Simon Marks ... 'The US no longer has Europe's back' | LBC

Slava for the young men of Ukraine. Blob and Anger willing to sacrifice more and more young men, with no prospect of success. Shameful.

Seventy-five per cent of Ukrainians oppose a withdrawal from the eastern region, according to an poll published on Monday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology. It found that more than 60 per cent were prepared to keep fighting “as long as necessary”.

A substantial majority .

How sad to see the US in the enemy's camp ...

Slava for the young men of Ukraine. Blob and Anger willing to sacrifice more and more young men, with no prospect of success. Shameful.

Disingenuous Moz, commends salutes those young but is only too happy for them to be stabbed in the back because that's what his team demands.

.

As blob points out, the vast majority of Ukrainian's reject the key tenants of Trump's peace plan including those doing the fighting.

If the Ukraine war can end in defeat, but it improves the American stock market, they are all in.

They are more interested in putting tariffs on allies and conquering Greenland.

.

Th e above is BS in tbrain lo0ads. Whn people wants peace in Ukraine then it must not happen - Russia sh ould surrender and accept that Russian speakin g people can be oprressed and murdered in hug e numbers/

Hate speech is all one encounters and then praisin g of Zelenskyy despit the fact that he is looting resources madde available to Ukraine. His regime is totall corrupt and Zelenskyy do not wan peace in Ukraine - because elections would have to be held and he does not want it.

S tupid Iots like S B are star raving made when it come to ah tred of Trump and that is the aittutde of Stav as well.

But the Gallup polls show a very different picture of what the Ukranians want…as does the Janus poll

Summary: Non-KIIS Polling on Ukrainian Attitudes (2025)

So foreign polls show limited support for continuing the war and willingness to make concessions…..KIIS and the New Europe Center, show a desire to fight to the end. Could the Ukranian polls, with their emotional wording of questions be getting biased results? As I said before Gallup has all the tools and no reason to get this wrong.

Easy sitting in NZ and Ireland to want other people’s sons to fight literally to the death. There’s your shame

So foreign polls show limited support for continuing the war and willingness to make concessions…..KIIS and the New Europe Center, show a desire to fight to the end. Could the Ukranian polls, with their emotional wording of questions be getting biased results? As I said before Gallup has all the tools and no reason to get this wrong.

Again you assume certain polls are mutually exclusive. And assume flaws with polling that contradicts you world view.

Easy sitting in NZ and Ireland to want other people’s sons to fight literally to the death. There’s your shame

Literally fight to death, more disingenuous nonsense. Trumpian America is trying to force Ukraine to surrender if not coming close to actively siding with the aggressor and your trying to justify it. I'd tell you to bow your head in shame except I know you don't have any.

Literally fight to death, more disingenuous nonsense. Trumpian America is trying to force Ukraine to surrender if not coming close to actively siding with the aggressor and your trying to justify it. I'd tell you to bow your head in shame except I know you don't have any.

……

So explain, what’s more likely……Ukraine spends another year fighting, loses more lives and territory …..or Ukraine miraculously reverses the battlefield situation and Putin accepts better terms for the Ukraine.

The shame is those who want to continue the fight with a worse outcome as the most likely prospect.. Actually more egregious that that, with literally no idea of how even the unlikely prospect of scenario 2 could ever happen.

Duplicate

At the current rate is would take 3 years for Russia to take all of the Donbas.

The Donbas is vital to ensure the security of the rest of Ukraine.

It is worth fighting for...

If the "peace" deal means that Ukraine cede the Donbas, that just makes it much easier for Putin to just start the war again.

It is abundantly clear that Putin is going to continue to the war until he gets all of Ukraine, or he is forced through other means to end the war. Then he will use Ukraine as a buffer zone to protect Russia, then using Ukrainians as cannon fodder of the Russian army to attack more European countries.

America is no longer an ally. They are siding with Putin to sell Ukraine to Russia. America want a war to help destroy the EU, so that America can trade directly with countries instead of a trading block.

The rest of Europe is getting very close to joining the war, and America may as well no longer be part of NATO.

So explain, what’s more likely……Ukraine spends another year fighting, loses more lives and territory …..or Ukraine miraculously reverses the battlefield situation and Putin accepts better terms for the Ukraine.

