Iowa’s Critics

On the 1 Jan 2012 broadcast of NBC’s Nightly News Andrea Mitchell said: “The rap on Iowa: it doesn’t represent the rest of the country — too White, too evangelical, too rural.”

The next day an NBC spokeswoman explained: “she was referencing critics who argue that the state shouldn’t carry so much weight because it doesn’t proportionally represent the rest of the country”.

Who are these critics?

On 18 December 2011, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wrote about Iowa in the New York Times. A.G. is the son of publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Their extended family owns a controlling stake in the paper.

Tucked inside Sulzberger’s article is a version of Mitchell’s complaint:

As the first state to take part in the Republican nominating contest, Iowa has long been criticized as too much of an outlier to be permanently endowed such an outsize influence in shaping the presidential field. Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.

Who are these critics?

On 9 December 2011, The Atlantic published a lengthly hit piece on Iowa by Stephen Bloom, Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life.

While this may not be the source of Mitchell and Sulzberger’s complaint, it appears to be the most recent, most complete expression of it. It is in fact a very thorough deconstruction of Iowans and their culture.

Bloom introduces himself as an expert Iowanologist:

For almost 20 years I’ve lived in Iowa, where as a professor at the University of Iowa I’ve taught thousands of university students. I’ve written a couple of books on rural Iowa, traveling to all 99 counties, and have spent much of my time when not teaching, visiting with and interviewing Iowans from across the state.

The article is long and well-padded with local trivia. This might create an impression Bloom not only knows Iowa but perhaps even sympathizes with Iowans. It would be a false impression.

At one point Bloom offers this blunt evaluation, clearly intended as a put-down:

I’ve lived in many places, lots of them foreign countries, but none has been more foreign to me than Iowa.

In subsequent paragraphs Bloom cites an overabundance of Germanic surnames and Christian beliefs as a particular source of irritation.

The article is larded from beginning to end with evidence of Bloom’s distaste, which makes it a consistently unsympathetic, negative, and in places even gratuitously derogatory portrayal of White Iowans.

As it turns out, Bloom strongly identifies as a jew. This is clearly the main source of his alienation.

Here’s how Bloom sums up his gripe:

Whether a schizophrenic, economically-depressed, and some say, culturally-challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn’t at issue. It’s been this way since 1972, and there are no signs that it’s going to change. In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa’s not representative of much. There are few minorities, no sizable cities, and the state’s about to lose one of its five seats in the U.S. House because its population is shifting; any growth is negligible. Still, thanks to a host of nonsensical political precedents, whoever wins the Iowa Caucuses in January will very likely have a 50 percent chance of being elected president 11 months later. Go figure.

Bloom’s description of the mores of what he calls “insular Iowa” a few paragraphs earlier actually fit most of White America. Bloom’s perfect world, however, is more like the one tribemates Sulzberger and Mitchell live in: More cities, less Whites.

The “rap” that White Iowans aren’t representative is a rationalization offered by people who simply don’t like Whites. They don’t lay proportion guilt-trips on anyone but Whites. In fact they would rage hysterically in condemnation of anyone who aimed such a critique at their own kind.

This is our problem. To solve it we need our own pundits, our own media, our own politics, and ultimately our own countries. What we don’t need is these critics. They’re not representative of us.

44 thoughts on “Iowa’s Critics”

  1. I think certain areas of the US are indeed too Black, too Hispanic, too Asian and above all… too Jewish! They are not representative of what America should be. We could solve this problem by practising ethnic transfers, beginning with those areas that are too Jewish. That would solve a lot of problems. People who are consumed by a fundamental hatred of White people should draw the only reasonable conclusion from their attitude and leave the country. Let the Andrea Mitchells, the Sulzbergers, the Stephen Blooms and all their co-tribals go to their own JUDENSTAAT and leave us alone.

  2. More cities, less Whites

    One might think that ‘more cities’ does not necessarily mean ‘less Whites’. In the context of today’s USA, of course, they would be wrong.

    In the nine largest metropolitan areas in the USA, there are 33.5 million Whites and 33.4 million Blacks/Hispanics. When adding in Asians, American-Indians, and Racial-Mixes, Whites are a distinct minority, even at the metropolitan level.

  3. ‘Rural’ is a code word for White. Census-2010 results bear this out.

