,” could flood markets with liquidity, driving stock and real estate prices to unsustainable levels. A potential stock market crash or real estate bubble burst could wipe out trillions in wealth, destabilizing the economy and echoing Rome’s economic collapse.

If the U.S. fails to address its debt and currency challenges, it risks a modern equivalent of the Dark Ages—a period of economic stagnation, fractured social cohesion, and diminished global influence. A collapse in the dollar’s value could undermine its reserve currency status, raising import costs and triggering inflation. Without fiscal reform, the U.S. could face declining living standards, crumbling infrastructure, and weakened institutions, much like post-Roman Europe.

Averting the Fall: Lessons from Rome

Rome’s collapse was not inevitable but resulted from unchecked fiscal and monetary policies. The U.S. can avoid a similar fate through disciplined budgeting, tax reforms, and monetary restraint. Addressing inequality, curbing asset inflation, and investing in education and infrastructure could restore economic stability. However, political will remains a barrier, as short-term gains often trump long-term planning, just as they did in Rome’s final centuries.

A Warning from History The fall of Rome, driven by currency devaluation and a debt spiral, serves as a cautionary tale for the United States. With a $37 trillion debt, a devalued dollar, and soaring asset prices, the U.S. risks repeating Rome’s mistakes. The parallels—economic inequality, military overreach, and political dysfunction—are stark. Without decisive action, the U.S. could face a future of economic decline and social fragmentation, not unlike the Dark Ages that followed Rome’s collapse.

The Spiral of Asset Inflation and Its Devastating Impact on the United States Since the 1960s

Since the 1960s, the United States has undergone a profound economic transformation driven by asset inflation, a phenomenon where the prices of assets like stocks, real estate, and commodities rise faster than wages or general consumer prices. This process, fueled by monetary policy, government spending, and structural economic shifts, has reshaped the nation’s financial landscape, eroded purchasing power, and undermined affordability and quality of life for millions. The ballooning national debt, now exceeding $37 trillion, stands as a stark symbol of these excesses, with cascading effects on the stock market, real estate, the dollar, and the broader economy. This article explores the mechanisms of asset inflation, its historical trajectory, and the profound damages it has inflicted, culminating in a detailed examination of the debt crisis and the looming threat of hyperinflation driven by recent legislative spending.

In the 1960s, the United States was riding the wave of post-World War II economic dominance. The Bretton Woods system, established in 1944, pegged the dollar to gold and made it the world’s reserve currency, fostering stability. However, the seeds of asset inflation were sown as government spending surged to fund the Vietnam War and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. Deficit spending began to climb, with federal debt rising from $286 billion in 1960 to $371 billion by 1970. To finance these expenditures, the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply, subtly inflating asset prices.The decoupling of the dollar from the gold standard in 1971, under President Richard Nixon, marked a pivotal moment. Freed from the constraints of gold, the Federal Reserve could print money at will, leading to an era of fiat currency. This shift enabled greater monetary flexibility but also unleashed inflationary pressures. Consumer prices rose, but more significantly, asset prices—stocks, real estate, and commodities—began to climb disproportionately, setting the stage for decades of wealth concentration and economic distortion.

The 1970s: Stagflation and the First Signs of Trouble

The 1970s brought stagflation, a toxic mix of stagnant economic growth and high inflation. The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 drove up energy costs, while loose monetary policy fueled price increases across the board. Real estate prices began their long ascent, with median home prices rising from $23,000 in 1970 to $55,700 by 1980. The stock market, however, languished, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average barely moving from 800 points in 1970 to 850 by 1980, as inflation eroded real returns.Purchasing power took a hit as wages failed to keep pace with inflation. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose at an average annual rate of 7.1% during the decade, while real median household income stagnated. For the average American, the dream of homeownership became more elusive, and the cost of living climbed. The Federal Reserve’s attempts to curb inflation with high interest rates under Chairman Paul Volcker in the late 1970s sent shockwaves through the economy, triggering a recession but failing to address the underlying structural issues of asset inflation.