The shame is those who want to continue the fight with a worse outcome as the most likely prospect.. Actually more egregious that that, with literally no idea of how even the unlikely prospect of scenario 2 could ever happen.

I don't know which is more likely, but your ignoring a third scenario. Ukraine fights on, it loses more people and more territory albeit it at a very slow pace, however Russia sustains far more losses as the attacking side tends to do, this combined with the sanctions on the Russian economic force Russia to conclude that the cost/benefit of continuing to attack is no longer worth it and Putin having no choice settles for better terms.

This could be a few months or a few years down the road. The fortress belt may still be in or mostly in Ukraine's hands.

Giving that up to someone who is as untrustworthy as Putin for next to nothing when most military analyst think it will take several years for Russia to take the fortress belt is the height of folly.

If the "peace" deal means that Ukraine cede the Donbas, that just makes it much easier for Putin to just start the war again.

It is abundantly clear that Putin is going to continue to the war until he gets all of Ukraine, or he is forced through other means to end the war. Then he will use Ukraine as a buffer zone to protect Russia, then using Ukrainians as cannon fodder of the Russian army to attack more European countries.

Precisely if Ukraine is consumed by Russia it's people and resources will be turned on the rest of Europe. Moldova and the Baltic states will be next on Putin's shopping list.

America is no longer an ally. They are siding with Putin to sell Ukraine to Russia. America want a war to help destroy the EU, so that America can trade directly with countries instead of a trading block.

The ironic thing is most American's republicans or democrats don't agree with Trump approach to Ukraine-Russa but it's increasingly obvious that the Trump administration views Europe as a greater enemy than Russia.

Russia has 88% of the Donbas now….how exactly is the Ukraine going to get it back? But I guess your plan is 3 years of attrition, hoping Russia with its 10 times larger army feels the attrition first. Or perhaps the Belgian army marches in and frees the Donbas.

And if Europe marched in without NATO what’s the response if Putin threatens to use nukes….do we go the next step.

This plan of European involvement is so far from reality it’s actually embarrassing….and what do you do If Zelensky is tied to the scandal that already has swept up his closest advisor?

But I guess none of this matters as long as Trump doesn’t get the peace deal and the little men in suits can whine about America abandoning an ally who is deep in the red in terms of mutual contributions.

It is less than 88% of the Donbas.

However, that aside - the goal is not to take it back. The goal is use the Donbas to fortify the rest of Ukraine.

Donbas is one of the hardest parts of Ukraine to conquer, but if Russia did fully take it and then attacked further west, the follow-on fight in much of the rest of Ukraine would in some ways be easier for Russia and in other ways harder.

Why Donbas is especially hard

1. Donbas is Ukraine’s industrial heartland with dense cities, heavy industry, rail hubs and complex urban terrain, which strongly favors dug?in defenders.?
2. Since 2014 Ukraine has built a multi?layer “fortress belt” of trenches, bunkers, minefields and anti?tank obstacles around key Donbas cities, making assaults extremely slow and attritional.?
3. Years of fighting mean both sides know the ground intimately, so surprise is hard and advances are measured in hundreds of meters despite massive shelling and high casualties.?

If Russia finished Donbas and moved west

1. Military analysts warn that if Russia broke through the Donbas fortress belt and secured the region, it could use it as a “springboard” for new offensives deeper into Ukraine, with shorter supply lines and better rail/logistics bases.?
2. Some central and western areas of Ukraine have more open terrain and fewer pre?war fortifications than the Donbas line, which could make rapid mechanized advances more feasible if Ukraine is exhausted and under?supplied.?

The American peace plan would just allow Putin to attack the rest of Ukraine. It a real estate deal for Trump.

As of December 2025,

Russia

occupies approximately 88% to 90% of the

Donbas

region. The Donbas consists of two administrative oblasts: Luhansk and Donetsk.

Russia’s control of these two regions is distributed as follows:

1. Luhansk Oblast: Russia controls nearly 100% of the region, having held almost all of it since mid-2022, with only small patches of territory contested or remaining under Ukrainian control.
2. Donetsk Oblast: Russia occupies roughly 75% to 80% of the region. Ukrainian forces continue to hold approximately 6,600 square kilometers (about 2,550 square miles).

