This excerpt commenting on China’s accomplishments needs pushback:
The Orientals ( SE and Far East Asia+ China) are a superior people: far more inventive, very hard working, system and procedures driven.
No.
If Orientals were innately superior people they wouldn’t have spent centuries being curb stomped, essentially at will, by Europeans.
Europeans were not innately superior either, they happened, for solid historical reasons, to have had a technological revolution which made them superior at war and later at production for a while. That is all.
No one is innately superior.
Some societies are superior to their competitors for a time. The Roman Republic (not so much the Empire, which was unable to expand significantly and keep those expansions. Before them the Greeks (everyone seems to forget the Hellenic world.) Before them various Mesoptomians and the Egyptians (who still have the all the time record for an enduring multi-millenial civilization, and during that time probably thought they were the bestest of the best, then got conquered repeatedly and forcefully had their own civilization and religion taken from them and replaced with Islam.)
Before China took the lead in the East, India was #1. Then China had a great run, but got its faced pushed in three times over 2,500 years–Mongols, Manchu and Europeans.
No one is innately superior. Under the right circumstances any society can rise to a dominant position. Then they will lose it when the conditions that gave rise to it end, often due to their own foolishness.
Every culture where people start thinking they are innately superior will commit atrocities at whatever scale they are capable of. The moment a culture thinks they are the best and that it is innate, they look down on everyone else and see them as non-human.
If you want to see what this looks like, go find a list of the British Empire’s atrocities. Or Amerca’s. Or the Mongols. Or most Mesopotamian kingdoms.
Or go watch some videos of what the people who think “God Chose us!’ are doing right now: all the mass murder, rape and torture, which an especial enjoyment of child murder.
Your society may be superior in some ways, for a time. This will always end, it is never innate and it always dependent on contingent circumstances.
If you think it is innate not only will you become monsters, but you will lose your superiority sooner than if you understand it is a result of historical contingencies and not something you don’t have to work hard and wisely to keep.
What I write here is for the benefit of everyone, but alas, I live in capitalism and I, and the site, take money to keep running. If you value the writing here and can, please subscribe or donate.
cc
Agreed with all that.
“The moment a culture thinks they are the best and that it is innate, they look down on everyone else and see them as non-human.”
Case in point: The US and Israel, who endlessly see themselves as “exceptional” and “chosen”, and treat so many as sub-human or inferiors to manipulate, abuse, or kill.
“Too many of our people are worshipping a false idol once again. They are enraptured by it. Drunk on it. Profaned by it. That false idol is called Zionism.”
– Jewish Canadian Naomi Klein, speaking at a Jewish seder in Brooklyn, 2024/04/23
Israel and the US are what, only 78 and 250 years old, respectively? Hopefully China can avoid going as wrong as they have for a far longer time than they did.
The adherence to Confucian values in China – as opposed to some of what’s written in the Torah or Bible – gives some hope.
“Humility is the solid foundation of all virtues.”
– Confucius
p.s. continued speedy recovery and good health Ian!
Ian Welsh
Thank you CC.
mago
Glad to see you back in the saddle Ian. Solid pithy observations.
There’s this human tendency to reify their experience, but compounded existence is ever changing and nothing is solid, fixed or real in the way deluded mind assumes it to be.
An entire culture that suffers from believing in its innate superiority is inevitably doomed to self destruction, as you so well point out.
Also, the lack of historical perspective is appallingly all too common.
Alas, what can you do?
Keep putting it out there Ian.
May your health stabilize and grow stronger.
spud
much agreement.
our hubris hit its high in 1993, as i saw clinton and his people say, we will design the products of the future from our comfy offices, and send them off to the grunts in the third world, who will do what they were destined to do, sweat and get dirty for us.
if you want to see hubris at its height, here ya go, and the ones who did this to us, have never been publicly shamed, and their names drug through the mud.
Press Briefing by Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council, Martin Bailey, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors, Lawrence Summers, Secretary of the Treasury and Robert M. Solow, Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
April 25, 2000
…
StewartM
Your post reminds me of a Marvin Harris quote:
“When a people think that the shape of their noses or the kink of their hair guarantee their cultural ascendancy, they are confusing a biological accident with a socio-cultural process.”