The 1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, saw a shift toward deregulation and tax cuts, which supercharged asset inflation. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 slashed marginal tax rates, boosting disposable income for the wealthy and fueling investment in stocks and real estate. The stock market boomed, with the Dow Jones rising from 950 points in 1982 to nearly 2,700 by 1987. Real estate followed suit, with median home prices reaching $89,200 by 1990.However, this wealth creation was uneven. The benefits accrued primarily to asset holders, while wage earners saw modest gains. The savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s, driven by speculative real estate lending, foreshadowed the risks of unchecked asset inflation. Meanwhile, federal deficits soared, with the national debt tripling from $900 billion in 1980 to $2.7 trillion by 1989, as tax cuts and military spending outpaced revenue. This debt-financed growth laid the groundwork for future economic instability.

The 1990s saw asset inflation accelerate with the dot-com bubble. Low interest rates and optimism about technology drove the Nasdaq to unprecedented heights, peaking at 5,048 in March 2000. Real estate markets also heated up, with median home prices climbing to $131,000 by 2000. Globalization, facilitated by trade agreements like NAFTA, kept consumer goods prices low but suppressed domestic wages, further decoupling asset price growth from income growth.The Federal Reserve, under Alan Greenspan, adopted a policy of easy money, keeping interest rates low to stimulate growth. This fueled speculative investment, inflating asset prices while leaving middle-class purchasing power stagnant. The national debt continued to rise, reaching $5.6 trillion by 2000, as budget surpluses late in the decade proved fleeting. The growing disconnects between asset wealth and real income began to strain affordability, particularly in housing.

The 2000s: The Housing Bubble and Financial Crisis

The early 2000s marked a new phase of asset inflation, centered on real estate. After the dot-com crash, the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to 1%, channeling capital into housing. Median home prices surged from $131,000 in 2000 to $221,900 by 2006. Subprime lending and financial innovations like mortgage-backed securities amplified the bubble, as banks extended credit to increasingly risky borrowers.The 2008 financial crisis exposed the fragility of this system. When the housing bubble burst, home prices plummeted, wiping out $7 trillion in household wealth. The stock market crashed, with the Dow Jones falling from 14,164 in 2007 to 6,547 by March 2009. The federal government responded with massive bailouts and stimulus, pushing the national debt from $9 trillion in 2007 to $11.9 trillion by 2009. While these measures stabilized markets, they deepened the debt burden and failed to address the root causes of asset inflation.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve embarked on quantitative easing (QE), purchasing trillions in bonds to inject liquidity into the economy. This policy drove down interest rates, propelling stock and real estate markets to new highs. By 2019, the Dow Jones had climbed to 28,000, and median home prices reached $313,000. However, wage growth remained sluggish, with real median household income rising only 10% from 2010 to 2019.QE disproportionately benefited asset owners, exacerbating wealth inequality. The top 1% of households, holding the majority of stocks and real estate, saw their wealth soar, while the bottom 50% struggled with stagnant wages and rising costs. The national debt continued its relentless climb, reaching $22.7 trillion by 2019, as tax cuts under President Donald Trump and increased spending added to the deficit. The dollar’s purchasing power eroded, with the CPI rising 18% over the decade, while essentials like healthcare and education outpaced general inflation.

