Flashes Of Insight Dept.

     We all have them. The trick is recognizing them and making proper use of them. Have a typical sample:

I was reminded of the debt slavery system last week when I fully paid off an account and the next day got a warning that paying the account off was going to drop my credit score.

They don't want you to pay off debts, they want you to just manage it.

— Rae ❤️‍🔥 (@FiatLuxGenesis) November 9, 2025

     This woman was “clued in” by an institution that had been profiting from her indebtedness. Not everyone is that fortunate. Perhaps she had a subliminal instant of “What if everyone?” – that quick, massively disturbing recognition of a pattern previously uncontemplated. It happens now and then, even to people barely conscious of their own existences.

     Patterns exist because of the commonalities among us. We all hunger. We all want. We all fear. We all respond to “carrots and sticks:” incentives and disincentives. He who detects a strong motivator, shared widely among us, that he can exploit has taken his first step toward wealth, power, fame, or all three.

     Sometimes that recognition carries another in its wake.

---

     Professional money managers learn things about the ebb and flow of investment that most people never realize. This is something of an “of course” matter; one couldn’t make a living managing others’ assets without some amount of special knowledge. Yet bits of that knowledge are useful to the rest of us as well. One such item is this: Contrarians nearly always make money.

     The contrarian, in the equities markets, is one who studies market behavior for its current trends, and then deliberately plays against them. Everyone is buying? The contrarian sells. Everyone is selling? The contrarian buys. Given the old aphorism that “The trend is your friend,” how does that work?

     A trend is a temporary thing. “Trees do not grow to the sky,” as Baron de Rothschild has told us. Every trend will end at some point. While it lasts, its dynamism provides opportunities to those with available capital. The key question is how the current trend will end.

     Take an arbitrary equity: say, the stock of that perennial titan of American industry, Acme Corp. Is it going up, perhaps propelled by some dramatic recent development? If contrarian Smith already has some Acme stock, he’ll sell at a point where its price reflects an unusually high price-to-earnings ratio (P/E). That way, when Acme peaks and falls back toward a historically stable P/E, Smith can buy it back. That gives him both a profit on the sale plus continuing returns on Acme shares.

     The same applies if Acme is “in trouble:” that is, if its share price is declining. Smith waits until Acme is significantly below its historic P/E, then buys. When Acme rebounds, he can profit by selling. (A “value investor” such as Warren Buffet might choose to hold the stock instead.)

     The contrarian’s assets are patience, liquid capital, and confidence that “the trend will end,” usually without taking all his money with it. And he nearly always profits.

---

     “Don’t run with the herd” is advice frequently given to young people by their parents and other respected advisors. It’s hard advice to follow. There’s always that suspicion that “the herd” knows something you don’t. That might be true... but going in the opposite direction is more likely to get young Smith something his contemporaries will not.

     “The herd” tends to conceal the identities and characteristics of those in it. We see the rushing crowd; we overlook the individuals. That’s no way to attract the attention of others with something special to offer. If you want to be noticed, run the other way.

     Several patterns are current among young Americans. Nearly all young adults borrow, thus shackling themselves to an obligation that will last several years. Why? They want something: a house, a car, a vacation, or some other expensive item. But whatever it is, they seldom need it. And since they’ve borrowed to “afford” it; they’re committed to paying more for it than its nominal purchase price. Young contrarian Smith lives beneath his means, saves his money, and waits until he can afford what he wants without paying interest.

     Young Americans today “play around” for years before choosing a mate and “getting settled.” That’s herd behavior too; it’s fueled in part by sexual hunger and in part by the subconscious need to “have someone.” Young Smith, who wants to be noticed and desired by a truly exceptional young woman, keeps himself to himself. Oh, he socializes, but he doesn’t date a lot of women, and he certainly doesn’t “sleep around.” The young women who know him will take notice. It will intrigue them... much to his benefit.

     It’s practically self-explanatory. The exceptional are those whose behavior is exceptional: the contrarians! They don’t “run with the herd;” they note which way the herd is going and run the other way. And they almost always derive an exceptional benefit from doing so.

     Of course, being part of “the herd” does confer something as well. Many people actively want the anonymity, the obscurity, and the freedom from independent judgment that come from losing oneself in the crowd. But those are drives I don’t share.

The Pillars Of Power

     I once wrote:

     Many are the laws that go unenforced, or are selectively enforced according to the whim of “the authorities.” Many are the laws written to target particular institutions or individuals, who are thus made “enemies of the state” in fact if not in name. Many are the laws written so obscurely that even those who wrote them cannot explain their intent nor their effect. Many are the laws that have advanced injustice rather than justice.

     When those who claim to represent the law decide, arbitrarily, when it applies and what degree of enforcement it deserves, then there is no law. When they decide, for whatever reason, that the law binds some persons but not others, then there is no law. When the law is written in such a fashion that no one can be certain what it compels or forbids, then there is no law. And when the law is “interpreted” to override the natural rights of individuals to their lives, liberties, and honestly acquired properties, then there is no law.

     I meant it then, and I mean it now.

---

     I’ve also written, on several occasions, that the pillars of freedom are three: education, communications, and weaponry. Power-seekers know that quite well. In every society on Earth, the State strives to control all three: to impose itself upon them; to thwart alternatives to them; and to prevent escape from the State’s versions of them. I challenge you, Gentle Reader, to cite an exception. Thus, what serves the freedom-seeker can serve the power-seeker equally well.

     Let’s have a quick survey of those things in these United States:

• Education is almost completely controlled by governments. Their tool for imposing State-controlled “public” education upon us is principally economic: high levels of taxation that demand two incomes per family and discourage expenditures on educational alternatives. The escape of homeschooling compels serious economic compromises by families that choose it.
• Armament in private hands is obviously suppressed by governments to the maximum possible extent, despite the “protections” of the Second Amendment. Yes, you can buy a surplus tank or howitzer, but only after rigorous investigation by the State and rendering the thing impotent for conflict.
• Private persons’ ability to communicate is where we retain the greatest latitude. However, it’s also where the State is most active today, principally through lawfare, anti-“hate speech” campaigns, and the seduction of Big Tech into its agenda.

     All that, despite the “protections” of the Constitution! No need to imagine where we’d be without the Constitution; just look at what’s been done to the peoples of Europe.

---

     So we see that the pillars of freedom serve equally well as the pillars of power. To the extent that the State controls them, it controls us. It denies us and our progeny what we need to retain even a shred of freedom. Flee? To where?

     Have a bit of Orwell for dessert:

     If there is hope, wrote Winston, it lies in the proles.
     If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflexion of the voice, at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength. would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet-!
     He remembered how once he had been walking down a crowded street when a tremendous shout of hundreds of voices women’s voices — had burst from a side-street a little way ahead. It was a great formidable cry of anger and despair, a deep, loud ’Oh-o-o-o-oh!’ that went humming on like the reverberation of a bell. His heart had leapt. It’s started! he had thought. A riot! The proles are breaking loose at last! When he had reached the spot it was to see a mob of two or three hundred women crowding round the stalls of a street market, with faces as tragic as though they had been the doomed passengers on a sinking ship. But at this moment the general despair broke down into a multitude of individual quarrels. It appeared that one of the stalls had been selling tin saucepans. They were wretched, flimsy things, but cooking-pots of any kind were always difficult to get. Now the supply had unexpectedly given out. The successful women, bumped and jostled by the rest, were trying to make off with their saucepans while dozens of others clamoured round the stall, accusing the stall-keeper of favouritism and of having more saucepans somewhere in reserve.
     There was a fresh outburst of yells. Two bloated women, one of them with her hair coming down, had got hold of the same saucepan and were trying to tear it out of one another’s hands. For a moment they were both tugging, and then the handle came off. Winston watched them disgustedly. And yet, just for a moment, what almost frightening power had sounded in that cry from only a few hundred throats! Why was it that they could never shout like that about anything that mattered?
     He wrote:
     Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.

     “The proles” are us, Gentle Reader. We quarrel over potholes, zoning laws, the noise from this one’s barking dog and whether that one’s hedge violates community standards. We joust over school buses, and after-school programs, and trivial differences in property tax rates. We contend over “inequality.” We’ll fight to the death over that last saucepan.