Google AI sez:
As a prominent cultural anthropologist and the father of cultural materialism, Marvin Harris used this idea to dismantle the myth of racial supremacy:
The Illusion of Superiority:
He argues that dominant groups often try to legitimize their power, wealth, or “cultural ascendancy” by linking it to physical, hereditary traits (like hair texture or nose shape).
Biological Accident vs. Socio-Cultural Process: Harris points out that physical features are merely “biological accidents”—the result of evolutionary adaptations to environments (like climate and UV radiation) over millennia. They have absolutely no bearing on intelligence, capability, or civilizational achievement.
The Real Driver:
Cultural ascendancy is driven by socio-cultural and historical processes—such as geography, economics, technology, and political power structures—not genetics. Confusing the two is the foundational logical fallacy of racism.
CC:
Indeed, some orthodox Jews see Zionism as akin to heresy; as it has human intervention instead of divine intervention restoring the Jewish state.
Spud:
The apex of US exceptionalist delusion was not 1993, but NOW. Yes, even today, with US govenmental and business leadership incompetency and corruption in full view, many Americans still think “we’re Number 1!” even though our vaunted military has been over-rated for several decades now.
We deliberately forgot how to win a conventional war because winning such wars requires mass participation and citizen buy-in, and since Vietnam our leaders still wanted their wars for the greater glory of United Fruit and Exxon-Mobile without that buy-in. So they went the pricey high tech/low manpower route and scoffed at the need to do mass production like WWII. The Sherman tank didn’t have to be the “best” tank of WWII to win WWII, just cheap and mass-producible and reliable.
Jan Wiklund
We have to remember that what makes a country or culture superior is the superior technique. If one alone can solve important technical problems one gets superior – until somebody else does it better. Or until one gets drowned in money and becomes rentiers, which has happened repeatedly with superior economies.
There are a few very important books about this:
George Modelski & Willliam Thompson: Leading sectors and world powers, 1996
Charles Kindleberger: World economic primacy 1500-1990, 1996
Bas van Bavel: The invisible hand?, 2016.
One can add Michael Hudson’s chapter about the antiquity in Landes, Mokyr & Baumol: The invention of enterprise, 2010.
Richard Holsworth
“[Clinton] provided China with the economic leverage to produce an archipelago of debt-trapped suzerainties using the Belt & Road infrastructure project as a cudgel with which to decimate democracy.”
https://www.policymagazine.ca/the-tragic-legacy-of-bill-clintons-china-doctrine/
The argument that Clinton screwed up the good deal that we had ignores the crime against humanity that it was based on: The Bretton Woods Accord.
bruce wilder
The hereditarian hypothesis for explaining the success of a society, state or civilization seems perennially to acquire plausibility for some intellects. Why? It certainly doesn’t much profit from the discoveries of scientific genetics, as far as I can see. The main motivation seems to be wanting to escape complexity and arrive at some reactionary ideal.
Well, what’s the alternative? To wade into the open-ended complexity of a semi-eusocial species fumbling thru emergent evolutionary processes of cyclical crisis-growth-and-decay?
Is “work hard and wisely” also contingent? especially if we concede that processes of repeated trials and selection by survival and revival are at work.
It is really easy for me, endowed with a feeble natural intelligence imperfectly informed about political economy and climate change, to seriously doubt the collective capacity of human groups to “work hard and wisely” for long by any standard an individual would recognize for equally long.
DMC
Hello Charles Murray! Are you listening? Cultural differances may partially explain economic inequalities but even those will be affected by external factors. Tropical hunter-gatherers don’t need to work as hard to meet their basic survival needs as , say, traditional Inuits, just due to the enviroments in which they live. Work ethics will develop accordingly.
spud
Bill Clinton Ended Welfare and Paved the Way for MAGA
Republicans have since turned their attention to additional pillars of the social safety net.
July 27, 2026, 1:00 AM
Thirty years ago, President Bill Clinton declared an end to “welfare as we know it” by signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
The legislation marked a historic turning point, ending the federal government’s longstanding commitment to protecting income support to women and children living in poverty. Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program originally established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, was abolished and replaced with a system of block grants, time limits, and work requirements.