The 2020s: Pandemic Spending and Debt Explosion

The COVID-19 pandemic unleashed an unprecedented wave of government spending, pushing the national debt to $37 trillion by 2025. Stimulus packages, including the $2.2 trillion CARES Act and subsequent relief bills, flooded the economy with cash, much of which flowed into asset markets. The stock market, despite a brief crash in March 2020, soared to record highs, with the Dow Jones surpassing 40,000 by 2024. Real estate prices followed, with median home prices hitting $412,000 in 2024.However, this stimulus-driven boom came at a cost. Inflation surged, with the CPI rising 8.5% in 2022 alone, the highest in four decades. The dollar’s purchasing power plummeted, as everyday goods like groceries and gas became more expensive. Rent and housing costs outpaced income growth, making homeownership unattainable for many. The Federal Reserve’s attempts to tame inflation with higher interest rates slowed the economy but failed to curb asset inflation, as speculative capital continued to drive up stock and real estate prices.The $37 Trillion Debt Crisis: A Ticking Time BombThe national debt, now exceeding $37 trillion, represents a profound threat to the U.S. economy and quality of life. Interest payments on the debt are projected to reach $1 trillion annually by 2030, crowding out spending on essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This debt, accumulated through decades of deficit spending, reflects a reliance on borrowing to sustain economic growth and fund social programs, tax cuts, and military expenditures.

The debt’s growth has been fueled by structural imbalances. Tax cuts, such as those in 1981, 2001, and 2017, reduced federal revenue, while entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare face mounting costs as the population ages. Military spending, averaging $700 billion annually, and emergency measures like pandemic relief have further ballooned the deficit. In 2024, the federal deficit reached $1.8 trillion, with no immediate plan for fiscal restraint.Quality of Life Impacts: The Human Toll of Debt and InflationThe $37 trillion debt has had tangible negative effects on Americans’ quality of life. As interest payments consume a larger share of the federal budget, funding for public services has dwindled. Education budgets have stagnated, with per-pupil spending in real terms barely rising since the 2000s. Healthcare costs have soared, with premiums for family coverage rising 47% from 2010 to 2020, far outpacing wage growth.Housing affordability has reached crisis levels. In 1960, the median home price was 2.5 times the median household income; by 2024, it was nearly 5 times. Young Americans, burdened by student debt averaging $30,000 per borrower, struggle to enter the housing market. Renters fare no better, with median rents rising 20% faster than wages since 2000. The dream of homeownership, once a cornerstone of the American Dream, is increasingly out of reach.

The Stock Market: A Mirage of Prosperity

The stock market’s meteoric rise, driven by low interest rates and corporate stock buybacks, has created an illusion of economic health. However, this wealth is concentrated among the top 10% of households, who own 89% of corporate stocks. For the average American, the stock market’s gains offer little relief, as most lack significant investment portfolios. The Dow Jones’s climb to 40,000 by 2024 reflects speculative fervor rather than broad-based economic strength. Market volatility, exacerbated by debt-financed growth, poses risks to retirement savings and pensions. The 2008 crash and subsequent recoveries have shown that asset inflation can lead to devastating corrections, wiping out wealth for those least equipped to absorb losses. Meanwhile, corporate debt, fueled by cheap borrowing, has reached $13 trillion, raising concerns about systemic risks in the event of an economic downturn. Today we are way more leveraged, and the debt has ballooned. We are entering a debt spiral.

Real Estate: The Unaffordable American Dream

Real estate has been a primary driver of asset inflation, with profound consequences for affordability. In high-demand areas like San Francisco and New York, median home prices exceed $1 million, locking out all but the wealthiest buyers. Even in less expensive regions, rising prices and high interest rates have made homeownership prohibitive. The National Association of Realtors reported a homeownership rate of 65% in 2024, down from 69% in 2004.The ripple effects of real estate inflation are far-reaching. High housing costs strain household budgets, leaving less for savings, education, or discretionary spending. Gentrification has displaced lower-income communities, while homelessness has surged, with over 650,000 Americans unhoused on any given night in 2024. The debt-driven real estate boom has enriched property owners but left renters and first-time buyers struggling.The Dollar’s Decline: Erosion of Purchasing PowerThe dollar’s purchasing power has steadily eroded since the 1960s. A dollar in 1960 is worth roughly 10 cents today, adjusted for inflation. This decline, driven by monetary expansion and deficit spending, has made everyday goods and services more expensive. Essentials like healthcare, childcare, and education have seen price increases far exceeding the CPI, squeezing middle- and working-class families.

The dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency has allowed the U.S. to borrow at low rates, but this privilege is under strain. Foreign holdings of U.S. debt, particularly by China and Japan, have raised concerns about dependency on external financing. A weakening dollar, coupled with rising inflation, threatens to further erode purchasing power, making imports costlier and exacerbating cost-of-living pressures.Quality of Life: A Nation Under StrainThe cumulative effects of asset inflation and debt have taken a toll on Americans’ quality of life. Economic insecurity has risen, with 60% of Americans reporting they could not cover a $1,000 emergency without borrowing, according to a 2024 survey. The gig economy, driven by stagnant wages and rising costs, has left millions in precarious employment, with little access to benefits or job security.Mental health has deteriorated, with anxiety and depression rates climbing alongside economic pressures. The opioid crisis, fueled in part by economic despair, has claimed over 70,000 lives annually. Life expectancy, a key indicator of societal well-being, has stagnated, with the U.S. trailing other developed nations. The debt crisis, by constraining public investment, has left infrastructure crumbling, schools underfunded, and healthcare inaccessible for many.

The Big Beautiful Bill: A Catalyst for Crisis

The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” a multi-trillion-dollar spending package, represents a continuation of deficit-driven policies that have fueled asset inflation. Touted as a bold investment in infrastructure, green energy, and social programs, the bill adds an estimated $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. While its proponents argue it will spur growth, critics warn it risks igniting hyperinflation in assets and deepening the affordability crisis.

The bill’s funding mechanisms, relying heavily on borrowing and monetary expansion, are likely to exacerbate existing imbalances. By injecting trillions into an already overheated economy, it could drive up asset prices further, particularly in real estate and stocks. The Federal Reserve, caught between inflation and growth concerns, may struggle to maintain control, potentially leading to higher interest rates that choke off economic activity.The Threat of Hyperinflation in AssetsHyperinflation in assets, distinct from consumer price hyperinflation, occurs when asset prices rise at an unsustainable rate, detached from economic fundamentals. The Big Beautiful Bill’s massive spending could accelerate this trend, as stimulus funds flow into speculative markets. Stocks, already trading at historically high price-to-earnings ratios, could see further gains, creating a bubble ripe for collapse. Real estate, already unaffordable, could become even more inaccessible, with median home prices potentially exceeding $500,000 by 2030.The consequences of asset hyperinflation are dire. A stock market crash, triggered by overvaluation, could wipe out trillions in wealth, devastating retirement accounts and institutional investors. Real estate unaffordability would deepen, locking out younger generations and fueling social unrest. The dollar, under pressure from rising debt and inflation, could lose further value, increasing import costs and eroding living standards.The Unaffordability Crisis: A Looming CatastropheThe combination of asset inflation and massive deficit spending is pushing the U.S. toward an unaffordability crisis. Housing, already out of reach for many, could become a luxury good, with homeownership rates falling below 60%. Renters, facing rising costs, may be forced into substandard housing or homelessness. The stock market, while a boon for the wealthy, offers little relief for the majority, who lack the means to invest.

Essential costs, from healthcare to education, are likely to rise faster than incomes, further squeezing household budgets. The Big Beautiful Bill, while promising long-term benefits, risks short-term pain by fueling inflation and debt. Without structural reforms—such as tax increases, spending cuts, or monetary tightening—the crisis could spiral, with hyperinflation in assets triggering a broader economic collapse.Social and Political FalloutThe unaffordability crisis is already fueling social and political tensions. Wealth inequality, exacerbated by asset inflation, has created a bifurcated society, with the top 1% holding 32% of wealth while the bottom 50% hold just 2%. This divide has eroded trust in institutions, fueling populism and polarization. Protests over housing costs and economic inequality have become more common, with cities like Los Angeles and Seattle reporting record demonstrations in 2024.The debt crisis, by limiting fiscal flexibility, constrains the government’s ability to address these issues. Austerity measures, if implemented, could spark further unrest, while continued borrowing risks financial instability. The Big Beautiful Bill, while politically popular, may deepen these divides, as its benefits are likely to accrue to asset holders while its costs—higher taxes, inflation, or debt servicing—fall on the broader population.

A Precarious FutureThe United States stands at a crossroads. The $37 trillion debt, coupled with ongoing deficit spending, threatens to undermine the nation’s economic foundation. Asset inflation, while enriching a minority, has eroded affordability, purchasing power, and quality of life for millions. The Big Beautiful Bill, while ambitious, risks exacerbating these trends, potentially triggering hyperinflation in assets and a full-blown unaffordability crisis.Addressing this crisis requires bold action. Fiscal discipline, through a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases, is essential to stabilize the debt. Monetary policy must balance growth and inflation, avoiding the excesses of the past. Structural reforms, such as zoning changes to boost housing supply or tax policies to reduce wealth inequality, could mitigate the effects of asset inflation. Without such measures, the U.S. risks a future of economic stagnation, social unrest, and diminished opportunity.

Since the 1960s, asset inflation and rising debt have transformed the United States, creating a wealthier but less equitable and affordable society. The stock market and real estate have soared, but at the cost of stagnant wages, eroding purchasing power, and declining quality of life. The $37 trillion national debt, amplified by measures like the Big Beautiful Bill, looms as a threat to future prosperity, with the potential to trigger hyperinflation in assets and a crippling unaffordability crisis. As the nation grapples with these challenges, the choices made today will determine whether the American Dream can be reclaimed—or lost to the excesses of debt and inflation. But we see this nation sadly coming to its final chapters because of the illusion of wealth and easy money. People do not want change or sound money, and we will just continue to lower our living standards.

You can also access the latest news at this address: www.whatfinger.com

China’s new export controls on its rare earth elements industry have provoked a new round of American tariffs. What are the drivers and implications of this economic war?

On October 9th, China announced a tightening of its export controls on rare earth elements, which will now include a number of new elements and refining technologies. China controls around 90% of the world’s capacity to produce rare earths, which are essential inputs in the production of technologies from AI, microchips, and smartphones to advanced military hardware. In 2023, 70% of rare earth minerals used in the US came from China.

On October 10, President Trump condemned the measures and responded with a new round of 100% tariffs on all imports from China as well as US export controls on “critical software” to China. Targeted US export controls on critical software to China may affect China’s domestic production of software-based goods, such as smartphones. Meanwhile, the US’s new 100% blanket tariffs on Chinese imports will send shockwaves through both economies.

These developments have far-reaching implications that extend beyond the obvious deterioration of US-China bilateral relations. The economic impact of a 100% tariff on Chinese goods will likely be passed onto American consumers, resulting in a deepening of the cost-of-living crisis already affecting communities across the country. The new tariffs will go into effect on November 1, 2025.

The cost of living crisis is one of the most politically significant issues in America today, and was a decisive factor in the 2024 Presidential election of Donald Trump. President Biden faced record-low approval ratings in part due to the crisis, which Trump deceitfully promised to address throughout his campaign. The renewed tariff war with China will raise consumer prices, and with it, the precariousness of life for an increasingly discontented US working class.

Beijing’s move is not the first of its kind. China’s near monopoly on the production and processing of rare earths can be wielded as a chokepoint in the supply chains of critical US tech, automobile, and military industries, and has been used as a mechanism of leverage against the economic aggression of the Trump administration. After President Trump’s infamous ‘liberation day’ tariffs were announced in April, China responded in kind with a set of export bans on rare earths.

On May 12, 2025, negotiations took place in Geneva to mutually lower tariffs between the two countries by 115%. However, on May 30, Trump accused China of violating the Geneva deal. In support of this claim, administration officials cited that “China did not ease its restrictions on rare earth exports as was supposedly a part of the deal.” Days later, the Chinese foreign ministry announced that the export restrictions remained due to “a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China, including issuing export control guidelines for AI chips, stopping the sale of chip design software (EDA) to China, and announcing the revocation of Chinese student visas.”

