yeah, this guy's a real mother theresa

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378082)

*Goes flyover country to have dinner with university president, city mayor, and local renewable energy business leader who received grant from DOE*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378094)

"No, Mr. Brooks. Why should we focus on the victims while we ignore the victimizers? The economy sank like the Titanic after running into an iceberg of greed and privilege. It left millions of us floundering in an ocean of debt. Many couldn’t stay financially afloat, with unpayable loans and underwater mortgages.

Brooks implies we were lucky to have had a berth in steerage, and it’s too bad that now we’re in the drink. Breathe, he says. Flap your arms. Form community groups. Cling together for dear life with your fellow victims.

But what about the iceberg? Iceland knows something about these things. It removed a few of them from the water, preferring to put financial manipulators and profiteers in jail rather than reward them with bonuses for their greed and deceit.

We do things differently here. We cut taxes for the richest of the rich while we lock up the people who suffer the social and spiritual disintegration of economic abandonment. It’s a perfect system. We squeeze the life out of the population, let them rot in privatized prisons, and then sell the compost for a tidy profit.

Now the nation is sunk, because the Republican crew mutinied. They took down the ship of state, preferring to steer it into the rocks rather than respect the captain.

Trump is the benefactor of this disaster. He promises to pick up the victims in an ocean liner, but by all accounts he only has a little dinghy. "

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378093)

Who the fuck does he think he is? The myth-giver of society?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378135)

In the end that's the trade-off with having a culture (and tax and economic policies) that emphasize entrepreneurship and elevates the pursuit of wealth. You get the innovation and massive wealth for those who can participate in the system, but a lot of left-behinds who are made to feel like big losers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378398)

I don't think that it is the problem. Historically, high levels of entrepreneurship and wealth-seeking have been perfectly compatible with strong communities, everywhere from rural farming communities to neighborhoods in large cities. What has changed in the modern era is the requirements foisted upon people, and especially young people, who desire to make something of themselves.

Ever since the early 80s, American society has told young people who are desirous of a good economic future that, upon turning 18, they must leave their families, friends, and communities behind and move to another place for four years. While at this place, they are surrounded by other individuals who have also left their family and communities behind. As such, there is little by way of deep seated values and ethics and everyone is left to indulge self-destructive, narcissistic endeavors. This is only exacerbated by the fact that these people have no real incentive to be industrious and therefore fail to develop beliefs, practices and behavior that aid in being industrious.

As this cycle continues, smaller locales have their promising individuals stripped away, and a nasty feedback loop develops. As more and more promising individuals decide to forego returning home to their small communities, the commercial opportunities in these communities increasingly diminish. This is particularly catastrophic for small communities since they began with a razor thin margin with respect to human capital.

Similarly to how economic opportunities diminish in small communities as promising individuals leave, so does their social health. The balance of decent people to trash eventually tips too far towards trash and the mores of trash eventually takes over, so that even the kids of the few remaining decent people fall far short of reaching their full potential.

I note that there is no absolute measurement of what make a community "small." It is almost entirely relative. As this process continues, larger and larger communities will be hollowed out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30380481)

Europe is foundering faster than the USA because there are milder consequences for being a layabout there. European manufacturing has been gutted even more than American manufacturing. The Chinese have been the winners in this, because their people are willing to suffer more than ours or Europe's. How's that for redemption?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30383736)

"We’ll probably need a new definition of masculinity, too. There are many groups in society who have lost an empire but not yet found a role. Men are the largest of those groups. The traditional masculine ideal isn’t working anymore. It leads to high dropout rates, high incarceration rates, low labor force participation rates. This is an economy that rewards emotional connection and verbal expressiveness. Everywhere you see men imprisoned by the old reticent, stoical ideal."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378139)

Author: tamerlane

(didn't understand a single sentence, in denial that Jews are LEVANTINE ALIENS, thinks Mercurians "build" civilizations instead of having them handed to them ready-made.)

yeah here's a question for you: how many fixed coding-region differences are there between Neanderthals and modern humans (or let's say modern NW Europeans)?