Its more like 80%, of which Russia controlled 65-70% of that before the full scale invasion in 2022, so in almost 4 years of war they have captured an additional 10% of Donbass

And that advance was done before they even approached the reached the fortress belt the most heavily fortified and defended area of Ukraine built up over the course of more than 10 years. A line of large cities and urban settlement in cross proximity the size and scope of which is beyond anything the Russia's have yet captured in the war. Most analysts think it will take years for Russia to take it and at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Russian causalities.

Behind that to the west is open ground that is highly unfavourable for the defending side.

Donald Trump tells reporters that Venezuela 'illegally took' US oil and 'we want it back'

Donald Trump, who announced blockade on sanctioned oil tankers to and from Venezuela, has ramped up his rhetoric.

He told a press gaggle that Venezuela “illegally took” US oil.

“They took all of our energy rights, they took all of our oil from not that long ago, and we want it back. But they took it, they illegally took it.” he said.

The administration has moved thousands of troops and nearly a dozen warships – including the world’s largest aircraft carrier – to the sea north of Venezuela in the past couple of weeks.

Share

------------

This bumbling idiot is now claiming that Venezuela's oil belongs to him (or America).

Will he make it to the midterms?

Yes, Venezuela nationalized foreign company oil reserves and operations in major actions, first in 1976 taking over the whole industry, and then again under Hugo Chávez starting in 2007, where the state took majority control (at least 60%) of major oil projects, forcing foreign firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP into minority partnerships, with significant assets seized in the Orinoco belt

.

Key Nationalization Events:

1. 1976 Full Nationalization: Under President Carlos Andrés Pérez, Venezuela took full control of its oil industry, creating the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and taking over assets from companies like Exxon, Mobil, and Gulf Oil.
2. 2007 Chávez Era Re-Nationalization: President Hugo Chávez forced a shift, requiring foreign companies to cede majority stakes (to at least 60%) in large projects, particularly in the heavy crude Orinoco Belt, affecting major players like ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Statoil.

Impact:

1. These moves asserted greater state control over natural resources, aiming to direct revenues for social development but leading to declining production due to mismanagement, underinvestment, and political interference.
2. The expropriations sparked protracted legal battles with international oil companies over billions in compensation.

In essence, Venezuela has a history of taking greater state control over its vast oil reserves, culminating in the significant nationalizations under Chávez that reshaped the landscape for foreign oil companies.

Then the question becomes were these companies that discovered and opened up the oil fields fairly compensated:

Venezuela's

government offered some compensation during both major nationalizations, but it was generally deemed insufficient by the foreign companies, leading to protracted legal battles and a recent U.S. court-ordered sale of Venezuelan assets to satisfy the debts.

1976 Nationalization

During the 1976 nationalization under President Carlos Andrés Pérez, the government provided over $1 billion in compensation to the affected companies, including Exxon, Mobil, and Gulf Oil. The compensation was primarily in the form of national debt bonds and a smaller cash portion. While the process was legal, the amount was less than the companies' estimated investment value, but it was accepted at the time.

2007 Nationalization

The nationalization under President Hugo Chávez in 2007 was far more contentious. Companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips rejected the compensation offers and the new terms of a minority stake in joint ventures, which led to the seizure of their assets without immediate adequate payment. This resulted in significant international arbitration awards:

1. ExxonMobil: An international arbitration tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay ExxonMobil about $1.6 billion in 2014, although the company had sought a much higher amount. Venezuela paid a portion of an earlier, separate award, which was deducted from the final amount.
2. ConocoPhillips: ConocoPhillips was awarded over $8 billion by a World Bank tribunal (ICSID) for the unlawful expropriation of its three oil projects. A U.S. court recently upheld this award, and ConocoPhillips has been pursuing legal avenues to collect the funds.

Current Status of Payments:

Much of the compensation awarded from the 2007 nationalization remains unpaid due to Venezuela's financial struggles and legal challenges. In a significant development, a U.S. court approved the sale of Citgo—the U.S.-based refining subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA—to an affiliate of Amber Energy to satisfy billions of dollars in outstanding debts owed to various creditors, including the nationalized oil companies. This process is ongoing and is expected to be finalized in 2026

No need to thank me.

