Connect with us

A peek into the Bitcoin miner’s 2020: Interview with BTC.top’s Jiang Zhuoer

Miners are making bank amid the price rally as manufacturers struggle to produce chips.
After a tumultuous 2020 that continued into Bitcoin (BTC) setting new all-time highs in 2021, Bitcoin miners are facing a bittersweet scenario…

Published

on

Miners are making bank amid the price rally as manufacturers struggle to produce chips.

After a tumultuous 2020 that continued into Bitcoin (BTC) setting new all-time highs in 2021, Bitcoin miners are facing a bittersweet scenario — profits have skyrocketed, but multiple issues prevent them from buying more devices and boosting Bitcoin’s hash rate.

According to the founder of major mining pool BTC.Top, Jiang Zhuoer, global electronics supply chain issues are having their effect on the mining industry as well. Speaking with Cointelegraph, he said:

“There is definitely a shortage of equipment right now because, since the coronavirus epidemic, the global supply chain has been interrupted and is now in the process of gradually recovering. But the demand for chips has greatly increased, so now all industries are short of chips, whether it is Bitcoin mining or other industries, such as consumer electronics or even the automotive industry.”

Recently, car manufacturing giant General Motors shut down some of its plants due to the inability to source chips. Other carmakers have seen similar shutdowns in recent months as well.

The shortage of mining devices can be easily seen in Bitcoin’s hash rate. Since the halving in May 2020, Bitcoin’s hash rate has increased from about 92 million terahashes per second to its current reading of 166 million, an 80% increase. Bitcoin’s price, on the other hand, increased from $9,000 to over $46,000, a gain of over 400%.

Bitcoin’s hash rate has a relatively straightforward correlation with price. Barring new technological advances, increases in price should be closely mirrored by increases in hash rate. While the rate of new devices coming online should lag behind the price in bull markets, the hash rate has remained relatively stagnant in the past few months.

Source: Coinmetrics

This means that current miners are seeing much higher revenue for individual devices, which, added to the shortage, results in inflated unit prices for ASIC miners. According to ASICMinerValue, obtaining a Bitmain S19 Pro right now costs about $9,000, while its official price is less than $4,000.

According to Jiang, the mining industry also saw major issues in 2020 due to Bitmain’s internal power struggle. “The indefinite delay of the Ant mining machine S19 in June, July and August 2020 caused us a lot of difficulties. We underwrote our customers according to the shipment period and used our own machines to make up the revenue to our customers,” Jiang said. With the Bitmain saga being resolved in favor of Micree Zhan, there should be no more specific issues with purchasing the company’s miners.

Bitcoin ASICs hitting fundamental performance limits

Despite the variety of issues, 2020 was also a pivotal year for the Bitcoin mining industry due to the release of new-generation ASIC devices with improved energy efficiency. The industry leaders were the Bitmain Antminer S19 Pro and MicroBT Whatsminer M30S+ series. Publicly listed manufacturer Canaan also released new miners such as the AvalonMiner 1166 Pro and the liquid-cooled A1066I unit.

The new miners offered significant efficiency gains, primarily due to their more advanced chip lithography. The S19 Pro uses 7-nanometer chips, while the M30S+ uses 8-nm lithography. The measurement indicates the distance between two ends of a transistor on a chip — at these values, it is just a dozen atoms wide. Lowering the distance helps increase computing performance and reduce power consumption.

Jiang explained that the Bitcoin mining industry is currently experimenting with TSMC’s 5-nm process, while the chip manufacturer is already researching 3-nm lithography. A reduction from 5 to 3 nm would be a major achievement for the computing industry, as it would allow to pack roughly 60% more transistors in the same chip. But according to Jiang, the latest advancements in chip technology are hitting some fundamental physical limits:

“The smaller the nanometer [distance], the less significant the increase in power efficiency, because when the nanometers decrease to a certain level, it will involve quantum problems. [...] The quantum [tunneling] effect will cause electrons to jump around between different diodes, therefore, the electron leakage ratio will rise.”