    Iowa is too rural. Iowa is too white.

    Some of them (Andrea ‘Shalom’ Mitchell) aren’t even bothering with codewords anymore. “Iowa is too white” is hardly even eyebrow-raising to them now. “You don’t hate whites? What’s wrong with you?!”

  4. Not interested in what a bunch of brain dead jew libbots have to say about anything. (sound of toilet flushing vomit down in the background)

  5. You can add “White” (not) radio host Michael Savage to the chorus of jews dissing the “Caucasian Caucus” (as he termed it). He bashed it daily saying “why should we care what a bunch of fat rednecks have to say, they do not represent America today”, among other things.

    It is a revelation listening to him fool and lead astray millions of White men.


  6. Related, David Cross of Chipmunks movies fame, “who was raised Jewish”, says of his latest experience:

    “There was this one producer. She is the personification of what people think about when they think negatively about Jews.” (

    Apparently Cross “found fame in cult comedy series Arrested Development as a closeted gay therapist trying to make it as a Hollywood actor.”

    Gays, movie producers, hmmmm, maybe Hollywood is too Jooish?

    Maybe if there was a diminished Jewish influence then we might see some movies that have characters reflecting the “personification of what people think about when they think negatively about Jews.”

    Now that I’d pay to see.

  7. “The article is long and well-padded with local trivia. This might create an impression Bloom not only knows Iowa but perhaps even sympathizes with Iowans. It would be a false impression.”

    Yes. We can rest assured that Bloom has never shoveled horse shit on an Iowa farm except perhaps for a photo op. LOL

  8. Some random thoughts and observations from The Captain:

    – Sulzberger and Bloom present an interesting contrast in Jewish phenotypes; the former might even pass for Northern European whereas the latter looks positively swarthoid.

    – That “overabundance of Germanic surnames” results from us having a fuck-load of Krauts up here. So then, as good a place as any for our Kraut ethnostate in North America to be established. Whoever doesn’t like that is anti-Kraut!

    – Tan seems to have incorporated a bit of Pat Buchanan’s writing style, i.e., a succinct quasi-rhetorical question which stands alone as a paragraph that serves the purpose of honing the readers focus on the next paragraph in which the question is answered. I always liked that.

  9. More:

    – When Bloom says Iowans (he means Krauts) are “schizophrenic” in their way of life he is contrasting their significantly liberal-progressive outlook with their blood-and-soil rurality, the latter of which represents a latent potentiality for full-blown Nazism. Oi vey, shit or get off the pot, will ya! Perhaps I’ll catch some flack for saying so, but I can’t say I precisely disagree.

    – This is how Bloom hopes to get those Krauts off the pot: “In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it.” Did you catch that? By not leaving “even a small part” of America unflooded and unmongrelized by muds.

  10. A related comment of mine that didn’t make it through moderation at Kersey’s site. Re his latest post “The Visible Black Hand of Economics”:

    The invisible hand, more simply, is that self-interest will result in common benefit.

    That you have a situation called BRA demonstrates the falsity of Smith’s invisible hand.

    For as Smith also said, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    Smith wrote at a time when there was a common social and civilisational basis, all built from a single race. Within that sphere it can be seen that the invisible hand did produce common good.

    But change the base race, or change those at the command of the national economy and you will still get self-interest but it won’t be for the common good. It will be for the good of those who implement the policies.

    In order to defeat BRA one must therefore identify who is creating the policies that determine BRA. Whose self-interest is being served? Who is profiting the most from White economic slavery and collapse?

    There is no evidence that Blacks have some political dominance and control of economic policies in the USA. Quite the contrary, their lot is to be dependents. But on who do they depend? Who kick started “the USA is too White” (like Iowa) ball rolling back in the 60’s?

    Who benefits from American social collapse and mass non-White immigration?

    Smith said, “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable”.


    But if you hate the society, and act with self-interest only, and get to control the levers of that society’s economy then, you’ll be flourishing and happy.

    Who is flourishing and happy in the USA today?