No need to thank me.

Why do you think your post proves that Venezuelan oil belongs to Trump/America or that Venezuela nationalisation of its oil industry was illegal ?

By all mean's the US companies should pursue the compensation they are entitled too and Venezuela should meet its international obligation to compensate foreign investors fairly. But the oil is not America's nor was it stolen. And nationalisation is legal under both domestic law and under the international norms of sovereignty.

The Oil belonged to ConocoPhillips …..read and try to learn.

At that time, oil prices were rising and Chávez’s government nationalized major oil projects operated by foreign companies, including ConocoPhillips, which was my employer at that time. The company had invested heavily in the country and its stakes in three large ventures—Petrozuata, Hamaca, and Corocoro—were seized without compensation. For those of us working in the industry at the time, it was an event that reshaped how companies viewed business risks in Venezuela.

What began as a corporate dispute became one of the largest unresolved U.S. claims against a foreign government.

The Legal Case Behind the Rhetoric

ConocoPhillips pursued international arbitration for years and ultimately won multiple awards. Most recently, in January 2025, arbitration rulings were upheld totaling approximately $8.7 billion plus interest. Venezuela has consistently refused to pay

The U.S. Treasury has authorized ConocoPhillips to pursue enforcement actions worldwide, including the seizure of Venezuelan assets held abroad. Some assets have been targeted over the years, but full recovery has remained elusive.

Trump’s framing of Venezuela as having “stolen” American oil aligns directly with this legal history. While Venezuela claims sovereign authority over its resources, international tribunals ruled the expropriation illegal under international law. Trump appears to be elevating that unresolved legal judgment into a matter of U.S. foreign policy enforcement.

From Arbitration to Blockade: A Major Escalation

What makes Trump’s post extraordinary is not the underlying dispute, but the proposed response. A naval or economic blockade would represent a dramatic shift from legal remedies to coercive state action.

Such a move would carry enormous implications. Venezuela remains an oil exporter, and interference with tanker traffic could disrupt global energy markets, strain relations with U.S. allies, and provoke retaliation from Venezuela and its partners. It would also raise questions about international law, freedom of navigation, and congressional authorization.

What Comes Next

At this stage, it is unclear whether Trump’s post signals imminent policy action or rhetorical pressure aimed at forcing negotiations. What is clear is that the claim of “stolen oil” is rooted in a documented, adjudicated legal case involving U.S. corporate assets seized without compensation.

As this story develops, separating legal fact from political theater will be essential. Whether Trump’s threat leads to meaningful asset recovery—or instead deepens geopolitical conflict—remains an open question. But the underlying dispute he is invoking is real, unresolved, and now very much back at the center of U.S.–Venezuela relations.

………

‘’The claim is rooted in a documented adjudicated legal case’.

But the oil is not America's nor was it stolen

Wrong

Seized operational assets, stakes and future production rights or expropriated without agreed compensation...... call it what you want to.

But yeah, basically the oil was stolen even though Venezuela are framing it as the sovereign nationalization of it's natural resources.

And....ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil established their presence there through legal investments, when they were invited by the Venezuela government during the 1990's "Apertura Petrolera" policy, which was aimed at attracting foreign capital and technology to develop the vast extra heavy crude oil reserves in the Orinoco Belt, which required vast upgrading to make the oil marketable.

There was a hell of a lot more involved in these deals which is too much to get into here, regarding, extraction, dilution, pipelines to the coast, transportation, upgrading the oil to synthetic crude etc etc.... and all this was done via billions of dollars invested which was operating under association agreements that were authorised as exceptions to the nationalization law........but stolen it was.

This bumbling idiot is now claiming that Venezuela's oil belongs to him (or America).

He is not wrong....

It's crazy how many times people blame Trump for something without getting the facts straight first.

I hate some of the things he does and says, his narcissistic ego far too often gets him quite rightly into shit, but I have to say...... far too often is Trump also 100% correct

Just a serious question - why did 8 million people fled from Venezuela in the last decade to neghbourin g countries and the USA over th last decade, Why did the Nobel Peace prize goes to a woamn who opposed he present regime?