In 2026, Americans live in a country where many citizens facing severe economic hardship cannot count on support from Washington. Under an increasingly conservative Republican Party, led by a president who has shown little sympathy for the social safety net, the balance Clinton hoped to strike between the liberal tradition from the New Deal and a more centrist Democratic path on domestic policy has proven to be extraordinarily difficult to achieve.
The nation is starting to see just how severe the current policy outlook has become as the provisions of President Donald Trump’s 2025 “big beautiful” act take effect.
…
Bill Clinton used the phrase “make America great again” during his 1992 presidential campaign, echoing Ronald Reagan’s 1980 slogan.
Wikipedia
Bill Clinton and the “Make America Great Again” Phrase
Historical Context
Bill Clinton utilized the phrase “make America great again” during his 1992 presidential campaign. This slogan was not original to him; it echoed Ronald Reagan’s earlier use of a similar phrase in his 1980 campaign, “Let’s Make America Great Again.” Both slogans aimed to resonate with voters during times of economic and social challenges.
Influence on Future Campaigns
The phrase became a significant part of American political discourse, influencing future candidates, including Donald Trump. Trump’s adoption of “Make America Great Again” in his 2016 campaign revitalized the slogan, transforming it into a central theme of his political identity and movement.
Comparison of Slogans
Candidate Year Slogan Context
Ronald Reagan 1980 Let’s Make America Great Again Addressing economic distress and patriotism
Bill Clinton 1992 Make America Great Again Campaigning during economic challenges
Donald Trump 2016 Make America Great Again Revitalizing the slogan for a new movement
While Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase was part of his campaign strategy, it laid groundwork for future political rhetoric, notably influencing Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. The slogan has since become a cultural phenomenon, representing various political ideologies and sentiments in American politics.
Wikipedia
Many believe that reversing Bill Clinton’s policies, particularly those related to deregulation and trade, is essential for America’s economic recovery. Critics argue that these policies contributed to economic instability and inequality.
Dissent Miller Center
Economic Recovery and Clinton’s Policies
Many believe that reversing Bill Clinton’s policies is crucial for America’s economic recovery. Critics argue that his administration’s approach, particularly regarding deregulation and trade, has led to economic instability and increased inequality.
Key Policies Impacting Recovery
Policy Area Description Impact on Economy
Deregulation Clinton’s administration supported deregulation in various sectors. Critics claim this led to financial instability.
Trade Agreements The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a significant policy. Viewed as contributing to job losses and wage stagnation.
Welfare Reform Aimed to reduce dependency on government assistance. Some argue it disproportionately affected low-income families.
Economic Instability: Critics assert that deregulation has made the economy more vulnerable to crises.
Inequality: The policies are seen as having widened the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Job Losses: Trade agreements like NAFTA are blamed for outsourcing jobs, particularly in manufacturing.
Reversing these policies is viewed by some as a necessary step to restore economic balance and promote equitable growth.
Miller Center Dissent
———–
the block grants are what created all of the fraud in just about every state today. under clinton, he forced states to police federal block grants, and gave the states no money to enforce.
the enforcement of those grants, is a considerable financial drain on states, the block grants even crossed state lines, where its almost impossible for one state, to enforce in another.
—————
Bill Clinton’s welfare reform, which included converting cash welfare programs into block grants, has faced criticism for not adequately helping the poorest families and for allowing states to redirect funds away from direct assistance. While some successes were noted, many argue that the approach has led to reduced funding and increased inequalities.
Mother Jones scholars.org
Bill Clinton’s welfare reform in 1996 transformed cash welfare programs into block grants, specifically the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. This shift aimed to provide states with more flexibility in managing welfare funds.
Criticisms of Block Grants
Inadequate Support for the Poorest Families
Critics argue that the reform has not sufficiently assisted the poorest families.
States have often redirected funds away from direct assistance, limiting support for those in need.
The transition to block grants has led to reduced funding for welfare programs.