Anyway, the answer to the original question is no. catastrophic intermarriage rates today shows that their pride of race was only a matter of host hostility. as soon as they got a chance at shiksa orifices and goyishe fluids all that talmudic eyestrain went straight out the window. secondly, jewish attainment is purely white-collar. little boys' playacting like in the "tough" Israeli state betrays a hysterical overreacting character that is essentially feminine (seen also in their ineptness at the visual arts) -- here we have a people of mercantile and scholastic bearing for whom open assertions of power are entirely foreign, as is ironically betrayed by the aggressiveness and highly personalized acidity of Jewish argumentation. that kind of conduct is only possible in creatures who cannot conceive of physical consequences for their actions, soft hands running string around their shtetls. no such people could ever dominate.

admixture with oriental jews, even swarthy africanized stocks like the yemenite, is in israel today returning ashkenazim to their roots. here we have more dynamic possibility. they will not too long from now once again enforce the veil, practice polygamy unashamed, and (I hope) wet red the stone of the rebuilt Temple. when it becomes a routine thing for the Jews to retaliate against the latest Arab outrage with their own suicide bombers, you will know it is complete. the greatness of the Israelite was not intellectual. it was in the ferocity of his iconoclasm.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30380512)

Libs REALLY dont want to know the answer to this or what these towns look like

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378276)

MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE SUPPORTED BERNIE SANDERS AND NOT HILLARY CLINTON YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT

i recall reading some similar NYT article about how taking the "long view" was something only privileged white men could do and that's why you have to be pragmatic and support hillary over bernie

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30378337)

"Lonely-hearts reactionary David Brooks, writing this week in the New York Times, describes the angst and despair of the old Republican leadership, as it watches the Trump/Cruz nativist revolution:

"Members of the Republican governing class are like cowering freshmen at halftime of a high school football game. Some are part of the Surrender Caucus, sitting sullenly on their stools resigned to the likelihood that their team is going to get crushed. Some are thinking of jumping ship to the Trump campaign…

"Rarely has a party so passively accepted its own self-destruction."

Farther down in his piece, Brooks trumpets a call to action, wondering why his beloved party can't instantly rally voters to its cause the way just about everyone else seems able to these days:

"If MoveOn can organize, if the Tea Party can organize, if Justin Bieber can build a gigantic social media movement, why are you incapable of any collective action at all?

"What's needed is a grass-roots movement that stands for governing conservatism, built both online and through rallies, and gets behind a single candidate sometime in mid- to late February."

Brooks went on to timidly propose that that the party recognize that modern Republican voters are in a state of "trauma" and "want a government that will help the little guy."

He wondered if maybe the party leaders, in an effort to reverse their stunning fall from influence, might "actually provide concrete policy ideas to help the working class."

For most of the last four decades, the Republican Party worked pretty much exclusively for weenie aristocrats like Brooks, a tiny collection of entitled bosses whose idea of good government was income-tax cuts, deregulated workplaces and slackened obligations to the rabble.

To get what they wanted, they spent a generation whipping what Brooks calls "less-educated voters" into lathers over moronic controversies involving everything from Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to the New Black Panthers to the arrest of Kim Davis.

Those low-information voters never got Roe v. Wade repealed by their Republican leaders, never got zero-tolerance immigration policies (hell, Obama deported way more undocumented immigrants than Bush ever did), never got prayer in school or any of the other things they desperately wanted.

But they did get lower income taxes for David Brooks, a carried interest exemption for Mitt Romney, and a tax-repatriation holiday for Carly Fiorina's Hewlett-Packard and other mega-firms. None of these policies helped the bulk of the population much, but they were great for the 17 people they were actually designed to benefit.

For instance, the "less-educated voter" got less than jack for that 2004 tax repatriation holiday. In fact, the 15 biggest beneficiaries of the holiday laid off tens of thousands of jobs collectively after getting a big fat free pass from Uncle Sam.

The hilarious part about the Brooks column is the wounded, incredulous tone. Where, he asks, is the love? You know, like the old days, when the hick megachurcher and the Upper East Side Yalie were joined at the hip for the cause of a sharply-reduced top income tax rate!

"There's a silent majority of hopeful, practical, programmatic Republicans. You know who you are," Brooks bleats. "Please don't go quietly and pathetically into the night."

Back in the old days, when the Republican Party could count on the support of "less-educated voters" without having to actually give them anything, what we got all the time from people like Brooks were fatuous bromides about how anyone who was struggling lacked a work ethic and an appreciation of family structure. Government aid of any kind to help people out of economic hard times he always ripped as counterproductive and morally corrupting.

But now that he's being crapped on by a new movement of independent-minded, rebellious nativists who have no use for a moralizing, polysyllabic New Yorker like himself – now that he can hear the sharpening of the guillotines – suddenly Brooks is all in favor of government policies to help the "working class," a group of people he's presumably never met.

"Years ago," he writes, "reform conservatives were proposing a Sam's Club Republicanism, which would actually provide concrete policy ideas to help the working class, like wage subsidies, a higher earned-Income tax credit, increased child tax credits, subsidies for people who wanted to move in search of work."

He goes on: "This would be a conservatism that emphasized social mobility at the bottom, not cutting taxes at the top."

This is the author of aristocrat fan fiction classics like Bobos in Paradise suddenly advocating government policies to stimulate "social mobility at the bottom." Could this election season get any weirder?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30382942)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3210130&forum_id=2#30384546)