It ismazing how site member support a criminal regime in Venezuela. Why does people flee from a country that usd to be the walthiest country now being one of the poore countries in South America/

,

Venezuela literally stole this oil from under the American companies noses and went directly against their original agreement, which involved billions of dollars from foreign investment, that was used to put the necessary infrastructures in place to get and process the oil.

To frame it any other way besides saying it was stolen from the US by the Venezuela government is just silly.

It wasn't their's to take, but they took it by force ...... after offering inadequate compensation to some companies whilst giving them a deadline to sign or leave......

When the companies refused, Venezuela simply took over the projects entirely

Even the international arbitration institution (ICSID) ruled it as unlawful expropriation by Venezuela

Despite Venezuela recently trying to get any of the financial awards annuled or cancelled, they were upheld with all challenges dismissed in January of 2025 with roughly $12.6 billion dollars awarded in damages between the companies.

So as was said earlier, Trump was absolutely spot on with what he said about the oil

Utter nonsense. Trump does not own the oil because of a trade dispute that started almost 30 years ago. American companies may be owed money for having to pack up, but that hardly justifies that Trump is entitled to all of their oil, or to form a blockade to prevent them from trading.

That is like saying all American assets belong to foreign countries because of Trump's radical changes to global trade rules that were illegal. The house is meant to vote on tariffs, like any other Democratic country - the power does not rest in the hands of one person. It appears that the US Supreme Court is about to declare Trump's tariff action illegal, prompting many American companies to sue the government to recover the money. The power will go back to the house where it belongs.

There are rules of global trade, Trump could have gradually phased these out to allow other countries to form new supply chains, and also remove American companies from their markets.

Trump has damaged global trade with his one-sided tariffs, including South Africa.

Venezuela did change the rules on foreign oil companies after they had sunk billions into projects, but legally it framed this as sovereign nationalisation under its hydrocarbons law.

What actually happened

In the 1990s and early 2000s, Venezuela invited foreign companies like ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Total and others to invest tens of billions of dollars in heavy-oil projects (especially in the Orinoco Belt), building the upgraders and infrastructure needed to produce and process that crude. These investments were made under contractual and fiscal terms that gave foreign firms significant control and favourable tax treatment, designed to make the projects viable when oil prices were much lower.?

From 2005–2007, after oil prices rose sharply, the Chávez government declared the old operating and association agreements “illegal” under the 2001 Hydrocarbons Law and forced them to be converted into “mixed companies” where state company PDVSA held at least 60%. Most firms accepted minority stakes in the new joint ventures, but ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused the new terms, arguing that Venezuela was tearing up the original bargain once the projects became profitable.?

Expropriation and arbitration

On 1 May 2007, Venezuela issued decrees and ultimatums and then expropriated the assets of companies that would not sign the new deals, including ExxonMobil’s Cerro Negro and ConocoPhillips’ Orinoco and Corocoro interests.

International tribunals later held that Venezuela had the legal right to nationalize but had not provided “fair market value” compensation, and awarded large sums: ConocoPhillips has awards exceeding 8 billion dollars plus interest, while ExxonMobil was awarded over 1.5 billion dollars through ICC and ICSID processes.?

Those unpaid arbitration awards are now a major reason U.S. courts are allowing creditors to go after Venezuelan state assets such as CITGO in the United States, essentially trying to claw back some of the value of those expropriated investments. So in economic terms, Venezuela captured control of infrastructure and reserves foreign firms had financed, but in legal terms the dispute has centered on inadequate compensation for nationalisation rather than simple “theft,” which is why the fight has moved into international arbitration and enforcement rather than criminal courts.?

Utter nonsense. Trump does not own the oil because of a trade dispute that started 40 years ago. American companies may be owed money for having to pack up, but that hardily justifies that Trump is entitled to all of their oil

I don't see anybody saying that Trump is entitled to all the oil .... I am saying he is not wrong with what he is saying referring to Venezuela

Those companies lost that oil production or equity stakes when Hugo Chavez forced them to accept deals which were not in any way favourable to them, and then literally forceably took over the entire operations, so if that's not stealing it, I don't know what is.

Yes the oil is a permanent Venezuelan natural resource, but removing the physical oil production and the installed infrastructure from these companies by force, especially when one of those companies... ConocoPhillips is the 50.1% majority share holder on that specific oil deal with the Venezuela government.... then yeah....it is essentially stealing it directly from them, which is what Trump is referring to .....