Funding for TANF has remained fixed at $16.5 billion since its inception, which, when adjusted for inflation, represents a significant decrease in real terms.
Increased Inequalities
The flexibility granted to states has resulted in varying levels of support, often exacerbating racial and economic inequalities.
States with higher poverty rates may struggle to provide adequate assistance, leading to further disparities in welfare support.
Aspect Outcome
Support for Poor Families Insufficient assistance for the poorest
Funding Fixed funding leading to real-term reductions
Inequality Increased disparities among states
The overall assessment of Clinton’s welfare reform indicates that while it aimed to improve efficiency and state control, it has faced significant challenges in effectively supporting low-income families.
scholars.org Mother Jones
Regional block grants can be difficult for states to administer when projects cross state lines because they require coordination among multiple jurisdictions and pooling of diverse funding sources.
Brookings
Challenges of Policing Block Grants Across State Lines
Coordination Among Jurisdictions
Complex Administration: When block grants involve projects that span multiple states, the administration becomes complicated. States must coordinate with each other, which can lead to delays and inefficiencies.
Diverse Funding Sources: Projects often require pooling funds from various jurisdictions. This can create challenges in managing and allocating resources effectively.
Increased Complexity: Law enforcement agencies may face difficulties in implementing programs funded by block grants that cross state lines. This can hinder their ability to respond effectively to crime and safety issues.
Need for Collaboration: Successful execution of these projects necessitates strong collaboration between state and local law enforcement agencies, which can be challenging to establish and maintain.
The complexity of managing block grants that cross state lines poses significant challenges for states, particularly in law enforcement. Effective coordination and collaboration are essential to overcome these hurdles and ensure that projects are successfully implemented.
Brookings U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO)
Bill Clinton’s administration shifted welfare programs to block grants, which critics argue can lead to reduced funding and increased flexibility for states, potentially fostering conditions for fraud. This approach has been associated with a lack of federal oversight, which may exacerbate issues of accountability and inequality.
scholars.org Brookings
Block Grants and Welfare Reform
Overview of Block Grants
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, welfare programs were transformed into block grants. This shift aimed to provide states with greater flexibility in managing social services. However, this approach has faced criticism for several reasons:
Reduced Funding: Block grants often come with fixed funding levels that do not adjust for inflation or increased demand, leading to potential funding shortfalls.
Increased State Flexibility: States gained more control over how to allocate funds, which can lead to inconsistent service delivery and potential misuse of funds.
The transition to block grants has been linked to several factors that may create conditions for fraud:
Lack of Federal Oversight: With reduced federal monitoring, states have more autonomy, which can lead to less accountability in how funds are used.
Potential for Mismanagement: The flexibility granted to states can result in misallocation of resources, as there are fewer checks on how funds are spent.
The combination of reduced funding and increased flexibility has raised concerns about the effectiveness of welfare programs. Critics argue that these changes may not only undermine the intended support for low-income families but also create opportunities for fraud and mismanagement within state programs.
In summary, while the intention behind block grants was to streamline welfare services, the resulting lack of oversight and accountability has led to significant concerns about their impact on social welfare and the potential for fraud.
Brookings scholars.org
StewartM
Uh, Spud.
“MAGA Republicans” were ALWAYS again’st AFDC. All you have to do is to listen to a lot of country music songs about “welfare” (you, know, not-so-covertly painted as being for them “shiftless” black people). I kid you not; while at a rest stop on the interstate across the mountains recently there was a bluegrass band playing a song with the lyrics of ‘I ain’t ever going to be on welfare, I’m a working man”.
(Anyone who actually has know people on AFDC knows it wasn’t the gravy train such songs made it out to be. I also recall a country music song with a very obviously black voice screaming “Where’s MY WELFARE?” at the closing of the song.)
So no, “MAGA Republicans” would have cheered what Clinton did. What this really shows is that the Washington Consensus of Saintly Bipartisanship (which says that Democrats need to appease Republicans when in power, but that Republicans can go full-bore on their maximalist agenda when they have power) won’t win Dems any elections. Betraying your base in a fruitless attempt to win MAGAs is an exercise in futility. That’s what Clinton represented, that’s what Obama represented, and in part that was Biden and Harris.
spud
idiots like merle haggard were barking and braying all over the place when i was a kid. but the fact of the matter is, his type never gained power, till bill clinton came along.
MAGA repubilcans would not be in power today, if it was not for bill clintons policies, driving 200 traditional democrat counties onto the hands of MAGA.
MAGA never stood a chance of gaining power because people believed in the new deal, then along came bill clinton, obama never came clean about clinton, in fact bailed out his disastrous policies, just like biden, and here we are.
——
In the 2016 election, Donald Trump flipped several counties that had previously voted for Democrats, particularly in key states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These counties had historically supported Democratic candidates but shifted to Trump, contributing to his electoral victory.
Brookings 270toWin
Counties That Flipped from Democratic to Trump
In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump successfully flipped several counties that had historically supported Democratic candidates. This shift was particularly significant in key battleground states.
Key States with Notable Flips
State Counties Flipped Historical Voting Pattern
Pennsylvania Multiple counties Traditionally Democratic
Michigan Several counties Traditionally Democratic
Wisconsin Various counties Traditionally Democratic
Historical Context: Many of these counties had consistently voted for Democratic candidates in previous elections.
Impact on Election: The shift in these counties was crucial for Trump’s electoral victory, as they contributed significantly to his overall vote count.
The flipping of these counties from Democratic to Trump in 2016 marked a pivotal change in voting patterns, particularly in the Midwest, and played a vital role in the election outcome.
Ballotpedia Brookings
Trump’s 2024 gains in more than 200 counties were driven by broad shifts among working-class voters, women, Asian Americans, voters of color, young voters, rural voters, independents, and those with household incomes under $100,000, with Latino men shifting from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024.
NBC News
Bill Clinton’s presidency oversaw the Republican Party’s capture of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1994 mid-term elections, ending 40 years of Democratic control.
Wikipedia Lumen Learning
Impact of Bill Clinton’s Presidency on Democratic Control
1994 Mid-Term Elections
The 1994 mid-term elections were pivotal for the Democratic Party.
Bill Clinton’s presidency saw the Republican Party gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This marked the end of 40 years of Democratic dominance in the House.
Factors Contributing to the Shift
Policy Decisions: Clinton’s administration faced backlash over various policies, including healthcare reform efforts.
Republican Mobilization: The Republican Party, under Newt Gingrich, effectively mobilized voters against Clinton’s agenda.
Voter Sentiment: Economic concerns and dissatisfaction with the administration’s direction contributed to the shift in power.
The Republican victory in 1994 reshaped the political landscape, leading to significant legislative challenges for Clinton.
This shift marked a significant change in U.S. politics, as it demonstrated a growing partisan divide and the electorate’s response to the Democratic leadership.
In summary, while Bill Clinton’s presidency did not directly “blow” a 50-year control, it did lead to a significant loss of power for the Democrats in the House, ending a long period of dominance.
Wikipedia Lumen Learning
In the midterm elections of 1994, Democrats suffered significant losses nationwide, losing control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as numerous state legislative chambers, following Bill Clinton’s first two years in office.
Governing democraticautopsy.org
Overview of Democratic Losses Under Bill Clinton
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, particularly in the midterm elections of 1994, the Democratic Party faced substantial setbacks. These losses were significant both at the national and state levels.
National Losses
U.S. House of Representatives: Democrats lost control, marking a major shift in power.
U.S. Senate: The party also lost its majority in the Senate.
State-Level Losses
Numerous state legislative chambers switched from Democratic to Republican control.
This shift reflected a broader trend of discontent among voters, which was partly fueled by the political climate and economic issues of the time.
Voter Discontent: Many voters were dissatisfied with the direction of the country, which contributed to the Democratic losses.
Policy Decisions: Some of Clinton’s policies may not have resonated with the traditional Democratic base, leading to a decline in support.
These events marked a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party, resulting in a significant realignment in American politics that would shape future elections.