The practical result is that newer chips will have better computing performance but are unlikely to carry as strong improvements in energy efficiency, Jiang said. “Bitcoin mining actually does not require high computing; it requires a better power efficiency — that is, the less power you consume with the same hash power, the better,” he added.

Other types of performance improvements like liquid cooling can be useful but do not radically alter the miner’s efficiency. Jiang explained:

“Liquid cooling can only improve the mining efficiency by a certain degree. For example, a machine with 100 watts per terahash power efficiency, if you use an air-cooling system, after a period of time, due to dust or inappropriate cleaning, the machine’s power efficiency will decrease to 105 watts-terahash, while the liquid cooling system can allow you to increase the efficiency to about 95 watts-terahash. That’s only a 5% improvement — this difference is not significant.”

Is now a good time to enter the mining industry?

The vastly inflated revenue for miners comes as the global electronics industry is under intense pressure. Normally, new devices would quickly fill the gap and bring down the average revenue to mean values. The current chip shortages mean that this outcome may take longer than usual to occur, but existing devices are still being sold at a significant-enough premium to make prospective buyers consider their actions twice. For example, the S19 Pro currently has a return-on-investment period of eight months based on the electricity price of $0.04 per kilowatt-hour. However, if its revenue were to collapse to the still-high levels of December 2020, the miner would need to work for up to 40 months to pay itself back.

In the three years that the miner could potentially require to turn a profit, new devices could make the S19 partially obsolete, prolonging the payback period even further. Still, according to Jiang, the mining industry could be heading for consolidation around state-of-the-art devices, with only marginal improvements over previous generations. This would improve the lifetime expectation for mining devices, ensuring the stability of any investment made now or in the future. ASICs have already stabilized to a significant extent, as the five-year-old Bitmain S9, for example, only became completely unprofitable after the 2020 halving but is now once again generating a reasonable profit of $3 per day, assuming electricity prices of $0.04 kWh.

“Unless you buy a very expensive mine at the peak of the bull market, it’s hard not to make profits,” Jiang concluded.

Are miners better hodlers?

Jiang believes that the economics of mining makes it a superior method to acquire Bitcoin and hold it through the entirety of a rally. According to him, most Bitcoin miners kept their BTC all the way to $20,000 in 2017, while regular holders had a much lower chance of holding through to the top.

Jiang didn’t wish to elaborate on the data source of this conviction, which goes against the general wisdom that miners immediately sell the Bitcoin they mine. An analysis by Coinmetrics shows a nuanced picture: Miners hold a very significant portion of the Bitcoin supply, most of which was acquired in the early years of its existence. Partially confirming Jiang’s thesis, during the 2017 bull market, the miners seem to have accelerated their selling only around October, closely timing the top at the time.

A sizable increase in the miners’ Bitcoin holdings can be observed toward the end of 2019, suggesting that they began holding a larger proportion of their proceeds. Still, the relative prevalence of miner holdings has been on a steady decline throughout Bitcoin’s history, indicating that most of the BTC they mine ends up sold on the wider market.

According to Jiang, though, miners can be less influenced by loss aversion: the natural human tendency of avoiding more profitable outcomes if they also carry higher risk.

He explained that the mechanics of mining make it psychologically easier to hold through volatile markets:

“The first reason is that the mining machine is like a golden goose that can lay golden eggs in the bull market, so no miners would sell this golden goose [...] The second reason is the process of selling mining machines is much more complicated than selling Bitcoin on exchanges.”

The case for acquiring Bitcoin exposure through mining remains nuanced. In most cases, breaking even on the investment requires waiting for a year or more, depending on the initial entry point. Compared to buying Bitcoin outright, miners may lose out on major price gains immediately after, but this is compensated by higher resilience during market downturns. The mining device can pay itself off even if the price of Bitcoin takes exceedingly long to return to its previous highs.

Bitcoin mining is not just for professionals

Being a successful miner is similar to running a business. After an initial setup cost, the venture can turn a steady profit but requires maintenance and oversight. Not everyone has access to the conditions required to set up a successful mining farm, the most important of which is the location — cheap electricity is a must for miners.