  11. Stephen Bloom ‘Does Not Speak for the University’ – Sally Mason – Politics – The Atlantic

    Sincere or not, Sally Mason demonstrates how to write sympathetically about a given people:

    As president of the University, I have the opportunity to travel far and wide across this great state frequently, and the Iowa I see is one of strong, hard-working and creative people. In this cynical world that can harden even the greatest optimist, the citizens of Iowa continue to believe.
    . . .
    What defines Iowans are their deeds and actions and not some caricature. When I travel the state, what I see is a land that is rich not only because of its soil but because of how its people are grounded. Iowans are pragmatic and balanced, and they live within their means. This lifestyle, while not glitzy, is humble and true and can weather the most difficult of times. One’s reputation and word are understood to be his or her most valued attributes. As a result, people cultivate a sense of fairness, cooperation, and humility.
    . . .
    There is not a day that goes by when some pundit doesn’t ask, “Why Iowa?” My husband and I are transplanted Iowans, having been born and raised on opposite coasts. We are both proud to call Iowa home, and we are fascinated by the Iowa caucuses and how thoroughly Iowans become involved in the selection process of a president.

    It’s not as if Bloom doesn’t know how to do this. He writes sympathetically about “minorities” and immigrants.

    Sally Mason hears it from community over Bloom article:

    UI President Sally Mason received nearly 20 emails in December from UI graduates, Iowa residents and others encouraging Bloom’s termination and threatening to withhold future donations to the school.

    PDF of the emails

  12. Munson: For squawking at Iowa, University of Iowa professor now has to duck:

    But based on his article, how has Bloom stomached living in Iowa for this long?

    Bloom said he was chagrined to hear me open with that line of questioning — as if I was backing him into a “love it or leave it” rhetorical corner.

    “Maybe people are not accustomed to reading those kinds of things,” he said. “My message to readers is: Don’t take offense, you might shake your head but it behooves you to listen. A different opinion is good for you.”

    . . .

    “Gee, what is up with Iowans if they don’t have a sense of balance, a sense of humor, a sense of give and take, a sense of debate, if when they read something and it is so far to the fringe that they say, ‘That guy, why does he even live here?’ This is anti-intellectualism. This is provincialism at its worst, I must tell you.”

    Bloom responds to his critics:

    Diversity of opinion is a cornerstone of democratic thought and principle. It’s what we hold above almost everything else.

    . . .

    Sorry if I offended, but that’s the real job of journalism. Or it should be.

    Bloom’s list of White crimes keeps growing: taking offense, intolerance of differing opinions, anti-intellectualism, provincialism.

  13. The reason Bloom continues to live in Iowa and study Iowans is so he can do exactly what he has been doing. Far from being an objective journalist, Bloom is a jewish social critic/engineer whose specialization is in taking apart this particular (rather large) piece of White America.

  14. Last week Bloom played the jew card.

    Stephen Bloom: In Iowa, ‘family values’ means ‘Christian values’ – – The Washington Post

    Bloom, who has lived in Iowa for 20 years, is Jewish. He wonders if his piece would have caused such a stir were he Christian: “Rural Iowa views the world through the prism of religion. Religion cannot be understated. It is the life-motivating force. It’s who you do business with, who you work for.”

    “All of the networking,” he says, “is done in church. Religion is right at the forefront of every discussion. When you look at someone in the local grocery store you’re thinking, ‘What religion is that person?’ ”

    . . .

    “There is this disquieting phrase, ‘family values’,” he says. “It means, Christian values. It means, he’s like us…there are lots of code words like ‘eastern,’’elitist,’ and ‘arrogant.’”

    When he first moved to Iowa from San Francisco Bloom was warned by a local rabbi not to live in Iowa City: “You will be totally disenchanted,” he was told, or “you will be affiliated with a small Jewish community..”

    “I’m proud to say I’m a Jew,” he says, “I’m Jewish down to the bones and corpuscles of my blood. It’s part of me.” But he quickly found that he was seen as different. “See you in church,” he was told. “Merry Christmas and Happy Easter,” he was greeted. When his son wanted to join Boy Scouts the scoutmaster said, “All you boys believe in Jesus.” A Jewish therapist friend of his treated some elderly women on Christmas Eve. “Merry Christmas,” they told him. “You know I’m Jewish,” he replied. “Yes, we know,” said one. “We’ve been praying for you.”

    He laughs about being approached in Walmart by two Mennonite women. One asked, “What are you?”

    “I’m a Walmart shopper,” he replied.