Governing democraticautopsy.org
Democrats experienced significant losses during President Obama’s tenure, losing control of both chambers of Congress and many state legislatures. By the end of his presidency, Democrats had lost a net total of 13 governorships and 816 state legislative seats.
quorum.us
National Losses
During President Obama’s administration, the Democratic Party faced substantial electoral setbacks.
Congressional Control
Senate:
Started with a 60-seat majority.
Ended with a 48-seat minority (net loss of 12 seats).
House of Representatives:
Began with a 257-seat majority.
Concluded with a 194-seat minority (net loss of 64 seats).
Midterm Elections Impact
2010 Midterms:
Lost 6 Senate seats and 63 House seats.
2014 Midterms:
Lost an additional 9 Senate seats and 13 House seats.
State-Level Losses
The Democratic Party also suffered significant losses at the state level.
Governorships and State Legislatures
Governorships:
Lost a net total of 13 governorships.
State Legislative Seats:
A total of 816 state legislative seats were lost.
State Legislature Control:
Controlled both chambers in 27 states in 2009.
Reduced to control in only 13 states by the end of Obama’s presidency.
These losses contributed to a significant shift in political power, paving the way for a Republican majority in both Congress and many state legislatures.
quorum.us
mago
Hey StewartM, that’s a Hank Williams song called Working Man.
Hey Hey working man/working man like me/ain’t never been on welfare and that’s one place I won’t be/ cause I keep working long as my two hands are fit to use/drink a little beer on the weekend/sing a little bit of these working man blues.
Quoting from memory. My ex-hippie chick Deadhead girlfriend was into Hank Williams and his music was in the travel playlist along with Bob Dylan and Tom Waits and others. Go figure. But redneck sensibilities aside, I grew to appreciate and respect his musicianship. Takes all kinds.
Dan Kelly
A Piece of Toast
Noonday.
Henry and I have ordered
our lunch and are waiting.
Here, in this beautiful dining
room, we both take our meals,
often at the same table.
Henry is rich, self-made.
He talks well of financial
matters, rarely of anything else.
His ideal, to found a fortune.
The negro waiter brings our lunch.
Henry flies into a rage. ‘I ordered
a piece of well-done toast!
Are you hard of hearing! What do
you mean bringing me this?
his face flushed.
This afternoon I stood beside
Henry’s grave. Eleven
years have gone down the
river of time.
I could not help remembering the
day Henry lost his temper.
A piece of toast – what a
very little thing in the great
mystery and tragedy of life!
—
I am sitting in a beautiful, shady
place on the riverbank.
It is four o’clock, a hot afternoon.
I have been attending a
director’s meeting.
What pros and cons, sharp
words, ins and outs, ups and
downs of the financial world!
I am worn out. I have come
here to forget and to rest.
Ah, to live here by the river,
and be a simple fisherman,
Like the men I see below me
near the shore drawing up
their nets!
How peaceful the river and the fishermen!
One of the nets seems to be
caught in the river.
They can not draw it up.
Several are trying.
Such swearing!
Such placing of blame back
and forth!
It looks as if there might be a fight.
I will go back to the
director’s room.
Perhaps I can rest there
awhile, before I go home for
the night.
Fishermen and bank directors –
life everywhere is the same.
—
Will future generations understand
The turmoil of these days, the strain and stress,
The dawn’s despair, the night’s uneasiness,
The greed of itching palms throughout the land?
Will they conceive the fires fanatics fanned,
Of time the universal wastefulness,
The strange philosophies the mobs confess
That every throat cry out some new demands?
Time was when men held saner counsel here.
Will that time come again? Shall we behold
From this grim madness some new love unfold?
We pray for gentler times, when man shall cease
His brother man to bully or to fear.
Great God, among ourselves let us have peace!
But we do not want peace
and rest; we are enamored of
noise and motion. A St. vitus
dance has siezed us.
Things must change. The nerves
have a limit of endurance.
Tonight, I looked at the moon
for a while. There was a
faint circle around it.
A friend came by and asked what
I was looking at. I pointed
to the moon.
‘I don’t see anything.’
‘The moon,’ I said.
He chuckled and went on. He will
report me as growing queer.
The mystery of the night!
And our own mystery! Who
knows what we are? No science
has yet grasped us.
