@MrWebster

knowledge of the needs and wants, desires and preferences of each age cohort in this country.

Marriage - a binding legal contract necessary for the divvying up of property in the event of its dissolution or the death of either contracting party.

Family - A glob of relatives with whom one may or may not be compatible and/or friendly but who will all want a piece of the estate now that primogeniture is no longer with us. The greatest desire and accomplishment of those with a serious dynastic impulse and a cluster of potential economic and/or emotional burdens.

Home ownership - shelter for so long as you can afford the taxes, upkeep, maintenance and utilities.

A try-fecta indeed

be well and have a good one

Interesting post by Mark Ames on graph by Marjorie Taylor Green. I find it interesting in that many people believe that male/female relationships underwent a radical shift with birth control, and also no fault divorce. Of course the graph might irk some as the whole idea of just even a nuclear family is part of the patriarchy and its oppression of women. Not sure how to quite digest this one.

Graph drops over a cliff soon as the USSR collapses, when the US ruling class no longer felt external pressure to throw a few bones to the American masses. Since 1990, their attitude's been: strip the joint down, take everything you can, fuck the peasantshttps://t.co/xAfbSIVH04

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) August 4, 2025

@soryang

I have difficulty thinking of Russia as a gas station, China as a factory, India as a impoverished labor pool, Iran as a terrorist camp, etc.

You left out Afghanistan as a graveyard. The real terrorist camp, spewing brigands and pirates in all directions and guilty of attacking all of the above nations at least once is the Brits. A small population on a small island with limited resources and arable land had only one avenue of growth, only one road to wealth and opulence and economic power and that was to rob, enslave, and exploit others far and wide through brute force.

be well and have a good one

"... a giant factory disguised as a country.

This is the same category as "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country."

At the risk of stereotyping myself, I realize I'm using a civilization yardstick, or I'm essentializing, western and Chinese differences, as Jane Hayward puts it. I'm saying by and large that the west is more violent, aggressive and imperial than contemporary China. I think Martin Jacques actually has made a greater contribution to understanding exactly what the differences are between our two cultures, in When China Rules the World.

I don't think one necessarily has to live in China, nor read the language, to understand the difference between an empire maintained by the instruments of coercion and violence and the spread of a civilization, the appeal and influence of which spreads naturally or peacefully beyond its borders. I think Kissinger understood China sufficiently well in carrying out the US China rapprochement, and describing his observations in On China. Speaking of such appeal, any long standing civilization, with its tradition, may fall into the category, and should be respected rather than demeaned, threatened, exploited and destroyed. The latter is the imperial agenda. In fact, the community devoted to elevation of its way of life and culture rather than prioritizing how to defeat the "other," is generally regarded as weak and vulnerable in the west, and denigrated.

China puts more value in harmony, and peaceful pursuits than war and violence. It has learned this from the experience of thousands of years of continuous history. The good times are the long periods of peace, typically accompanied by prosperity and the elevation of culture as a human experience. Why jeopardize this? The US and its empire were born yesterday as it were. The latter therefore assumes the efficacy of warfare and coercion as "beneficial." It's seeks yet to consolidate its empire, with the object of domination of the entire world.

I heard Robert Reich describing in autobiographical terms why he thought of the US as a "bullying" country. I thought that the veterans who came home from WWII and Korea were brutalized, and that those who weren't were simply brutal. The big cultural divide during the Vietnam era had a lot to do with a generational dispute caused by younger people who didn't want to inflict brutality and bullying on others. What a silly idea! What about American "realism," the justification for slaughtering others?

My son, considers our culture neo-barbarism. He is more familiar with our family history of northern European forebears of not too long ago, who obviously were barbaric; it was their way of life. Theirs was primitive by comparison, barbarism now is high tech. Currently, there is an overt US campaign, ongoing to resuscitate the "warrior ethic," and to venerate "warrior heroes," not just at home, but abroad, among our putative allies, from whom we openly seek tribute, and increased arms sales to newly enlarged allied forces, under our command, of course. This is the nonsense of those still delusional from their failed neo-colonial campaigns in the middle east and elsewhere. Our "national debt" was in large part created by these reckless expenditures of blood and empire abroad. Our current crop of elites enriched themselves waging disastrous wars abroad while we are saddled with the debts they incurred destroying countries.

To a degree I perceive the similar frightening prospects of future potential wars and environmental disasters on a scale and finality we can hardly imagine. Two comments I heard recently from some rather learned observers were that the elites in the US not only can't imagine the consequences of their belligerent acts and therefore court the worst disasters possible, but further embrace a delusional culture of hubris, arrogance, omnipotence, exceptionalism, whatever you want to call it. This will almost certainly lead us to terrible disasters including widespread death and destruction. Then there is the greed thing, which involves appropriating and violating the commons, nature, environment, making it the private domain of the all powerful oligarchs and then destroying the commons and all of us with it, those alive now, and those who may survive in the future.

I know this doesn't count for much in some circles but I believe the culture carried forward by other civilizations and peoples is worth preserving. That's why I have difficulty thinking of Russia as a gas station, China as a factory, India as a impoverished labor pool, Iran as a terrorist camp, etc. I think this process, the Orientalizing of the putative enemy, is preparation for additional genocidal pursuits. Consequently, it lowers the threshold of objections that might be raised, to embarking on another heedless military campaign.

Trump said the US will get it "one way or the other," and was met with cheers by the other grifters.

Thanks for the thought provoking Debbie Downer topic, earthling1!