    And later, in a rural restaurant with his wife and son, the waitress looked at them and said, “You’re not from here, are you?”

    “You constantly feel like an outsider. If you’re different you are viewed askance, as an alien. This manifests itself in the elections. It’s like, ‘Is he an American?’ Especially around Christmas and Easter. It’s a disconcerting lonely life. I’m a Jew through-and-through. How do you continue to be a Jew through all of these permutations in a land that is in your face Christian with live crèches?”

    Bloom is A) alienated by Whites, and B) holds Whites entirely to blame for that alienation. When they treat him as one of their own he takes offense. When they innocently notice that he’s not he takes offense. It’s his own jewish Otherness and hostility that he insists on projecting into their minds.

    If a White professor went to Israel and proceeded to complain about and lecture Israelis for being too jewish for his White-to-the-bone tastes, and then blamed them for not liking hearing that, it would be clear to everyone who was the source of the problem.

  15. ‘Captain’,

    Arthur Gregg Salzburger, whose portrait was appended to the article, is at least 50% WASP (probably 75% but I haven’t studied his geneaology thoroughly) as his mother -the Gregg in his name, was the mother’s maiden name – and father’s mother belonged to that group; their husbands were Jew media moguls who converted to Episcopalianism.

    Biologically, religiously and psychologically he is not the same as the entirely Jewish in body-and-mind Bloom. Salzburger is more a Judaised urban yuppie fool than a roaring Jew.

  16. Pat asked rhetorically:Who is flourishing and happy in the USA today?

    We all know jews are at their historical apogee in terms of influence, status, and power (both the power to avoid punishment for their malfeasance and the power to administer punishment for the most trivial offense against their interests). Now, if you overlay a graph of jewish power with a graph of the rate of our civilizational decline, you get a near-perfect fit (we are at the “hockey stick” part of both). This astonishing synchronicity between jewish cultural, financial, political power and our decline is always excused as mere correlation. Liberated jews rose to power only because of their giftedness, the story goes, and if they helped to metastasize “liberalism,” it was only because their host had already contracted the cancer; its spread was inevitable.

    But a moment’s thought should reveal how improbable that interpretation is. Since the jews have taken the helm, all the changes to our once promising civilization have benefitted them while oppressing us. Yet they have the chutzpah to insist that this is all a coincidence (deniers are just resentful of jewish talent). Their super-giftedness merely enabled them to innocently take over all the leadership positions of a plane that was already on auto-pilot headed into a mountain.

    The jewish intellect is positively guided by the desire to inculcate this myth of jewish inculpability. Think of how Auster always finds the seeds of “white suicide” in neutral events, such as the “loss of faith” or the “deification of the individual” (or some such shit). Or how he tirelessly brings up Hollywood’s “golden age,” when decadence and decay had not yet set in, so the innocent jews were free to use their innocent giftedness innocently. (Most recently here, he expresses dismay that when the “majority-serving” Archie comics creator died, his son took the comics into a disgusting, anti-white direction. This trajectory is of course no different than the “gringo-serving” peon’s son becoming a gringo-abhorring gangster.)

  17. Scott: “Liberated jews rose to power only because of their giftedness, the story goes,”

    …and in spite of White people’s “anti-semitism”.

    “and if they helped to metastasize “liberalism,” it was only because their host had already contracted the cancer; its spread was inevitable.”

    “Anti-semitism” would have been the perfect cure to “liberalism”.

    “The jewish intellect is positively guided by the desire to inculcate this myth of jewish inculpability.”

    …and of White people’s culpability (racism, anti-semitism, holocaust).

    Even if Jews didn’t play a crucial role in liberalism and the third-world invasion, they cannot decently justify their domination of the media. The Jewish domination of the media is MORALLY WRONG. The idea that it makes no difference for us is a bad joke.

  18. Speaking of that Auster thread Scott linked to above, I’m surprised he posted the following comment.

    “We Jews are like the proverbial little girl with the curl. When we are good, we are very, very good. But when we are bad, we are worse than awful. For all of our alleged intelligence and high I.Q., our bent towards anarchy, social disruption and desire to provoke is distressing. Soiling ones own nest is far from my definition of intelligence!”

    Despite the praise at the start, the rest is the sort of stuff Auster would call anti-Semitic.

