So here's the Heir's take on predictions that China will overtake the US economically by 2030.  Even if it does happen in the way the economists forecast, the Heir doesn't believe it'll last, maybe 2-3 years at the very most, and then he believes the US and China will be roughly tied for first before swapping first place every other year or so.  The Heir references the Atlantic article Why The US Will Outcompete China along with a Pew Research poll showing Unfavorable Views Of China Reach Historic Highs, but he also cautions the westernized type-a economists not to view cultural interactions with the severely limiting assumptions as he sees them doing.  For one thing, those who care about ongoing US independence need to brainstorm those things the US can do that China can't and never will.  For example, free speech and free and fair elections.  This past election the Heir observes as the most secure election that has possibly ever taken place.  This should set aside our reservations about our election process enough for China to be sick with envy that we even have elections at all.  Secondly, free speech demonstrations like the ones with Black Lives Matter.  Even with things like Lafayette Square, you still can't have our kinds of demonstrations in China.  If you tried, BLM's leadership would be captured and tortured and held indefinitely in a labor camp.  That's something China should be ashamed of, and should be dangled in front of them any time they want to play economic hardball, because then we'd make it clear to them we know whom we're dealing with.  This is the reason why the Heir believes China is in the basement on public opinion around the world as per the Pew poll, because public image does ultimately matter if China wants to do business with the free world.  Thirdly, the US stands ready to have its first woman of color head of state.  Maybe there was a 2 year empress in China's history 2000 years ago, but nothing like that in the past 100 years.  And you're never going to see the first Uighur Chinese president or the first Tibetan Chinese President like the way we had the first black President in 2008.  These the Heir points out as reasons why if China has any real hope of competing with the US economically, they also have to compete culturally, and that they can't do without a Chinese perestroika of some sort, which China already ruled out in the 2000s under Hu Jin Tao.  So the Heir proclaims, China take your first place if you really think it'll do you any good, because you should be careful what you wish for.

The Heir believes we as a culture need to be more proactive about the Trump Pardons, and is proposing, among other things, a Pardon Watch Committee.  He doesn't have specifics as to who should be on this committee or a charter, but for every hardened criminal Trump pardons, the Heir wants this Committee to propose alternatives for legally pursuing each criminal, until the very last one is brought to justice.  This he sees as an alternative to the more mild objections or endless analysis of the pardons, because he sees the analysis type responses as a waste of time.  The Heir observes that there are number of legal tools at the Committee's disposal, including pursuing state and local charges, bringing class action suits to the criminals' estates, and organizing protests outside each public appearance the criminals make.  One detail the Heir is 70% sure about is the estate suits, because it means America can pursue the criminals even beyond the grave.  He ensures that death is not the ultimate pardon on any given criminal, and that a response to an out-of-time criminal death be officious in nature.  In short, the Heir wants to make it clear to Stone/Flynn/Manafort that they will find absolutely no peace or comfort in the Trump Pardons.

"...until the very last one is brought to justice."

The Heir wants to respond to something an acquaintance of his said online regarding crime.  That person seemed to imply that just because crime stats have been steadily going down over the past 20-30 years crime itself shouldn't be taken seriously enough.  A person replied to the acquaintance saying that concerns about crime are only signs of emotional insecurity on the part of the concerned, and that it's indicative of a certain group of people.  The Heir has never believed that the progressives really believe in law or justice, and with this one he believes they proved it.  For one thing, it's been observed that any time you see crime stats, it's only *reported* stats.  There's crime that goes on that never gets reported, so the Heir doesn't think the decline in statistics is meaningful for this reason alone.  Also, it's never been unusual for progressives to dismiss the concerns of others that the progressives themselves don't share.  So much for compassion.  It was four years ago that the Heir really laid into one of them regarding the importance of sincerity on the part of public figures.  That person dismissed the value of sincerity as something that the Attack Dog News Network would value, but the Heir said, no it's not about the Attack Dog Network, because *I* value sincerity in public figures.  That person looked real embarrassed when the Heir told him that.  So now just before the New Year after a major election, the Heir's looking at those junk political emails that keep getting sent, and now he has an idea that he'll unsubscribe from most of them.  He sees it as a way of getting out of certain kinds of bad relationships.  He doesn't owe the progressives.  He believes they owe *him* and all Americans, and since they've not conceded accordingly, he wants nothing further to do with them.