The moon – the beautiful, mystical
moon…playing nightly
to empty seats!
—
I journeyed from university to
university, and I saw everywhere the
past rebuilt before the eyes of
young men and young women –
Egypt, Greece, Rome; language,
architecture, laws – saw the earth and
sky explained, and the habits
of body…
Everywhere chairs of this and that.
largely endowed.
But nowhere saw I a chair of the
human heart.
—
Glad you’re well Ian!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2uMkN0IkAg
Feral Finster
There was a time when black people were thought to be inept at…basketball, which at that time was believed to be a sport to which Jews were uniquely and innately suited.
Subsequent events have called this view into question.
Feral Finster
StewartM (and CC):
“Indeed, some orthodox Jews see Zionism as akin to heresy; as it has human intervention instead of divine intervention restoring the Jewish state.”
The Satmar Hasidim are the largest extant Hasidic court, and they believe the State of Israel to literally be Satanic. They will not set foot there, and they are often visible at pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
different clue
What would you have if you combined Trump’s soul-deep evil and pure antisocial selfishness with Bill Clinton’s intelligence , education, etc.?
You would have . . . Bill Clinton.
The Clintobiden Pelosibamacrats are not capable of coming clean about Clinton, or the larger “new democrat” movement ( DLC and all the other acronym-groups) that he was a part of. And until they are all purged and exterminated from out of the DemParty, the Party will not do any “coming clean”. How does anyone expect innately dirty people to “come clean”?
Legacy New Dealers and Newish Dealers and NeoDealers will have to find eachother and plan to conquer the Party from within and purge, burn and exterminate millions of Clintonites from out of the Party. Drive them out and accept Minority Party status until a declintaminated Party is able to earn Majority Party status all on its own. The DSA can be useful in this process.
There would also have to be years of Teach Ins, Reach Outs, etc. taking millions of man-hours to reach millions of people over several years at least with the whole history of the Fair Deal, Square Deal, New Deal, etc. and then also the history of the anti-New Deal reaction. A network of thousands of Occupy Reading Rooms all over the country would be helpful in that regard.
All that being said, ” vote Blue no matter Who” ( with certain exceptions) is necessary for the next few cycles to degrade and attrit the KCR Party-Movement until it is so small and weak that the DemParty has time and space for New, Newish and Neo-Dealers to begin a systematic purge and extermination campaing against the Clintonites. The Clintonites should be viewed as a disease . . . the disease of Malignant Metastatic Clintonoma. And the Mother Cancer made sure to seed millions of Daughter Clintonoma Metastases throughout the Party and throughout the entire Liberal Community. Every single one of those Clintonoma cells will have to be “exterminated” with the right kind of political and social and cultural chemotherapy.
I look forward to Clinton’s death and the opportunity it will afford me to answer questions of ” so what do you think of Clinton’s death” with . . . ” Clinton’s death is not the tragedy. The tragedy is that Clinton was ever born. America would be a better place today if only Clinton had been abortioned”.
I used to be able to find relevant sections of a Michael Moore speech predicting Trump’s 2016 victory. All I can find are now semi-useless slivers or other things “about” that Michael Moore prediction. Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWykjX_uJUc
and this:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?pglt=171&q=you+tube+michael+moore+trump+the+brexit+states&cvid=ffad505a6b0944249d1eaf33ac402fd8&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQ6wcYQNIBCTEzMzE5ajBqN6gCAbACAQ&PC=U531&ru=%2fsearch%3fpglt%3d171%26q%3dyou%2btube%2bmichael%2bmoore%2btrump%2bthe%2bbrexit%2bstates%26cvid%3dffad505a6b0944249d1eaf33ac402fd8%26gs_lcrp%3dEgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQ6wcYQNIBCTEzMzE5ajBqN6gCAbACAQ%26FORM%3dANNAB1%26PC%3dU531&mmscn=vwrc&mid=0C3920FDC399F5BE123A0C3920FDC399F5BE123A&FORM=WRVORC&ntb=1&msockid=06dfa207a56e11f1908641ed6074896e
If I can find the entire relevant video, I will bring it here.