  19. It would only be “anti-Semitic” if the same would have been said by a Gentile. Criticism of Jews – no matter how mild or justified – is by definition “anti-Semitic”. But Jews are allowed to criticize themselves, especially when they stress that a certain type of behaviour harms themselves (“soiling one’s own nest”). One has to understand how their double standard works. It is pretty consistent.

  20. Someone should ask Bloom why it’s okay for him to be “proud” of his jewishness “down to the bones and corpuscles of my blood” but not alright for Iowans to be Christians? What should they be, Jesus-hating Jew worshippers?

    “— as if I was backing him into a “love it or leave it” rhetorical corner.”

    The parasite is firmly attached and won’t leave Iowa til it’s destroyed-ethnically, spiritually, culturally, financially. Right now Bloom’s only too happy writing white-hating diatribes while greedily sucking off their taxpayer teet.

    The university president felt obliged to write a response because Iowans are angry and threatening to withhold donations and calling for “proud” jewboy’s termination. It would be a “proud” day for Iowans and all white Americans if they did both.

  21. Bloom says:

    Enter tikkun olam. Marginal returns never set in for jews like Bloom; they have so little concern for us that to paraphrase Adam Smith they’d prefer their little finger to the oppressed misery and slow genocide of 1 billion gentiles.

    But Jews are allowed to criticize themselves, especially when they stress that a certain type of behaviour harms themselves (“soiling one’s own nest”).
    Good catch.

  22. the Bloom quote above somehow lost was

    “In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America”

  23. Armor said “Anti-semitism” would have been the perfect cure to “liberalism”.

    Can we not define “liberalism” as “that which happens in the absence of anti-semitism” ?

  24. Note that when criticized Bloom does not attempt any “some of my best friends …” excuses. He makes no pretense that he likes Iowans. Instead he argues that he has the moral high ground because he’s a journalist, an outsider, and especially because he’s a jew. In fact he implies that Iowans don’t like him, specifically because he’s a jew. This is classic projection, classic jewish behavior.

    Bloom’s conceit is that he has a list of grievances against Iowans, which is in fact against Whites in general, and that to resolve those grievances Whites must stop being who we are. Or simply stop being. His presumption, without question, is that what best serves him and his kind (couched also partly in terms of other Others – “minorities” and immigrants) takes priority over what’s best for Iowans/Whites.

    Iowans/Whites are pushing back against him, and Mitchell, but what they lack is an explicit recognition of the scale and nature of the conflict. That it is between us and a whole tribe of like-minded Blooms and Mitchells and their useful idiots. That the Blooms are the ones with their hands on the levers of power, pursuing their interests every day, not just once every four years. And finally, that the conflict is existential, for us at least, because they won’t be satisfied until we don’t exist any more.

  25. Regarding the disingenuousness of the word “minority”, note that Bloom makes two points: A) that White Iowans are a literal minority and thus shouldn’t have much say, and B) that those Whites are bad because they aren’t kind enough to (non-White) “minorities”.

  26. “In a perfect world,…” In Bloom’s jewish “perfect world” whites would not be a majority in Iowa or anywhere. Where they still are a majority their political power must be marginalized.

    *Note Bloom’s resemblence to Abie Hoffman (cousins maybe?) and Mrs. Alan Greenspan’s resemblence to a stone faced gargoyle.

  27. A) White Iowans are a literal minority and thus shouldn’t have much say
    B) those Whites are bad because they aren’t kind enough to (non-White) “minorities”

    White minorities = bad
    non-white minorities = good

    In the same vein :

    On the one hand, we are told that immigration is not a problem since we are all the same. Race replacement is all right (resistance isn’t). On the other hand, the Jews push things such as affirmative action, which proves that they do not see non-whites as white people with colored skin.

    White people are not entitled to a share of the main stream media in their own countries. But for every million Whites who get race-replaced in the name of interchangeability, the Jews think that non-white immigrants are entitled to a few thousand top positions in our society in the name of racial fairness. But how is it fair to replace white people in the first place?

    The Jews claim to have the moral high ground and are very fussy about how much non-whites are entitled to. But what they really do is deny us our right to exist. They know that the places reserved for non-whites are becoming available thanks to the criminal policy of race-replacement. That policy is a million times more immoral than the under-representation of non-whites in top positions.

  28. “Biologically, religiously and psychologically he [Salzburger – the alleged quarter-kike] is not the same as the entirely Jewish in body-and-mind Bloom. Salzburger is more a Judaised urban yuppie fool than a roaring Jew.”

    That’s the great thing about being a Nordicist, Anon, we are duty bound never to compromise on racial purity one iota.

    “Mrs. Alan Greenspan’s resemblence to a stone faced gargoyle.”


  29. That’s the great thing about being a Nordicist, Anon, we are duty bound never to compromise on racial purity one iota.

    No compromise captain and, who knows, once you’ve thrown the rest of the European people over the side you might find that you are the only one true Nordic left.

  30. I do not have the patience to unpack and eviscerate the absurdities you imply, Anon. You are either exceptionally dense or only mildly adept at cunning.

    It is clear to me that you regard the continued existence of unalloyed Northern Europeans as a threat to your own existence. Why so?

  31. “*Note Bloom’s resemblence to Abie Hoffman (cousins maybe?) and Mrs. Alan Greenspan’s resemblence to a stone faced gargoyle.”

    3000 years of inbreeding, they’re all cousins in a dozen different directions – hence their extreme ethnic nepotism and hostility to non-Jews.

  32. Tracing the Roots of Jewishness – ScienceNOW, emphasis added:

    Ostrer and his colleagues analyzed nuclear DNA from blood samples taken from a total of 237 Ashkenazi and Middle Eastern Jews in New York City and Sephardic Jews in Seattle, Washington; Greece; Italy; and Israel. They compared these with DNA from about 2800 presumably non-Jewish individuals from around the world. The team used several analytical approaches to calculate how genetically similar the Jewish groups were to each other and to the non-Jewish groups, including a method called identity by descent (IBD), which is often used to determine how closely two individuals are related.

    Individuals within each Jewish group had high levels of IBD, roughly equivalent to that of fourth or fifth cousins. Although each of the three Jewish groups showed genetic admixture (interbreeding) with nearby non-Jews, they shared many genetic features, suggesting common roots that the team estimated went back more than 2000 years. Ashkenazi Jews, whose genetic profiles indicated between 30% to 60% admixture with Europeans, nevertheless clustered more closely with Middle Eastern and Sephardic Jews, a finding the researchers say is inconsistent with the Khazar hypothesis. “I would hope that these observations would put the idea that Jewishness is just a cultural construct to rest,” Ostrer says.

    That old semitic proverb comes to mind: “My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger.”

  33. A rabbi of Czernovitz, Dr. Manfred Reifer, summed up the situation of his race with great insight in 1933.
    “…The German Jews fed themselves on false hope, overlooked reality, dreamed of cosmopolitanism, of the time of Lessing and Mendelssohn. And this expressed itself in two ways; either they became Liberals, or they became the standard-bearers of Socialism. Both fields of activity furnished new food to anti-Semitism.
    “In all good faith, to serve themselves and humanity, the Jews began to reach actively into the life of the German people. We trusted to the rights of democracy, and felt ouselves as equal citizens of the State, posed as censors, poured satire upon the Germans, considered ourselves as prophets, made revolutions, gave to the international proletariat a second Bible…The Jew Lasalle organized the masses. The Jew Edward Bernstein popularized the Marxian ideology; and the Jews Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg brought the Spartacist movement to life. In Bavaria the Jew Kurt Eisner seized power. Against all this the German nation rebelled. She wanted to forge her own destiny and determine the future of her own children. Can we blame her?…” pg.189-190 EUROPEAN JUNGLE by Yeats-Brown.

    Nothing is new here, the script was written long ago and has been played out many times. It isn’t the Blacks, Hispanics or Asians that are our enemy and we are not theirs. The enemy is the Jew.

  34. My comments today did not show up in that thread at Mangan’s. I seem to recall that the software might impose a limit of 200 visible comments.

    So, you might want to share your more recent thoughts here. I have a couple things I’d like to say.

  35. “My comments today did not show up in that thread at Mangan’s.”

    I am having the same problem. There is a ‘Load more’ option. I assumed it was to see additional comments but clicking on it led to nothing for me. I waited several minutes.

Comments are closed.