Restrictions were once more eased and tariffs lowered during talks held in London on June 10, but developments this October have brought tariff walls back up and even more comprehensive rare earth export bans back into force.

In relation to rare earths and critical minerals more broadly, US policy under Trump’s second term has been shaped with the economic consequences of an escalating trade war with China in mind. The two primary manifestations of this strategy have been domestic resource nationalism and the forging of (often coercive) critical minerals deals abroad. This analysis will explain how these objectives are connected to both the economic war on China and the Trump Administration’s overall vision of American power projection moving into the second quarter of the 21st century.

Domestic Resource Nationalism

China’s dominance of rare earth supply chains presents a major problem to US policy makers interested in engaging China in conflict. Importantly, high-powered magnets that require rare earths are necessary in the production of advanced military hardware, which was cited as the factual basis for the most recent round of export controls by the Chinese foreign ministry.

On October 9, they claimed, “In the context of turmoil and frequent military conflicts in the world, China has taken note of the important uses of medium and heavy rare earths and related items in the military field. China, as a responsible major country, employs export controls on related items according to the law, in order to better defend world peace and regional stability, and to fulfill non-proliferation and other international obligations.”

The foreign ministry framed the export controls as not directed at any particular country, but this is obviously untrue. While not as rare as the name suggests, rare earths are both geographically concentrated and require technologically complex processing stages. The US has only one operational mine in Mountain Pass, California, and thus currently lacks the extraction and industrial refining capacity to achieve ‘supply chain independence’.

In July 2025, MP Materials (the firm operating Mountain Pass) entered into a multi-billion-dollar public-private partnership with none other than the Pentagon itself. After Trump’s first round of blanket tariffs on China was met with a response in the form of rare earth export restrictions, the Pentagon decided to take action. In the words of James Litinsky, the CEO and Founder of MP Materials, “this initiative marks a decisive action by the Trump administration to accelerate American supply chain independence.”

MP Materials is planning on building another site for the extraction and processing of rare earths with the help of this new partnership. However, the industrial policy necessary to build out these advanced supply chains has been virtually nonexistent in the US under recent (neoliberal) Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Reaching a level of supply chain independence capable of feeding the insatiable demands of the US military industrial complex and so-called ‘AI arms race’ is a task that will take years if not decades.

To compensate for the exposed vulnerabilities in the rare earths industry vis-a-vis China, the US has turned abroad to attempt to circumvent China’s supply chains. Since assuming office, the Trump Administration has signed deals or held talks for the procurement of rare earths in the DRC, Ukraine, Brazil and most recently Australia, while also threatening on multiple occasions to invade and possibly annex Greenland, which has large concentrated reserves of rare earths.

Circumventing China’s Rare Earths Chokepoint: The Art of The Deal (and of Imperialist Plunder)

Greenland

President Trump created a media storm at the beginning of his second term in January when he controversially claimed that the US was interested in taking Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish possession, by military force. In an interview with NBC News in May, he reiterated this vision. “We need Greenland very badly,” the president said. “Greenland is a very small number of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security.”

Greenland has the world’s eighth-largest deposits of rare earths, and hosts two companies involved in mining projects: Energy Transition Minerals (majority owned by a Chinese company) and Critical Metals (owned by US-based capital), which recently purchased ownership of the large rare earths project formerly operated by Tanbreez Mining.

Reuters reported in January 2025, “U.S. and Danish officials lobbied the developer of Greenland’s largest rare earths deposit last year not to sell its project to Chinese-linked firms.” The firm, Tanbreez Mining, ended up selling to the New York-based Critical Metals instead. The third largest investor in Critical Metals, the brokerage firm Cantor Fitzgerald, is run by Howard Lutnick, who also happens to be the sitting Secretary of the Department of Commerce under the Trump Administration.

According to Reuters, Critical Metals is now in talks with the defense contractors Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Boeing regarding the integration of rare earths operations in Southern Greenland into the supply chains of the military industrial complex. Lockheed told reporters that “it continuously assesses the rare earth supply chain to ensure access to critical materials.”