Seized operational assets, stakes and future production rights or expropriated without agreed compensation...... call it what you want to

Like I said earlier here..... call it what you want ...... but it was stolen, because it was all done by force without the agreed consent of all parties involved, one of which was the majority 50.1% shareholder who also outright refused the Hugo deal.

Imagine you owned some land and you leased it to me to mine for Gold and we had a legal 10 year deal in place where I was the 50.1% majority shareholder.

I then put in R50 million worth of infrastructure to mine that gold, and I start doing it straight away and start reaping the rewards not long after I started.

Then after 4 years you forceably take over all the mining for the gold and kick me off your property for not accepting your new ammended contract terms, which are highly unfavourable to me....even though we already have a current legally signed 10 year agreement in place and I am also the 50.1% majority shareholder in our legally signed 10 year deal.....and you are the 49.9% minority shareholder

Did I ever own the land..... No

Did I ever own the Gold (oil) that I extracted ..... Yes

Did you steal that Gold (oil) production from me...... Yes you did.

SB

You just love any dictator against whom Trump acted. Veenezuela presented a real problem duing the Autopen regime. Maduro emptied the Venezuel jails and sent the gangsters to the USA.. As per normal the Autopen Government did nothing to stop that rot, Those criminals remains a serious threat to all UA citizens and surrounding countries.

The Venezuela leader who opposed Maduro - himself filthy rich because of criminl activity - was the Nobel Prize winner tin 2025 asked Trump to act to free the Venzuela people from the dictatorship that is detroying the country.

However, you hate Trump when he acts agasinst your favoured corupt leacders, So keep it up, - you relly are makng a spectacle of yourself,

Backward DumbMike, stop making stuff up to support your distorted irrelevant reality.

Venezuela did change the rules on foreign oil companies after they had sunk billions into projects, but legally it framed this as sovereign nationalisation under its hydrocarbons law

They didn't just change the rules here, they physically took everything over by force......despite legal contracts already in place........

So...... they stole it back

American companies lost around 8 billion dollars in total, which is peanuts compared to the damage

Around 1/3rd of it was paid back or reclaimed through international court compensation.

The international rules-based order decided what was owed.

Trump has done more damage to the global economy (It is estimated in the trillions). He has broken international free trade rules at will, while still expecting to access a free market system.

Maduro is a piece of shit, in some ways like Trump.

However, these countries have been authoritarian for ages, so they have a conveyor belt of replacements that are equally bad or worse. Look at what happened when Saddam Hussein was replaced; it was not as if Iraq became a shining beacon of Democracy. If anything, it destabilised the Middle East even more, with the likes of Mighty ISIS

If Trump can attack a country because they have a bad leader, then many more countries are open to the same type of nonsense. Trump decides the law, and his pathetic sycophants trail at his feet waiting for his next command.

Anyway, let Trump send in a land army, and their deaths will be on his hands. To recover 8 billion dollars.

This is very simple colonialism - a bit like his good friend Putin.

Let me be very clear here

If Trump hypothetically did do what you are saying he might do, then I would be totally and absolutely against it, and of that there is no question from my side.

I am in no way at all justifying him invading another country over this issue and putting unnecessary lives at risk on both sides.

All I am saying, is that he was correct in what he said about how Venezuela went about illegally taking the oil production away from those American companies.

The issue here is China is doing its Africa strategy in Latin America. Other US Presidents have ignored this potentially dangerous development. Trump is using the levers at his disposal to create some resistance. I hate to say it, but as usual he is ahead of the brain dead Washington and Brussels bureaucrats

If Mid/South America is in Trump's sphere of influence, then the East is in China's sphere of influence.

Yet both want to control their "own" sphere of influence over the other, while still competing in the other's sphere.

I expect at somepoint China and America are going to end up in war.

I would rather fight Putin than China.

Putin is trigger-happy with nukes, but if he is not bluffing, take out Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Russia ends as a country. It will be split into different countries, probably something that China would like. (e.g. Mongolia).

China is a far more capable adversary. 1.4 billion people with an average IQ of 105, against Trumperica with a 350 million population, and a declining average IQ.