I take issue with a number of the arguments in this blog post. For instance: "I take the opposite position that America is in a prolonged period of prosperity,

I take issue with a number of the arguments in this blog post. For instance: "I take the opposite position that America is in a prolonged period of prosperity, peace, and dominance (esepcially relative to the rest of the world since 2008) that may last indefinitely." First of all, no peace has lasted indefinitely, that's a ridiculous notion that defies all historical precedent. Second, America's been at war non-stop since 2001, to call it a prolonged period of peace is absurd at best and grossly dishonest at worst. likewise here: "Civil wars and revolution are typically engendered by homogenous groups against a second group cut from the same ethnic and racial cloth. The Revolutionary War pitted New England against Britain. The Civil War pitted Anglo Protestants up North against Anglo Protestants from the South. The Iranian revolution pitted anti-Western Iranian religious fundamentalists against pro-Western Iranian rulers. " This is essentially an argument from semantics, since in the cases where the ethnicities of the two sides of a regional war differ significantly then it's called a race war or a genocide and if the religions differ sharply then it's considered a holy war. Just because the same types of events have different labels (and underlying prejudices) doesn't mean you can discount the likelihood of war altogether. This argument is similarly based in faulty presuppositions: "Also, if diversity is supposed to be destabilizing, why would elites push for it? Why would elites support policy that would lead to their undoing and loss of power and wealth as the US collapses due to war arising from such diversity? That makes no sense. This is an obvious logical contradiction that many dissidents such as Vox and others cannot account for." Here the author is behaving as though this still hotly debated topic (that they themselves are debating!) is settled knowledge for "the elites" and that "the elites" are a monolithic group that acts uniformly and logically in order to enact their goals. This has rarely been the case at any place or time in history. I could go on, but suffice it to say this blog post irked me enough to point out at least a handful of it's red-flag-waving arguments.