Even if the potential military invasion of Greenland was a Trumpian bluff, the penetration of US capital to develop the island’s reserves of rare earths will likely proceed. The island also hosts the US military’s Pituffik Space Base and holds geo-strategic significance beyond its vast mineral wealth.

Australia

On October 20, 2025, the White House released the “United States-Australia Framework For Securing of Supply in the Mining and Processing of Critical Minerals and Rare Earths.” The White House announced that this new bilateral framework was created to “support the supply of raw and processed critical minerals and rare earths crucial to the commercial and defense industries of the United States and Australia.” The deal, worth $8.5 billion, will raise financing for projects in Australia and the US.

Due to its relative proximity to China, Australia has been a key US ally in the Indo-Pacific region. It hosts the most important US intelligence base outside of the continental US, Pine Gap, which has been exposed by Edward Snowden’s leaks and other accounts to have played an important role in US wars in West Asia.

Australia has served the role of US client state for decades, and is once again proving its utility to Washington through this critical mineral framework; however, this deal cannot help the US build a domestic rare earths supply chain in the short run. The fruitfulness of these new prospective projects will likely be at least a decade or so in the making.

Ukraine

Trump came to power in January 2025, with a promise to end the Russia-Ukraine War. While peace negotiations have been entirely unsuccessful so far, a ‘minerals for security’ deal was struck between the US and Ukraine in May, which included rights to Ukraine’s vast reserves of rare earths.

The established “United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund” states that “Each Governmental Authority of Ukraine that is authorized to issue a license or special permit for subsoil use for any Natural Resource Relevant Assets shall include in the terms of such license a provision allowing the U.S. Partner (or its designee or assignee) to negotiate for offtake rights on market-based commercial terms.”

US-based capital will have first priority in the plunder of Ukraine’s largely untapped mineral wealth, which includes, but is not limited to, rare earths. Beyond its utility as a Western bulwark against Russia and as a wedge to deepen Europe’s dependence on the US economy, Washington sees Ukraine as playing a role in its attempt to re-route its cutting edge technology supply chains around China.

The Democratic Republic of The Congo

In a similar fashion to the Ukraine deal, the Trump administration made a ‘minerals for peace’ deal in the DRC, which offered security guarantees to the war-torn country at the price of its natural resource sovereignty.

On June 27, 2025, US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Mark Rubio brokered the deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in Doha, Qatar. Rwanda, a key US ally in the region, has been backing the M23 rebel group that now occupies the mineral rich regions of the Eastern DRC. As a part of the deal, the Trump Administration stipulated that mining concessions to the tune of “multibillion-dollar investments” be included, according to US special adviser to Africa Massad Boulos.

The Eastern DRC is rich in a variety of critical minerals for the world’s new qualitative productive forces today. It is the world’s leading hub of cobalt and coltan operations, which have been subject to various inquiries on the basis of massive human rights and environment abuses rampant in the industries. However, the Eastern DRC also has rare earths, which are included for speculation in the US draft framework. A Canadian company, Simba Essential Minerals, is already operating a rare earths mine in the Eastern DRC province of Kivu.

Brazil

Brazil boasts the second-largest reserves of rare earths on the planet, behind only China. The center-left government of Lula de Silva has had a historically contentious relationship with Donald Trump, who is a close ally of the leader of the former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. Despite ongoing political turmoil between the two leaders, diplomatic talks regarding Trump’s tariffs have opened up the possibility of a partnership to develop Brazil’s rare earth deposits.

Currently, the vast deposits in Minas Gerais, Goiás, and Bahia are largely underdeveloped. In need of large capital investment for processing and refining capacity, Brazil’s reserves are certainly on Washington’s radar. However, Lula’s center-left government is not interested in any deal that will leave Brazil at the bottom of the value chain. Brazil has a long and ongoing history of colonial extraction: a model that only produces underdevelopment and social and ecological immiseration. According to an analysis from Rare Earth Exchanges, Lula’s government is “pushing for value chain sovereignty” and will stipulate “local beneficiation requirements” in any serious rare earths deal.

The Stakes

The Trump administration cannot escalate any type of conflict with China while it retains a near monopoly on the mining and processing of rare earth elements. These minerals are currently irreplaceable in the production of the most important 21st-century technologies, including microchips for AI, renewable energy, and the most up-to-date military applications. If Trump were to attempt to escalate, for example, over the situation in Taiwan, resulting in a military confrontation, President Xi could place a devastating total export ban on rare earths.

The US ruling class wants conflict with China more than anything. This is reflected in the bipartisan consensus that has emerged concretely since President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” declaration in 2011, which amounted to pursuing unilateral US aggression towards China ostensibly over a range of different human rights, democracy, and trade issues. The former two can be identified as disingenuous at best, given the ever-expanding US track record in the departments of human rights abuses and subversion of democracy at home and abroad. Trade, and more specifically, development, is the defining issue.

China’s state-monitored approach to market-oriented development throughout the era of neoliberal globalization—a process which began in the 1980s with the financialization of the world economy, de-industrialization of the US economy, and disarticulation of global supply chains—has successfully precipitated the emergence of rivals to US big tech monopoly capital. Chinese firms like Huawei, DeepSeek, Baidu, and Alibaba present the first real challenge to the total global dominance of firms like Google, Amazon, and Apple.

By nature, and despite praising the ideology of the free market when it suits them, quasi-monopolies hate competition more than anything. All competition must be crushed for monopoly super-profits (rents) to remain viable. China’s supplanting of the international division of labor established by centuries of Western imperialism was its unforgivable crime. In a speech at the American Dynamism Summit, Vice President JD Vance gave some telling remarks about globalization. He said, “The idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain, while the poor countries made the simpler things.”

In clear reference to China’s development, he went on, “It turns out that the geographies that do the manufacturing get awfully good at the designing of things. There are network effects, as you all well understand. The firms that design products work with firms that manufacture. They share intellectual property. They share best practices. And they even sometimes share critical employees. Now, we assumed that other nations would always trail us in the value chain, but it turns out that as they got better at the low end of the value chain, they also started catching up on the higher end. We were squeezed from both ends.”

Here was an open admission of how China’s technological development and competition with Western monopolies are antithetical to US objectives in the world economy. Ultimately, US aggression towards China, and the attempt to end China’s rare earths leverage is all about retaining American power in an era of its relative decline. The US attempt to regain global hegemony by de-developing China demands that the US end its dependence on China for its critical supply chains; otherwise, escalation is self-defeating.

Lastly, the Trump administration and its billionaire backers have wedded themselves to the so-called ‘AI arms race’, which not only requires complex critical mineral and infrastructure supply chains, but is also deeply integrated with US monopoly capital. The US economy is currently riding an AI bubble, backed by the US government and the largest firms in finance, big tech, fossil fuels, and the military-industrial complex.

The Magnificent Seven big tech giants, Apple (AAPL), Nvidia (NVDA), Microsoft (MSFT), Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL), Meta (META), and Tesla (TSLA), represented 30.35% of the entire stock market capitalization as of the end of September 2025, and over half of its growth. These firms and the other major tech corporations are investing billions of dollars in the development of AI data centers across the world and have been subject to enormous waves of financial speculation that are propping up the US stock market. Even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has recently admitted that AI is in a bubble.

McKinsey estimates that “by 2030, data centers are projected to require $6.7 trillion worldwide to keep pace with the demand for compute power.” Time will tell if anything close to this wild figure comes to fruition, but regardless, the supply chains for AI’s physical infrastructure start with critical minerals. With the ruling class’s eggs in the AI basket, and potential bottlenecks from an adversarial China, supply chain integrity for rare earths (and critical minerals more broadly) is an imperative for the future of the US empire.

You can also access the latest news at this address: www.whatfinger.com