It is still possible to purchase ASICs from retail shops and mine at home, provided that the home electricity price is below $0.10 kWh. Such figures can usually be found only in developing countries that have ample natural resources.

Some mining pools and companies offer a variety of ways for others to use their facilities — for a fee. The primary methods are colocation and cloud mining, which differ significantly in terms of their structure. Colocation services merely charge a fee for electricity and maintenance, while the devices are provided by the client. Cloud mining services are, in general, much different and riskier than self-hosted mining. Usually, the contracts last a predefined amount of time and carry significant maintenance costs. This gives a limited amount of time to recoup the initial investment, making it more of a bet on the price of crypto with somewhat limited upside. Overall, the opacity of the mechanism often raises questions from regulators about the legitimacy of some cloud mining operations.

Jiang’s company recently launched a service called “joint mining,” which changes the business model of cloud mining to make it closer to real mining:

“For example, a customer spends 10,000 yuan [$1,540] to buy a mining machine to dig a mine. When he receives 10,000 yuan of Bitcoin from the mining machine, after his investment returns the capital, we start to charge service fees. The Bitcoin produced afterwards is net profit. We collect 20% of the net profit — that is, 20% of the Bitcoin produced later. If the customer doesn’t get back the money in the end, we won’t charge.”

The BTC.top platform is thus closer to an assisted colocation service than classical cloud mining, with the company also allowing clients to “withdraw” their miners and have them delivered to a destination of their choosing.

As the Bitcoin mining industry stabilizes and matures, the companies involved in the business may become important diversification tools for investors. The unique risk and reward profile of mining is similar to gold mining companies, which are traditionally included in many exchange-traded funds for gold exposure. Jiang concluded with another parallel between Bitcoin and gold:

“The bull market of Bitcoin has increased more than I expected, so I expect that the top of this bull market may not be $100,000 as I expected, but may reach $200,000 or even $300,000, making Bitcoin exceed the total market value of gold.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

The Coming Of The Police State In America

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now…

Published

on

The Coming Of The Police State In America

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The National Guard and the State Police are now patrolling the New York City subway system in an attempt to do something about the explosion of crime. As part of this, there are bag checks and new surveillance of all passengers. No legislation, no debate, just an edict from the mayor.

Many citizens who rely on this system for transportation might welcome this. It’s a city of strict gun control, and no one knows for sure if they have the right to defend themselves. Merchants have been harassed and even arrested for trying to stop looting and pillaging in their own shops.

The message has been sent: Only the police can do this job. Whether they do it or not is another matter.

Things on the subway system have gotten crazy. If you know it well, you can manage to travel safely, but visitors to the city who take the wrong train at the wrong time are taking grave risks.

In actual fact, it’s guaranteed that this will only end in confiscating knives and other things that people carry in order to protect themselves while leaving the actual criminals even more free to prey on citizens.

The law-abiding will suffer and the criminals will grow more numerous. It will not end well.

When you step back from the details, what we have is the dawning of a genuine police state in the United States. It only starts in New York City. Where is the Guard going to be deployed next? Anywhere is possible.

If the crime is bad enough, citizens will welcome it. It must have been this way in most times and places that when the police state arrives, the people cheer.

We will all have our own stories of how this came to be. Some might begin with the passage of the Patriot Act and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2001. Some will focus on gun control and the taking away of citizens’ rights to defend themselves.

My own version of events is closer in time. It began four years ago this month with lockdowns. That’s what shattered the capacity of civil society to function in the United States. Everything that has happened since follows like one domino tumbling after another.

It goes like this:

1) lockdown,

2) loss of moral compass and spreading of loneliness and nihilism,

3) rioting resulting from citizen frustration, 4) police absent because of ideological hectoring,

5) a rise in uncontrolled immigration/refugees,

6) an epidemic of ill health from substance abuse and otherwise,

7) businesses flee the city

8) cities fall into decay, and that results in

9) more surveillance and police state.

The 10th stage is the sacking of liberty and civilization itself.