     What would we do, were we actually conscious of what’s been done to us? What’s still being done to us? Would anyone dare try to smash any one of the three pillars of power? Who would risk his life and fortune to try?

     Perhaps I’ll be back later. Just now, it’s time for Mass.

The Terrible Power Of ‘If’ Part 2

     Writer R. G. Ryan deposeth and saith:

     New York just elected a communist as mayor. OK fine. What if instead of running around with our hair on fire screaming about the demise of the Republic we just let it play out. Maybe view it as a huge social experiment. I don’t think it will take us all that long to see whether this version of socialism works or not.

     It’s a suggestion being made in several quarters. Such an experiment will affect the lives of millions, many of whom would rather not be involved in it. But it appears that socialism’s next trial run will take place whether they wish it or not. That returns us to the questions posed in the previous piece.

     There’s quite a bit of danger here. Not all of it is visible.

     The asymmetrical and elevated taxation newly elected Mayor Zohran Mamdani has in mind to power his agenda is of concern, of course. During his campaign he said that he wants to lay heavier taxes on “richer, whiter” areas. New York City’s income tax, like the state and federal versions, allows for “progressive” rates that bite harder as one’s income increases, so given the cooperation of the city council, he could get away with it. But the persons who live in those “richer, whiter” districts are more mobile than many other New Yorkers. They might choose not to stay and be shorn.

     Mamdani hasn’t yet suggested the expropriations characteristic of communist regimes, but it’s a good bet they’re not far from his thoughts. When the State goes into competition with private enterprises, that measure becomes ever more attractive to the regime. Big Apple businesses could feel Mamdani’s clutching fingers at any moment, especially in the food sector, which he’s openly targeted. Other businesses will be endangered simply from increases in the city’s cost of living and operating.

     There’s also a looming prospect for the suppression of dissent. Socialist and communist regimes dislike to have their failures discussed. Mamdani might follow the example currently being set by Britain’s Labour government: declare any public statements it finds uncongenial “hate speech” and deploy the police against the speakers.

     But those are the easily seen dangers. There’s a less visible one that deserves mention: the possibility that with adroit maneuvering and heavy support from the donors that financed his campaign, Mamdani might contrive a “honeymoon” that makes his version of socialism look workable.

     The 1988 serial A Very British Coup dramatized such a possibility. Freshly elected Labour prime minister Harry Perkins, by dint of personal charisma and financial support from the Soviet Union, had engineered a state of affairs in which the United Kingdom appeared to have achieved a version of socialism in which the country was economically stable and at peace. The premise of the drama was that various titled Tories would not have it: they counter-engineer a clever, almost entirely bloodless coup against the Perkins government. The series ends with Perkins addressing the nation with the outline of the coup: he challenges Britons to choose between his elected government and the Conservative plotters.

     Mamdani has already begun to solicit financial support for his intentions from those who backed his campaign. Will those donors ante up to fuel his schemes, thus providing a grace period during which the inherently unworkable appears to work? What would ensue? Would New York State’s government be induced to support his agenda?

     These are all hypotheticals, of course: “if” statements. But they delineate dangers and possibilities that deserve some thought.

The Terrible Power Of ‘If’

     Good morning, Gentle Reader. I hope you got more sleep than I did. Anyway, here we are, with Hallowe’en and Guy Fawkes Day comfortably behind us, it’s time to proceed to the really urgent questions of our time, such as this one:

What if Mamdani’s social experiment actually turns out to be a success?

— Sarah Luna (@sarah_luna_1111) November 6, 2025

     I think the lady who asked that question did so to gauge the astonished outrage in the reactions. Apparently, she wasn’t disappointed. But the question itself is worth thinking about, for a very simple albeit troubling reason:

Any Sociopolitical System Will Work
If Enough Of Those Subjected To It
Accept And Believe In It.

     ...with the murmured codicil:

...For Certain Values Of “Work.”

     Those who find the above confusing should read the title of this tirade a few dozen times.

---

     Some words have more power than others. “If” is one such. In Godel Escher Bach, Douglas Hofstadter called it “the push into fantasy,” and it is so. What follows “if” can be as bizarre and outrageous as you please, else why would we use it?

     Sarah Luna’s innocent-looking question compels us to probe for what “success” – just another way of saying “would work” – would mean to a socialist regime. For we know all the following, from both theory and history:

• Socialism is economically inefficient.
• It requires coercion to bring it about.
• The great majority endure a lower standard of living than under capitalism.
• The ruling elite acquire wealth and power unavailable to anyone else.
• That creates emigration pressure, which must be quelled by force.
• It also encourages military expansionism.

     All that having been said, a socialist system can be said to “work” if the overwhelming majority of those subjected to it voluntarily accept its constraints and conditions. That requires the elevation of socialism to a moral precept: i.e., that any other sociopolitical system is morally wrong.

     By any other standard, socialism is a failure. Only if those subjected to it accept it as a moral code – a faith — can it be stabilized.

     The great Gregory Benford summarized this problem in his novel Against Infinity:

     “The Marxists thought that under socialism, alienation and class warfare would stop. They ignored the fact that the dialectical model of change never predicted an end to contradictions, or to evolution. Socialism requires a bureaucracy, and that means an administrative class. The administrators faced a problem Marxism never discussed: how well socialism works, versus capitalism. What is the good of being exactly equal to everybody else, if that means you have to be poor? The last century has taught us—or rather, Earth—that socialism is less efficient than capitalism at producing goods.”

     In other words, if the standard is an unquestionable moral precept that “capitalism is wrong and socialism is right,” socialism “succeeds.”

---

     Mamdani’s vision of a socialist New York City has only that one chance of survival: persuading the overwhelming majority of Big Apple residents that the conditions he seeks to impose upon them are morally mandatory. Is that even thinkable, in the city that’s been the commercial and financial hub of the world for a century – the city that’s been called “the capital of capitalism?”

     It doesn’t seem likely, but stranger things have happened. Perhaps all the “diehard capitalists” will “emigrate” to friendlier cities and states. Perhaps the remaining residents will accept the much lower standard of living socialism provides as the price for being “right” while the rest of us are “wrong.” It’s just a moral stricture, qualitatively the same as Christianity’s requirement that married men remain faithful to their wives.

     But it’s not likely. Big Apple residents are accustomed to high wages and affluence. Mamdani will face pressure to raise revenues without raising taxes appreciably. He’ll appeal to the state government, and possibly the federal government, for aid. And it’s not entirely impossible that he’ll get it. Remember the Great Default of 1975 under Mayor Abraham Beame?

     Concerning the possibility of a fiscal collapse, Manhattan Institute fellow E. J. McMahon comments:

     Could New York City ever go broke again? The answer is no—or at least, not in the same way as it did in the 1970s, because of financial guardrails set up by the reforms of that era. The prosperity that lifted New York out of virtual bankruptcy, however, also seeded new versions of the political impulses that gave rise to the crisis in the first place. The elected officials who nowadays dominate city hall and Albany exude a sense of fiscal entitlement and economic invulnerability, an aversion to any suggestion of limits on government ambitions, strikingly reminiscent of the Wagner and Lindsay eras. The city’s sprawling network of tax-subsidized nonprofits—a political force that didn’t exist a half-century ago—lobbies relentlessly for higher spending while serving as an organizational network for progressive activists and politicians. Nearly one-quarter of New York’s private-sector employment—twice the share of 30 years ago—is now concentrated in the publicly subsidized health-care and social-assistance sector, which accounts for all the city’s post-pandemic job growth. The municipal labor unions are as powerful as ever, if not more so.
     In short, New York City is poised for another epic fiscal fall. A moderately severe recession is all it would take to push it over the edge. This time, the climb back to fiscal stability could be considerably more difficult.

     Those “political impulses” have come to fruition with the election of socialist Zohran Mamdani.

The Solution Is Neither Obvious Nor Pleasant

     I keep seeing queries such as this:

What tool can store owners own to stop this from happening?! 🚨pic.twitter.com/cOKcoVFkZn

— Anti Left Memes (@AntiLeftMemes) November 5, 2025

     My first thought was for stores to invest in security doors. But storefronts almost all incorporate display windows; thieves that know they won’t be opposed by superior force will smash through them. It’s already been done several times, sometimes with a vehicle. Even armor glass will shatter under that kind of force. So that’s no solution.

     My second thought was for stores to close their retail storefronts and go “delivery only.” But a thief can follow a delivery truck, assault its driver wherever he stops to make a delivery, and make free with the truck’s contents. Once again, the absence of a superior opposing force is what matters.

     So there must be a superior opposing force. Such a force must possess lethal armament that it can and will use at need. A sufficiently high probability of death will deter most thieves, even those that travel in packs. But where are we to find such a force?

     Only the readiness to deal death to attackers has any prospect of success. But even that falls short of perfection. Armored cars with armed guards have been successfully attacked, too. If the thief (or gang of thieves) is heavily armed and willing to risk counterfire, he’ll take his chances.

     Amazon’s delivery trucks have been attacked many times. The driver is usually helpless before such an attack. He may even have been instructed not to resist. In a quiet residential neighborhood, most of its residents at their jobs, where would his protection come from?

     Perfection cannot be the standard. Even were all of us to go armed at all times, there would be some forcible thievery. Ironically, many states deem the protection of property an inadequate justification for the use of lethal force. In New York, a homeowner is forbidden to shoot a burglar unless he can convince a jury that his own life was in danger. Else he may spend several years in prison as the price for stopping the burglar. Never mind that such legal protection of the thief’s “right to life” practically licenses home invaders to do as they will.

     Rose Wilder Lane, in The Discovery of Freedom, noted that what protects most of us is other people’s respect for our rights, rather than the prospect of arrest, trial, and incarceration. But when that respect declines, so does the invisible defense of our persons and property it once provided.

     Americans must become a people in arms once again. Yes, there will be consequences. Some people will die – and some of those will be good people. But with the general understanding of and respect for rights of all kinds having declined so sharply, the time has come for Nemesis to return to the stage and teach the villains once again what follows from Hubris.

Muslim Privilege

     A reckoning is due:

     Is there anyone out there who wants to discuss “privilege?”

---

     Islam is an aggressive, imperialist creed. Little about it is even quasi-religious. When Muslims do things like congregate in the street to “pray,” what they’re really doing is asserting their superiority over secular law. Any other fool who would dare to block a public thoroughfare would swiftly be arrested for obstructing traffic, and possibly disturbing the peace as well. When Muslims do it, the “authorities” pretend it isn’t happening. Taking official notice and dispatching law enforcement to clear the obstruction might have... consequences.

     Don’t mumble “freedom of religion” at me. No other creed would be permitted such disturbances of public order. But our lily-livered “authorities” are either too intimidated by Islamic propensity to violence, or find it useful for keeping the rest of us cowed.

     But ordinary Americans find that we’ve had quite enough. Some of us own trucks with plow blades on them. And a whole lot of us own firearms.

---

     You may be familiar with the following passage:

     “What I actually am, Mr. Rearden, is a policeman. It is a policeman’s duty to protect men from criminals—criminals being those who seize wealth by force. It is a policeman’s duty to retrieve stolen property and return it to its owners. But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman’s duty becomes, not the protection, but the plunder of property—then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman.”

     It’s from Atlas Shrugged, of course. “Pirate” Ragnar Danneskjold is explaining his peculiar occupation to Hank Rearden. But stolen property is only one form of lawbreaking that requires a forcible response. Stolen freedom of transit and stolen public order are no less deserving of our attentions.

     President Trump has approved of the use of significant force when it’s needed to apprehend illegal aliens. Perhaps someone should ask him about these Islamic “street prayers” and what he would approve in response to them. Tear gas, perhaps? Rubber bullets? Or maybe firehoses?

     They must be quelled, and swiftly. If the “authorities” won’t act, private citizens must. Else the law is meaningless, and Islam reigns de facto over these United States.

Important Truths Dept.

     Did you know that millions of people will believe anything at all, however absurd, if it begins with “Did you know that...” -- ?

     No, really! 😉

Could We, Should We Dept.

     Actor Kevin Sorbo asks:

     Muslim militants post selfies with thousands of dead civilians after conquering major Sudanese city! So what are we going to do about it??

     Hm. Sudan, you say? That’s in Africa, isn’t it? What we used to call the “Dark Continent?” Doesn’t Sudan, a sovereignty with a seat in the United Nations General Assembly, have its own military? Couldn’t they do something about the violence? Or is the Sudanese government disinclined to act?

     If that last is the case, an American expeditionary force would have to contend with both the Muslim militants and the Sudanese army. We might have to destroy the latter before we could confront the former. What then? More “nation building?” Perhaps another massive occupation force, to give our precious diplomats and experts time to teach the Sudanese to be civilized members of the global community? That worked out well in Afghanistan, didn’t it?

     And there’s this question to answer: What American interests would be served by intervening in Sudan’s internal chaos?

     Yes, I’m being a bit heavy-handed here, but the impulse demanded some air. We forget so swiftly what our other foreign interventions have wrought. We overlook the savagery that characterizes all of Africa. We think ourselves too powerful to be gainsaid... and too benevolent to be wrong.

     But maybe this time it will be different, you say? What evidence exists for that proposition? And what degree of bloodshed on the part of young Americans would you be willing to invest in the possibility?

     I am so tired of this shit.

---

     Intervenors of every variety call for America to fix other peoples, other nations, other continents. Some of them are genuinely benevolent. Some of them sincerely believe in America’s omnipotence. And some of them see an opportunity for power or baksheesh. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. We can’t do it.

     With all our power and wealth, we cannot raise savages to the level of intelligence and clarity required for the job. I wrote about this long ago:

     America is what it is because it is a made society, founded on clearly understood principles by a pioneer people. The societies of Africa are legacy societies, weighed down by the tribal traditions, superstitions and animosities of thousands of years, unleavened by the Enlightenment from which our core concepts sprang. Until Africa renounces its past, there will be no room in which to build a new future.

     But Africa will not renounce its past. It hasn't yet outgrown its belief in magic. Combatants in the Liberian nightmare are eating their slain enemies' vital organs, in accord with the ancient voodoo belief that this will add the strength of the vanquished to their own. So Liberians look across the Atlantic and cry, "Help us, Lady Liberty! Feed us! We are poor and terrified, you are rich and strong! Bring your breadbasket and your gun and deliver us from the darkness!"

     You cannot have a civilized nation without civilized people. You cannot have a civilized people without both Christian ethics and the Enlightenment. Haven’t our previous ventures into civilizing other lands made that clear yet?

     But that do-gooding impulse can be so strong.

---

     The West can’t help Africa. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself. – Kim Du Toit

     Painful truths are the most aggravating kind. Where’s the Advil? Never mind that; where’s the Oxy? Let’s forget our record of failure at uplift, roll up our sleeves, and get on with it! After all, we’re Americans! And this time, we have experience to draw on, right, guys?

     Experience is supposed to teach. And it does: it tells you why you’ve just busted your skull... after you’ve busted it. But the test comes first; the lesson comes afterward. We’ve had the test several times. We’ve “busted our skull,” figuratively at least, on each occasion. Yet many have failed to absorb the lesson.

     Christian missionaries have strained to bring Christianity to the Dark Continent. Their successes were mostly in European colonies. When the colonial powers retreated, Christianity and its influence began a steady retreat. That wasn’t (and isn’t) because there was something lacking in those missionaries’ efforts, or in Christianity itself. It’s Africa itself: the African mentality in the African environment. Kim Du Toit’s essay, quoted above, delineates the matter too well, and too painfully, for an intelligent reader to miss it.

     Islam found a fallow field in Africa. It appeals to the savage mentality: conversion by the sword! If they won’t accept Allah, kill or enslave them! Scant wonder Islam is sweeping through the continent. Africa couldn’t be more suited to Islam if they’d been designed for each other.

     Continuous tribal warfare is equally well suited to Africa. It’s returned in force in every country where Europeans once ruled and have retreated. Only watchful, unrelenting, greatly superior power can keep the peace when the natives’ fondest wish is to slaughter one another. Well, yes: first they go after any whites that were foolish enough to remain. Then, the fun really begins!

     Islamic forces are rapidly expunging Christianity from Nigeria and any other parts of Africa where it’s hung on. The Enlightenment finds few fans among Africa's savage, bloody-minded natives. There’s one and only one cure:

     So here’s my (tongue-in-cheek) solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.

     Kim may have intended that facetiously, but it’s no less true for that.