.

Thank you for the real news, Matthew.  Hopefully this will be picked up by our independent news groups.  

Whenever I see something like this going on, that is big news that goes unmentioned in the MSM, my friends tell me, "Just keep in mind who owns the MSM."  I can't disagree with them.

The fact of history that I lean on as a prime example of this, is the brutal, execution-style assassination of the good Catholic priest and parish pastor, Fr. Alfred Joseph Kunz, on March 4th, 1998 in Dane, Wisconsin.  There was only one local paper that ran one article on it, and it was small.  No national paper, not even so-called Catholic newspapers, gave Fr. Kunz so much as an obituary.  I called many of them on the phone at the time, and spoke to editors, such as Circle Media and NCR who assured me that they knew about the death, and they had not chosen to run any obit or news about it because they thought that it would upset their readership.  They were not honest enough to admit that what they had done was they chose to not report on it. But what they all said was that they had not chosen to report on it.  

When I questioned them, "Since when is readership getting upset any criterion for choosing to go silent on such important news?" they had various answers, but nothing of substance.  One editor-in-chief, Tod Tamberg of the Los Angeles Tidings answered my question, "Who is your real boss that tells you what to print and what not to print?  Who dictates to you what is prudent and what is forbidden?" by saying, "It's not a question of prudence but rather one of intelligence."  

After 16 years now, the Dane Police still have no suspect in this murder. Friends of Fr. Kunz believe that he was "silenced" because he had been identifying individuals involved in the nationwide network of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ priests.  Fr. Kunz was a canon lawyer and theologian, who primarily offered the TLM at his parish, although he did have a Newmass because of his bishop's unrelenting demand for it.  This way, Fr. Kunz was able to be pastor for his little flock there in Dane, as well as run the elementary school, where the children all looked up to him as their father.  All those children are today adults, and it would be great to hear their stories of his ministry two, three and four decades ago.


.

Why are we NOT being told about China’s self proclaimed new sea "boundaries"?  [....] Apparently China has greatly extended her declared sea boundaries into the neighboring territorial waters of other countries to claim additional "rights" to those areas including Vietnam.  It seems that the reason is to take (or steal) the oil reserves of these new areas for themselves.

The Red Chinese are most dangerous possible choice for a modern superpower with a nuclear arsenal.  Yes, much worse than the Russians.  Whereas the Chinese might coldly rationalize the potential war-time loss of a few hundreds of millions of its ordinary citizens and soldiers, the Slavic "Evil Empire" of the late-20th century had a fresh-enough memory of millions of its citizens dying in the the forced collectivization of farms (and resultant famines), Stalin's purges, and the defeat of the invading nαzιs.  Russia now has a declining population--including ethnic Russians--as its elder citizens die off, and its younger citizens live lives that fail to produce children at their necessary replacement rate--as do all populations in Europe except Albania.

Despite both countries operating under modified-communist systems, the Russians don't have the centuries of cultural arrogance that the Red Chinese have little hesitation in exhibiting to the world.  When the first imperial Russian diplomatic delegations, representing Tsars Alexis I, then Feodor III, arrived in Beijing/Peking in the late 17th century, the Manchu Chinese (Qing Dynasty) emperor and his bureaucrats believed that the gifts brought by the Russians signified that the "Tsar of all the Russias" was offering himself as vassal to China, and the gifts were Russian tribute to the emperor of China.  To the Chinese, it was obvious; for what other purposes would foreign caravans possibly be bringing gifts to their emperor?  Especially considering that there were so few products that mere foreigners could offer that the Chinese wanted.  The Chinese simply had no concept at all of foreign gifts being intended to initiate an exchange of gifts between diplomatic equals.

Can there be any doubt that getting Hong Kong back, as a powerful economic machine developed under British mercantilism & capitalism instead of Maoist communism, puffed out Red-Chinese chests in 1997?  It was less obvious that residents fleeing Hong Kong puffed up the California real-estate market of the early 1990s.

Modern U.S. business & political leaders greedily--and foolishly--handed over  U.S. manufacturing capacity to China, and outsourced high-tech hardware & services to China and elsewhere, getting no substantial national benefit for the U.S.A. in return.  That's excluding nearly-done deals rejected by rare U.S. public, Congressional, or bureaucratic backlashes, e.g.: major U.S. port logistics management, or the acquisition of Cisco Systems (digital communications switching), by Chinese corporations.  If the U.S.A. ever again needs to convert consumer-products factories into weapons factories, to have a fighting chance to win a major war, we'll be up the proverbial, um, malarial creek without a paddle.

Red China has become so cash-rich that its military now seems free from the wry old rule-of-thumb for the wealthy: "If you have to ask how much something costs, you can't afford it".  Nowadays, when Red China wants a particular strategic foothold--or a weapons system--it can now buy into it--or just buy it.

Meanwhile, even the postsoviet "Russian Federation", with boundaries more-or-less the same as the RSFSR, has twice as much land as China does (6.6 vs. 3.7 million sq. mi.)

• .  Where might China be looking for lebensraum  to settle its predictable population increase?   25-year's worth of increase that by itself, would exceed the whole population of the "Russian Federation", hmmm?
  -------
  Note #: I'm unsure how much numerical  population decline is really the result of boundaries that shrunk as former nominal "republics" seceded from the formally dissolved Union of Soviet Socialist "Republics", credited with 270 million population total in the final decade under the red hammer-&-sickle flag (1987 Rand McNally Atlas, which also shows 138 million for its Russian Soviet Federated Socialist "Republic" alone).  For the postsoviet "Russian Federation", Wikipedia now shows a 2014-est. 144 million population (altho' my writing above was based on 147 million given in my initial source: chap. 5 in Pat (J.) Buchanan's grim The Death of the West[2002], with uncited "projected [...] 114 million by 2050" [p. 102]).   For comparison, Red China is credited with 1.012 billion population for 1987 (R.McN.), turn-of-21st century 1.25 billion, to "expect[ed] 250 million more people by 2025 assuming the cold-blooded Chinese 1-child policy continues (P.J.B. 2002).