It doesn’t fall out this way at every point in history, but this seems like a solid outline of what happened in this case. Four years is a very short period of time to see all of this unfold. But it is a fact that New York City was more-or-less civilized only four years ago. No one could have predicted that it would come to this so quickly.

But once the lockdowns happened, all bets were off. Here we had a policy that most directly trampled on all freedoms that we had taken for granted. Schools, businesses, and churches were slammed shut, with various levels of enforcement. The entire workforce was divided between essential and nonessential, and there was widespread confusion about who precisely was in charge of designating and enforcing this.

It felt like martial law at the time, as if all normal civilian law had been displaced by something else. That something had to do with public health, but there was clearly more going on, because suddenly our social media posts were censored and we were being asked to do things that made no sense, such as mask up for a virus that evaded mask protection and walk in only one direction in grocery aisles.

Vast amounts of the white-collar workforce stayed home—and their kids, too—until it became too much to bear. The city became a ghost town. Most U.S. cities were the same.

As the months of disaster rolled on, the captives were let out of their houses for the summer in order to protest racism but no other reason. As a way of excusing this, the same public health authorities said that racism was a virus as bad as COVID-19, so therefore it was permitted.

The protests had turned to riots in many cities, and the police were being defunded and discouraged to do anything about the problem. Citizens watched in horror as downtowns burned and drug-crazed freaks took over whole sections of cities. It was like every standard of decency had been zapped out of an entire swath of the population.

Meanwhile, large checks were arriving in people’s bank accounts, defying every normal economic expectation. How could people not be working and get their bank accounts more flush with cash than ever? There was a new law that didn’t even require that people pay rent. How weird was that? Even student loans didn’t need to be paid.

By the fall, recess from lockdown was over and everyone was told to go home again. But this time they had a job to do: They were supposed to vote. Not at the polling places, because going there would only spread germs, or so the media said. When the voting results finally came in, it was the absentee ballots that swung the election in favor of the opposition party that actually wanted more lockdowns and eventually pushed vaccine mandates on the whole population.

The new party in control took note of the large population movements out of cities and states that they controlled. This would have a large effect on voting patterns in the future. But they had a plan. They would open the borders to millions of people in the guise of caring for refugees. These new warm bodies would become voters in time and certainly count on the census when it came time to reapportion political power.

Meanwhile, the native population had begun to swim in ill health from substance abuse, widespread depression, and demoralization, plus vaccine injury. This increased dependency on the very institutions that had caused the problem in the first place: the medical/scientific establishment.

The rise of crime drove the small businesses out of the city. They had barely survived the lockdowns, but they certainly could not survive the crime epidemic. This undermined the tax base of the city and allowed the criminals to take further control.

The same cities became sanctuaries for the waves of migrants sacking the country, and partisan mayors actually used tax dollars to house these invaders in high-end hotels in the name of having compassion for the stranger. Citizens were pushed out to make way for rampaging migrant hordes, as incredible as this seems.

But with that, of course, crime rose ever further, inciting citizen anger and providing a pretext to bring in the police state in the form of the National Guard, now tasked with cracking down on crime in the transportation system.

What’s the next step? It’s probably already here: mass surveillance and censorship, plus ever-expanding police power. This will be accompanied by further population movements, as those with the means to do so flee the city and even the country and leave it for everyone else to suffer.

As I tell the story, all of this seems inevitable. It is not. It could have been stopped at any point. A wise and prudent political leadership could have admitted the error from the beginning and called on the country to rediscover freedom, decency, and the difference between right and wrong. But ego and pride stopped that from happening, and we are left with the consequences.

The government grows ever bigger and civil society ever less capable of managing itself in large urban centers. Disaster is unfolding in real time, mitigated only by a rising stock market and a financial system that has yet to fall apart completely.

Are we at the middle stages of total collapse, or at the point where the population and people in leadership positions wise up and decide to put an end to the downward slide? It’s hard to know. But this much we do know: There is a growing pocket of resistance out there that is fed up and refuses to sit by and watch this great country be sacked and taken over by everything it was set up to prevent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 16:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending