Book Reviews

America's Cross-Partisan Dalliance With Eugenics

A new book pulls the curtain back—but only partway.

|

In November 1900, Jane Stanford forced the resignation of the noted progressive economist Edward A. Ross from the faculty of the university that bears her surname. The Ross incident has since become a cause célèbre in the history of academic freedom, setting into motion the events that led to the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as a safeguard for faculty rights and freedom of scientific inquiry.

Far less known is the occasion for Ross' dismissal. Mrs. Stanford objected to a speech in which Ross appealed to the racial pseudoscience of eugenics to preserve California, which he deemed the "latest and loveliest seat of the Aryan race," from the "stern wolfish struggle for existence as prevails throughout the Orient."

Ross makes a brief appearance in historian Elizabeth Catte's Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia for his association with another eugenic concept: the theory of "race suicide," wherein persons of "undesirable" hereditary stock are said to outbreed and out-populate the "productive" elite—a code for the white upper class. A century later, it is still difficult to fathom the extent that eugenic theory penetrated the ranks of the intellectual classes, in part because many people treat the tale as taboo.

Catte's book investigates Virginia's state-run foray into hereditary central planning, which was primarily administered between the adoption of the state's Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924 and the program's termination in 1979. Virginia is distinctive for performing some 8,000 sterilizations without the patient's consent—and in some cases without even the patient's knowledge. It also produced the notorious 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. sanctioned the state's eugenic policies with the comment "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

The story of Carrie Buck's abuse by the state medical and legal systems has undergone a recent revival of scholarly interest, thanks to book-length treatments by Paul A. Lombardo, Gregory Michael Dorr, and others. Catte nonetheless gives it a missing local context by digging into the political climate of 1920s Charlottesville and the sordid eugenic history of Western State Hospital in the nearby town of Staunton. This institution employed Joseph DeJarnette, a physician who was a primary witness for the government in Buck's case, a leading proponent of compulsory sterilization of those he deemed "feebleminded" and, later, an enthusiast for Nazi Germany's race-based heredity laws. The hospital also provides the physical location for Catte's concluding chapter, which probes the modern complexities of redeveloping a historically and architecturally significant site amid a climate that deems its eugenic history an impolite topic of conversation.

Catte's strongest insight comes from juxtaposition. Virginia's eugenic program aimed to entrench the rigid social hierarchies of the past against the democratizing pressures of a rapidly modernizing society. Although the eugenic era certainly aligned with racial segregation, Virginia's sterilization policies primarily targeted poor white women on the margins of economic life—families deemed unwanted by the political powers of their communities, persons employed in menial housekeeping jobs by the wealthy, and even victims of sexual assault, such as Buck. The curious political "asset" of eugenics, then, was how it "would allow [Virginia's] efforts to be viewed as modern and scientific, in line with the march of time and progress."

Catte's thesis nonetheless remains underdeveloped, particularly as it concerns the extent of symbiosis between the Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia and the modern, forward-looking, and often explicitly progressive thrust of eugenic "science" in its day. An illustrative case may be seen in Earnest Sevier Cox, the Richmond-based eugenics campaigner and vehement white supremacist who led a campaign to ban interracial marriage in conjunction with the 1924 sterilization law. Cox makes a brief appearance in Catte's study, which connects him to the Charlottesville-based concert pianist and eugenics activist John Powell. Undiscussed is how Cox first wet his own feet in eugenic theory during three years of study under progressive sociologists at the University of Chicago, or how Cox's 1923 segregationist tract White America received glowing reviews from a litany of the eugenics movement's predominantly Northern and politically progressive intellectual elites, such as Ross, Madison Grant, and Lothrop Stoddard.

The transmission of eugenic ideas from progressive thinkers to the reactionary political elements of the American South remains a historical enigma, due in part to scholars' reluctance to grapple with its implications. The evidence of parallel dalliances in hereditary planning is unmistakable. "Man has won the right to use the powerful weapon of the preventive check," remarked John Maynard Keynes in a 1927 speech on the subject. Keynes spoke in London, but he would have found a welcoming audience in Richmond. A stricken passage in his notes revealed the progressive and reactionary alignment on this count: Hereditary "quality must become the preoccupation" of science. Yet most works on the subject, Catte's included, tread lightly around its progressive dimensions save to depict them as a borrowed intellectual veneer for far-right atrocities.

The author's own progressive sympathies unfortunately distort her interpretations of the valuable materials she unearths. "Because the philosophies of eugenics prioritized state control at the expense of personal choice," Catte asserts at one point, "its most common strategies did not include contraception or abortion." To liken the two, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has done, "is wrong."

While a conscientious scholar should avoid interpreting modern abortion politics through the genetic fallacy, Catte is wrong to discount the intertwined complexities of their history. To use a prominent example, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger maintained longstanding interests in eugenics, often pairing sterilization with abortion and birth control as a "solution" to poverty in the American South. Planned Parenthood recently took steps to distance itself from these dimensions of Sanger's legacy, rendering Catte's attempt to historically dissociate the two all the more strained, irrespective of where one falls on the abortion debate.

To her credit, Catte rejects the historicization of early 20th century eugenics as a mere product of its time. DeJarnette and his associates inflicted tangible evils on other human beings without their consent, and this warrants disapprobation. At the same time, however, Pure America is unmistakably historicized to the progressive politics of the early 2020s. Catte bombards her reader with snarky digs at Trump-era politicians, with stray editorializing in support of The New York Times' 1619 Project, with tangential forays into the heated debates over Charlottesville's Confederate statuary, and with stretched analogies between her historical subject and Republican COVID-19 policy.

The concluding chapter intensifies this blurring of the lines between historical scholarship and political advocacy, taking aim at the ongoing redevelopment of Staunton's former Western State Hospital property as a luxury hotel and retirement community. A nuanced approach might attempt to explore the complexities of balancing use and preservation at a site with fraught historical legacies. Instead, Catte delivers a philippic against the "disaster capitalism" of its current development, all shaped by her own vantage point as a neighbor to the property.

She makes some valid points about the omission of Western State's eugenic history from the current development's marketing materials and the neglect of the on-site cemetery that serves as the final resting place for many of the former hospital's long-term residents. Yet Catte's ideas for what to do with the site veer into a heterodox accounting exercise that seems to place its modern owners on the hook for some sort of reparations payment to the victims of DeJarnette's eugenic programs, all calculated by combining the developer's budgeted construction improvements and preferential tax credits from the town of Staunton. This makes for an odd conclusion to the book.

Historians will find much in Catte's text that reveals the rampant abuse and sheer depravity of this reactionary turn in progressively guided 20th century medical science. But they will have to sort that from the dated political appeals of its author's own early 21st century progressive milieu.

Pure America: Eugenics and the Making of Modern Virginia, by Elizabeth Catte, Belt Publishing, 176 pages, $26

NEXT: The Provincetown Outbreak Shows Vaccinated People Can Be Infected by the Coronavirus, but the CDC's Director Grossly Exaggerates That Risk

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65000 to $70000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.
    You can check it out here…—–> READ MORE

    1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the Hab range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a m0nth… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

      See…………Visit Here

      1. So in about 30 months I can afford a Hunter Biden painting! Woo hoo!

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

  2. In older days, SOME elements in the USA wanted to prevent the “unclean” from reproducing. Today, we “merely” try to prevent the “unclean” from voting (“R” party far more guilty than “D” party, of that), or even, earning an honest living (via licensing; BOTH parties guilty of STILL not fixing it)!

    The worst of it all, though, is that more and more “R” party members, despite ALL the HORRIBLE track records of 1-party states, want to effectively outlaw “unclean” political parties!

    Jesus Christ blew booger beams all over the entire idea of “unclean” people (other than those who have clearly chosen evil, which he called “broods of vipers”, etc.). Self-promoting oneself over the scapegoated “unclean” ones never works well in the longer run. Whatever happened to Christianity, or the generic “loving one’s neighbor”, anyway?

    http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/

    1. Still a completely moronic take, no matter how many times you post it.

      It really does take some effort to be wrong about everything, so kudos for that, I guess.

      1. “It really does take some effort to be wrong about everything…”

        I noticed that you didn’t pick ONE LOUSY thing that I am wrong about, and say WHY I am wrong!

        YOU are wrong, and you resent those who are more benevolent and wise than you are!

        You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
        From the conclusion to the above…
        These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

        SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an authoritarian asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that authoritarian asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

        1. Narcissistic asshole gets two flags!

        2. You post mostly clang association copy and paste bullshit. Why would anyone want to waste their time wading through that manure attempting to find something cogent and logical?

          1. Those less wise, well-informed, and benevolent, are INSTINCTUALLY (emotionally) programmed to resist and put down ones who have gained more wisdom than they have. I make you look bad, right, Chumpy Chump? And you can’t STAND it!

            This isn’t made-up bullshit at ALL! The modern sciences of anthropology and sociobiology say as much! If your overweening ego can ever stand it, read http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ !

            1. Your posts make you look like an idiot.

              1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

                Fuck off, spaz!
                You eat shit, you said so yourself!
                You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
                Take your meds!
                That’s so retarded!
                You’re a Marxist!
                Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
                Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
                Trump rules and leftists drool!
                You are SOOO icky-poo!
                But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

                Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

                1. Confirmation.

                2. asshole spaz gets two more!

                3. A complete idiot. But that’s probably the point.

                  Sqrlsy’s here to ruin conversations that don’t mesh with the narrative. Not to win hearts and minds.
                  Even an insane retard like his sockpuppet persona wouldn’t actually keep spamming the same retarded screeds over and over if he was real. They bring out Sqrlsy when they’re losing the argument and it’s time to wreck the thread.

                  1. Ass ass usual, MammaryBahnFuhrer has not disputed (with facts, links, or logic) ANYTHING that I have written! Wow! I wonder how she keeps ambient air pressure from collapsing the void between her ears!

                    1. You post gibberish. It doesn’t elicit a response bypne calling it and you out. Very sarcasmic of you to play the victim card.

                    2. “…elicit a response bypne…”

                      Is bypne what comes out of untreated acne? Maybe for you at least, in your imaginary-fears-filled mind? I (unlike the arrogant assholes around here) am benevolent! If you are afraid that “B” follows “A”… And I can see that… And that your acne will progress to bypne… Then try THIS! https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/acne/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20368048

                    3. “beyond”
                      At least an average person could figure it out. Was driving. You don’t warrant my time when I’m at point A or point B.

                  2. More flags for the spastic

              2. “Your posts make you look like an idiot.”
                That’s not appearances…

                1. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know him personally.

                  1. It’s sarc. He’s an asshole.

                    1. He’s mediocre. Maybe a little less. And I’m allergic to that.

        3. I noticed that you didn’t pick ONE LOUSY thing that I am wrong about, and say WHY I am wrong!

          There is zero evidence that Republicans are trying to keep specific groups of legitimate voters from voting. None. You’re lying.

          1. Noy-Boy the Boy Toy is the liar!

            https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/26/democrats-gop-voting-laws-crisis-500726

            ‘We’re f—ed’: Dems fear turnout catastrophe from GOP voting laws
            There’s growing concern — bordering on alarm — about the potential impact in 2022 of the raft of new voting restrictions.

            “R” Party has ZERO genuine democratic principles any more! It is ***ALL*** about POWER, at ANY cost!

            1. assholic spaz flag

            2. ‘We’re f—ed’: Dems fear turnout catastrophe from GOP voting laws

              Transparent, manipulative mongering by democrats isn’t the same as facts and evidence. There is zero evidence that Republican reforms hurt minority voters.

              You’re a liar, SQRLSY.

              1. A racist liar at that

    2. Today, we “merely” try to prevent the “unclean” from voting (“R” party far more guilty than “D” party, of that)

      The US was founded on the idea that only stakeholders in the nation should be able to vote, i.e., people who own property. Race, identity, etc. didn’t matter. That’s a good, libertarian system.

      It’s fascists like you SQRLSY who divide people based on race, identity, and “cleanliness”.

    3. ALL the HORRIBLE track records of 1-party states

      Such as Massachusetts and the District of Columbia?

      1. Massachusetts and the District of Columbia outlaw all the “wrong” parties? Citation please!

        1. asshole spaz flag

        2. The discussion was one party states. Go look up the legislature makeups of each.

          1. A one-party state, single-party state, one-party system, or single-party system is a type of unitary state in which only one political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state#:~:text=A%20one%2Dparty%20state%2C%20single,based%20on%20the%20existing%20constitution.

            What lies-language do YOU speak, Chumpy Chump? And WHY? Greasing the skids for the permanent Trumptatorshit, are we?

            1. spastic gets a flag

            2. Josef Squirroebbels missed the plot. Again.

      2. Baltimore is a city and not a state but fits into that too. Freddie Gray was murdered.

    4. Purely scientific curiosity with no malice intended here, but may I ask what medications and/or illegal drugs you take?

      1. My so-called “drugs” are called “living in humility and reality”.

        You might try them some time!

        Humility is a MUCH underappreciated virtue! See this: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/27/army-has-introduced-new-leadership-value-heres-why-it-matters.html Even in a supposedly “proud” profession, wise leaders treasure humility!

        Really now! Instead of arrogantly calling people (who you know NOTHING about, other than that they have written FACTS that disturb your already-disturbed mind) names with unfounded insults, maybe you could THINK a few HUMBLE thoughts, first! Better to remain silent, and be suspected of being a fool, than to open your deluded yap, and remove all doubt!

        1. asshole spaz!

        2. Humility? You fucking cite your own website as support for your gibberish. Squirroebbels at it again.

        3. To be fair, I’m kind of a fan of your writing, but I also wonder what you might be consuming. 🙂

          1. White Mike is also a fan of his postings.

          2. Thanks Mike! Just booze these days, and moderately at that! Wild and crazy younger days are too-far gone!

          3. “I’m kind of a fan of your writing”

            No you’re not. Nobody on earth is a fan of puerile ranting. You’re just happy he’s helping you in your Devil’s work of shitposting “the wrong sorts of conversations” into oblivion.

    5. The progressives/Democrats were born in racism (starting with Andrew Jackson), and helped usher in many of the most horrifying acts in US history (including the aforementioned eugenics movement). We had a president who put people in concentration camps purely because of their race. We *still have* a progressive newspaper that buried the story of the holocaust. And progressives shed tears when it was revealed that Stalin was responsible for deaths of TENS of MILLIONS.

      Unbelievably, some really stupid people seem to want to equate “requiring identification to vote” with these horrors. There is zero moral equivalence here. (It doesn’t mean that the Republicans aren’t necessarily being crappy people–they’re just jealous of the progressive suckering of the “unclean” people by giving away stuff. But who f*king cares about Republicans anyway?)

      Ultimately, people like Catte are desperate to “whitewash” the sad, sordid story of perhaps the most racist political group in history–the Democratic party. And they will do so however it takes, using Alinsky and Marxist tactics, and gaslighting the entire of a few generations through statist school-based brainwashing.

      Everyone is, meanwhile, is forced to kneel and atone for sins from a past where such sins were commonly accepted. But not a-holes like Catte; they are above you all and their past is nothing for you to see.

      1. ah crap. Progressives shed tears for the death of Stalin, and didn’t want to believe he was one of the worst people in human history. They still bristle at the subject.

  3. “Planned Parenthood recently took steps to distance itself from these dimensions of Sanger’s legacy”

    And that was literally the first time in my life I’ve been disappointed in PP.

    In college I learned that virtually everything about the US — every major institution, every prominent white historical figure — is racist to the core. However my professors consistently pointed out one exception to this rule: Margaret Sanger. They explained that “Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist” is a lie made up by people who literally want to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale.

    #StandWithPP
    #(ExceptWhenPPFailsToStandWithSanger)

    1. How come statues of abolitionists and black war regiments get torn down, because racism; but Planned Parenthood, whose mission was anti-black eugenics, and the Democratic party, who own slavery, the Klan, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, Jim Crow, etc. are both still standing?

    2. Read her own words, oh brilliant moron.

      “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives… If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman.” — “Woman and the New Race,” 1920

    3. “Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”- from “My Way to Peace,” Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198.

      1. “Our immigration laws forbid the entrance into this country of paupers, insane, feeble-minded and diseased people from other lands. Why not extend the idea and discourage the bringing to birth these same types within our borders. Let us stop reproducing and perpetuation disease, insanity and ignorance. Stop these and other evils at their source by a national policy and education of birth control.”-from “Stop Perpetuating the Unfit by a National Policy of Limitations of Families.” Published in “The New York American” December 28, 1921.

        1. It’s amazing how desperate people are to make themselves feel better about promoting something born in true horror.

    4. Oh and… racist comment yourself, you anti-white dick. “Every prominent white historical figure is racist to the core?”

      You have brainwashed yourself beyond belief to think you are better than everyone else.

      1. I guess I’ll say it this time. OBL is a parody account. And I must say, she/he’s been in rare form today on several articles. Kudos to you, OBL!

  4. “Although the eugenic era certainly aligned with racial segregation, Virginia’s sterilization policies primarily targeted poor white women on the margins of economic life—families deemed unwanted by the political powers of their communities, persons employed in menial housekeeping jobs by the wealthy, and even victims of sexual assault, such as Buck. The curious political “asset” of eugenics, then, was how it “would allow [Virginia’s] efforts to be viewed as modern and scientific, in line with the march of time and progress.”

    —-Phillip W. Magness

    The way progressives view poor whites in the South and Appalachia hasn’t changed much–although the rationalizations have become more absurd. Nowadays, when progressives target poor whites in the same areas, they do so with the same contempt, but they also imagine they’re fighting against poor whites because of their white privilege.

    Yes, I suspect the term white privilege is especially absurd to poor whites in the South and Appalachia. Most progressives in suburban California or in the northeast have little or no conception of what it means to be poor and white in these areas or the way it’s always been. They just imagine them all as the enemy of everything that’s good and holy.

    Progressives today may not forcibly sterilize white people in the South and Appalachia, but they’d teach their children in public schools to hate themselves for being white and privileged. They’d deny their children employment opportunities because of their accents and discriminate against them in other ways, too.

    Elitist contempt for your fellow man appears to be a defining characteristic of progressive thought–then and now. It’s how they justify using the coercive power of government to force people to do things against their will, and isn’t that what being progressive is all about? Then and now–it’s hard to justify doing that when you believe everyone deserves the right to make choices for themselves.

    1. Agreed with what you wrote, Ken! Sad to say, it is NOT just liberals today who are guilty of wanting to take choices away from the “unclean”!

      “Then and now–it’s hard to justify doing that when you believe everyone deserves the right to make choices for themselves.”

      Today, MANY conservatives want to (via roadblocks to voting, and gerrymandering, among other things) take AWAY the choice to vote for anyone except conservatives! If Trump and Trumpistas get their way, “he who gets more votes, wins” will be replaced by “he who whines and cries, and makes up lies, the best, wins”!

      1. What a stupid take.

        1. What an in-depth, thoughtful, and fact-filled analysis! (For a Trumptard, at least).

          1. “Uh, I’ll just copy your post Ken but apply it to the right. Derp derp.”

            1. “My tribe GOOD! Your tribe BAD! My tribe’s violence GOOD! Your tribe’s violence BAD! ‘Cause reasons! Derp-Derp-Uber-Derp!”

              1. 3 more flags for assholish piece of shit!

              2. Trump’s your daddy.

              3. This is how a shitposting operation is done:

                1. Ken made a post, complete with quotes, an interpretation and a rationale.

                2. It’s effort to rebut Ken’s argument, so enter the shitpost sockpuppet, Sqrlsy. Rather than offer a comprehensive counter argument, he babbles about “conservatives” instead.

                3. Cyto expresses his amazement at the garbage Sqrlsy posted.

                4. Again failing to properly rebut, Sqrlsy unintentionally agrees he posted garbage.

                5. Chumby remarks on the laziness of Sqrlsy’s.

                6. Again failing to properly rebut, Sqrlsy babbles a nonsense irrelevant to Chumby’s point.

                7. I make this post about what the Sqrlsy sock is doing. There are now six posts (including this one) immediately below Ken’s, all failing to debate his argument. This was on purpose.

                And that’s how Sqrlsy’s shitposting ruins threads and conversation. Sure they’re idiotic, off-topic and inflammatory. They’re meant to be.

                1. MammaBahnFuhrer, you really should study up on WHY it is that you and your ilk resent the HELL out of people who are smarter, more honest, less authoritarian, and more benevolent than you are! Here, let me get you started!

                  http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

                  1. ReichSquirrelerOne again with nothing.

                    1. ReichSquirrelerOne

                      I’m stealing this.

                    2. Josef Squirroebbels works too.

                  2. spaz asshole flag

                  3. See. Nothing but monkey screech’s.
                    No rebuttal, no coherent argument. Just some name calling.

                    Of course he’s a troll and a shitposter, so we can’t expect more.

      2. Both sides!

        1. I blocked sqrl a while back so I have no idea what bullshit hides behind the blocked window Reason provides. I suggest everyone else do the same. When I see six vertical lines I figure it’s him or WK and just scroll. Saves a lot of time.

          1. I muted his main account. But the pathology of this one is mildly fascinating.

          2. I muted him too, but here’s an unfortunately educated guess:
            – Trump supporters are nazis
            – conservatives are racist
            – something about Tim the Enchanter from Monty Python

            And white knight has switched back to going by Mike laursen

            1. More or less. He has cut down on the ALL CAPS spasms.
              He mostly just attacks Ken with text wall rhymes now. And occasionally links to his own website as a citation.

      3. Here’s SQRLSY to white knight for the left again.

      4. Today, MANY conservatives want to (via roadblocks to voting, and gerrymandering, among other things) take AWAY the choice to vote for anyone except conservatives!

        There is zero evidence for that. None. You are fabricating this.

        There is, however, plenty of evidence that Democrats have used gerrymandering to keep black and Hispanic candidates from getting elected.

        1. Available in seconds via a Google search… Liar!

          http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2021/05/05/inside-the-gop-gerrymander-for-2022/

          Inside the GOP gerrymander for 2022
          By Hedrick Smith – 5/5/2021

          MUCH more out there!

          1. You’re posting your lies directly from Democratic Party Super-PAC’s now, I see.

            What, Tom Perez’s Twitter feed was down?

          2. flag for the spaz

          3. Today, MANY conservatives want to (via roadblocks to voting, and gerrymandering, among other things) take AWAY the choice to vote for anyone except conservatives!

            Partisan gerrymandering is and has been a part of the US political system for two centuries. Both parties do it. To claim that this is something new and something only one party does is a lie.

            However, something only one party has done is to use gerrymandering to deny blacks and Hispanics political office, and the racist party that has done this again and again is the Democrats, well into the 21st century. You are defending a racist party that oppresses minorities, SQRLSY.

    2. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/565610-47-percent-of-republicans-say-time-will-come-to-take-the-law

      47 percent of Republicans say time will come ‘to take the law into their own hands’: poll

      First, they will outlaw all but republicans!

      1. This is how you spot the paid accounts.

        1. The purse string holders have been putting a full court press on Ken ever since he’s been explaining why joining team R makes sense for libertarians.

          1. I’ve never seen such a concerted effort by the bots before to attack an individual poster. Ken must’ve made their paymaster really mad.

            1. Right-wing wrong-nuts, please listen,
              You don’t know, what you’re missin’!
              Soaking in your Trump-delusions land,
              Playing with your Trump-delusions gland,
              Did yer Mamma ever tell you,
              Smarter people can smell you,
              And your lies, which betray you,
              You reveal all to those who know,
              Self-deluded ones, themselves, they blow!

              1. See…

              2. Trump fast tracked the COVID vaccine that the progressives are now worshipping. He’s your daddy.

                1. Does that qualify Der TrumpfenFuhrer to head up the approaching Trumptatorshit, then?

                  This (below) poetry inspired by the REAL facts of a REAL nightmare!
                  https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
                  Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

                  “The Sound Of Despots”

                  Hello darkness, my old friend, I’ve come to talk with you again
                  Because a nightmare in jackboots, left its seeds while I was sleeping
                  And the nightmare that was planted in my brain, still remains
                  Within the sound of despots

                  In nightmares I ran alone, narrow streets of cobblestone
                  Neath the halo of a streetlamp, I turned my collar to the cold and damp
                  When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of an orange blight, split the night
                  And touched the sound of despots

                  And in their naked greed I saw, millions of sheeple, maybe more
                  Sheeple talking without speaking, sheeple hearing without listening
                  Sheeple’s thoughts, sanity never shared, and no one dared
                  To question the despots!

                  Fool, said I, you do not know, despots, like a cancer, grows
                  Hear my words and I might teach you, take my arms then I might reach you
                  But my words, like silent raindrops fell, and echoed in the wells of despots

                  And the morons bowed and prayed to the orange god they’d made
                  And the sign flashed its warning in the words that it was forming
                  And the sign said the words of the despots are written in the Biggest Lies
                  And tenement halls, and shouted, in the sounds of despots

                  1. Sqrls stopped replying and is now just pasting spam.

                    I guess he figured this thread was a loss, so it’s time to wreck it with shitposts.

                    1. Not getting their money’s worth with that sock

                    2. Squirrel is the reciprocal of Ken.

                    3. “Cyto
                      July.31.2021 at 10:49 am
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      Not getting their money’s worth with that sock”

                      The left has never really been about it, but at this point they’ve completely given up on quality.
                      Quantity and repetition is their focus.
                      They basically attempt to brainwash via emotional spamming.

                  2. Gee, the scumbag bullshitter is covering the page with blank spaces!

                    1. Some fierce and brave Truth-Speakers-Wannabes are actually whining little crybabies who want to run to Big Mommy Government Almighty’s courts of law, every time that someone hurts their little baby FEELINGS, right, Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo?

                      https://reason.com/2021/07/18/meet-the-new-york-times-libertarian-podcaster/#comment-9001051

                    2. He’s trying to keep the focus away from folks destroying his beloved eugenics and other race-based “science.”

                    3. Asshole’s getting plenty of flags!

                    4. Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, did you notice that Reason.com took DOWN your whiny-ass, cry-baby, lawsuit-threatening post? I hope that they ban you some more! You, of ALL the Tulpa-replacement-wannabes, deserve it the most!

                      WAAAAAAAA!!!!! Call a wahhhhmbulance, crybaby!

                    5. Assholish piece of shit keeps ’em coming!

                    6. Squirrel, another commenter posted child pornography links and you ignore this then place that monicker on Sevo. Outstanding.

                    7. Super-Perv-Predator-Sevo-the-Pedo, Hippo wearing a Speedo, is the replacement Tulpa… Biggest empty-headed troll around! And runner-up troll Chumpy Chump defends the Hippo! What a surprise!

                    8. The actual kiddie porn poster thanks you for your support.

                    9. Asshole spaz once more!

            2. His posts are better researched, more informative, well thought out, and actually libertarian.

              Stark contrast to the writers here.

        2. “This is how you spot the paid accounts.”

          If someone is paying these trolls to make progressives look ignorant and stupid, the trolls are definitely giving their bosses more than their money’s worth.

          I don’t think the point of shitposting is supposed to be to make progressives look ignorant and stupid. At some point, subconsciously or otherwise, these trolls apparently started thinking about how indefensible the shit is they’ve believed their whole lives, and they’re lashing out like a cult victim at a deprogrammer as they start to snap out of it. Remember in The Matrix when Cypher wants to go back into the matrix and forget that he ever knew it wasn’t the real world? That’s what some of these people are like.

          With White Knight, something seems to have broken insider her when she started realizing that facts and logic really do matter–yes really–and nothing she believes seemed to have been able to stand against either facts or logic. At that point, we can choose to change the way we look at the world and subject our thinking to factual and rational scrutiny. Instead, she seems to have decided to lash out at the people who destroyed her world of make-believe.

          Regardless of motivation, there’s definitely something wrong with people who feel compelled to obsessively hump the leg of someone who has them on mute. Regardless of whether they’re doing it because of Media Matters or for some other reason, how could that be the behavior of a psychologically healthy person? How could, ‘Ken’s ignoring me, so I’m going to hump his leg until he pays attention’ be a reasonable response?

          If muting these strange people drives them to the breaking point, I suggest more of us mute them.

          They don’t care about facts or logic. They don’t care whether they’re wrong or right. They aren’t here to learn anything. They aren’t here to teach us anything. God knows, you’re all free to do as you please, but I don’t think you’ll be missing out on anything because you muted shitposters. And if they’re only here to shitpost, then the way to defeat them is to mute the shit they post.

          1. Ken, Ken, Ken, people like Mother’s Lament, R Mac, and JesseAz will never mute us supposed “progressives” (we are actually libertarians, but right-wing Trump fans are so far gone, they cannot recognize non-partisanship) because they live to fling insults and avoid posting any conversation of substance.

            1. And yet we only insult a very small group of commentators. Maybe you should wonder why you’re in the exclusive company of a copy-pasta posting squirrel, a socialist, and a pedophile?

              1. And some of the most pro-Republican commenters on this board know that I disagree with them about trade with China and open borders.

                We argue. We disagree. It’s pretty much always civil.

                Remember that time all those more pro-Republican commenters jumped on my case and got all personal because I criticized Trump and supported open borders, Section 230, and trade with China?

                I don’t either because it never happened.

                I remember that time a whole bunch of people, not so Republicans among them, persuaded me that common carrier obligations arise from monopolies and monopolistic behavior–even within the realm of libertarian capitalism. I came to be persuaded that while property rights are still as important as ever, they aren’t the issue when the coercive power of government is being brought to bear on private parties with the express intent of violating our First Amendment right to free speech.

                That’s the problem with facts and logic and thinking they’re important. It means we sometimes need to change our opinions to reflect them. It means we can be persuaded. I’ve seen White Knight argue against the validity of logical fallacies that have survived 2,400 years of intense scrutiny. Why throw pearls before people like that?

                1. “We argue. We disagree. It’s pretty much always civil.”

                  Bullshit. I rejoined the commentariat about 2018, after a couple years absence, and the comments board had been taken over by a bunch of Trump worshipers who did nothing but act like assholes 24/7. The assholes are still here being assholes: R Mac, JesseAz, Nardz, Sevo, etc.

                  1. You look especially stupid here.

                    1. That’s no ‘looks’…

                  2. Ken and I disagree on the US Civil War, the military and other topics. He provides supported logical arguments. The debates have always been civil. We just happen to disagree. He doesn’t resort to “both sides,” chaff and redirect topic changing, projection or any pf the other fallacies that progressives here use when defending their progressive agenda.

                  3. I disagree often with Ken on open borders and every one of our exchanges has been polite and respectful.

                    The reason I treat you like a piece-of-shit, is because you’re a bad-faith liar and a paid troll, who makes a deliberate effort to cause descension.

                  4. You’re projecting: you’re the asshole, Mike.

                2. White Knight pointed out, correctly, that you are very logical, but quite unaware that you often engage in not seeking out information that goes against your narratives, garbage-in/garbage-out logic, and not checking your conclusions for basic sanity. You should have listened to White Knight.

                  1. Praising your sock is embarrassing.

                    1. Embarrassment requires a certain level of intellect; Mikes many bricks shy of a load in that department.
                      And I note he blames those of us who accept that we got the best POTUS in the last hundred for being assholes and excludes the the TDS-addled assholes such as himself and the rest of the lefty shits.

                  2. “White Knight pointed out, correctly”

                    SERIOUSLY?!!

                    Even little kids in the barren wastelands of arctic Siberia, know that White Knight was your sockpuppet.

                    You basically said as much when you resurrected your Mike Laursen sock in January.

                    Who the hell do you think you’re kidding?

                    1. Although, maybe like what happened with Tony a few years ago, a new poster has been assigned to the White Mike sockpuppet.
                      It could account for the callow tone lately.

                  3. That’s another White Mike post I’m keeping for posterity.

                  4. Chumby pointed out that you are a mendacious rube.

                  5. what the actual fuck, Dee? did you just say Ken should have listened to your other sock?

            2. This is what you do to Ken and his posts. No arguments. Just attacks on Ken. And you wonder why folks respond to you the way you do? Keep yelling yourself because you are a “libertarian.”

      2. Well, at least in the Trump-tator-ship out-of-control Federal spending will be less out of control. And people will damn well salute the flag during sporting events! All elections will be considered advisory only, but hey, small price to pay, right?

        1. Math is hard, isn’t it.

        2. Your stupidity has gotten tiresome.

      3. “ The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
        —Thomas Jefferson

        1. “Quoting Jefferson makes you a traitor, and I’m going to tell Daddy Gov on you!”
          -white Mike

        2. Probability that a bunch of MAGA rebels are going to instate a libertarian government after a successful revolution: 14.7%. Odds they will instate a weird mixture of Trump personality cult/theocracy: 85.3%.

          My estimates are scientific, by the way. You can tell because of the decimal points.

          1. Looks like the sockmaster who usually uses the SPB2 sockpuppet, is doing weekend duty as the Mike Laursen sock.

          2. Science =/ feelingz or wishful thinking. Try again.

    3. Ken sits down at a computer keyboard and tells himself a tale in which his favorite boogeyman, progressives, are the enemy of everything that’s good and holy.

      References no actual facts of incidents. Just paints a picture with a broad brush of some vaguely defined group he considers evil. Let’s see. Who did that kind of thing in the past.

      1. When your boss told you to harrass and attack Ken unreasonably, did you wag your tail?

      2. Dee sits down at a computer, sees H + H + O and deduces this forms HO2.

      3. You’re disgusting, White Mike. How can you not be embarrassed?

      4. Uh… Progressives are indeed the enemy of everything good and decent.

        You do know this is a libertarian site, right? There is little in the political spectrum more in opposition to the ideals of liberty than the authoritarian left. We used to have the religious right… But that hasn’t been a major power for a generation.

        1. Progressives are also the only ones in power in the federal government. They control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

          It’s a one party government.

          So, which party should libertarians criticize at the moment?

          1. The self-proclaimed progressive libertarians are currently criticizing the commenter that is promoting transforming team R into a more libertarian entity because that path can be successful.

          2. But but but…TRUMP!!!!

          3. “So, which party should libertarians criticize at the moment?”

            Easy. Both major parties. Also, the Libertarian Party could stand some criticism.

            Yes, the Democrats have the White House and both houses of Congress, but the Republicans will be challenging them soon, as you yourself point out. Also, Republicans are in charge of many state governments.

            The worst blow to the Republican Party hasn’t come from the Democrats. It came from Donald Trump, who has split the national party, possibly rendering it unable to win a presidential election ever again.

            1. The “both sides” whataboutism one trick pony has been ridden to death. Come on man.

            2. If it weren’t for the German Nazi’s, the Democratic Party would be the evilest political party the West has ever seen.
              Not even Mussolini fought for literal enslavement of a race, Ceausescu didn’t enact the equivalent of the Indian Removal Act, Franco didn’t do the equivalent of the Japanese internment.

              To compare the Republicans and Libertarians to the Democrats, is like comparing John Belushi to Jeffery Dahmer.

          4. “It’s a one party government.”

            Jesus Christ, Ken, HOW often are you going to repeat this Big Lie?

            Have Republican Senators, Congress-slimes, Governors, or County Dog-catchers been outlawed, or gone extinct?

            Are you foisting your Big Lie on us, to grease the skids for outlawing all of your non-favored parties? Since we’re already a 1-party state, outlawing the wrong parties is OK by Ken, and should be OK to the rest of us? What punishments do you want, for wrong-party-belongers, to satisfy your punishment boner?

            1. ‘Nother spaz flag

            2. Big Lie

              Ken gave us examples, links and testimony. You’ve given no counter argument except to squeal “Big Lie”. Which is weird because you know that the real liar here is you.

              1. “Ken gave us examples, links and testimony.”

                But ZERO cases cited, in the USA, of being punished for voting for, or belonging to, the wrong political party! Yet he says the USA is a 1-party nation!!!

                HOW MANY lies and liars will YOU defend, MammaryBahnFuhrer?

                I wish you’d take ALL of your lies and shove them up your yeast-infected twat, bitch! And NOT pollute these pages with them!

                Try this: https://www.webmd.com/women/guide/yeast-infection-treatments-prescription-drugs

                1. On a scale of SqrlOne to Ken, you are a one.

                  1. HOW MANY lies and liars will YOU defend, Chumpy Chump?

                    1. I had defended you but stopped. So I went from ReichSquirrelerOne to none.

                    2. Spastic pile of shit gets 3 more flags.

              2. Hey big-mouthed MammaryBahnFuhrer! We are ON to you now! THIS is YOU, isn’t it?

                https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/31/us/record-mouth-gape-tiktok-trnd/index.html
                This woman has the largest mouth in the world, according to Guinness
                By Rachel Trent, CNN

                (Except that they air-brushed out your ten tons of twat-twit-zits, of course).

                1. Spaz asshole, ‘nother flag.

                2. That’s your big comeback? What are you, eight?

                  And then you whine because everyone calls you retard.

                  1. Sevo has some sound advice you should seriously consider.

                  2. shit, meant that for the retarded squirrel

      5. You’d think that a history eugenics, segregation, and fascist sympathies would be evidence enough of the evils of progressivism, without even having to go into political or economic arguments.

        Or do you endorse those policies, Mike?

    4. Nice post.

    5. Thing is if everyone is free to make their own choices you have to face the consequences when dumb people make bad choices. You have to stand by and watch as the bottom rungs of society have more kids than they can afford and let them starve. Do we let pets breed without restriction and trust Mother Nature to control the population? No, we recognize that would be inhumane and we sterilize most animals so those that are alive enjoy better quality of life. Some people just aren’t psychologically ready for freedom. Equality is a lie.

  5. So a progressive pushing on about how progressives are the greatest and when they promote things like eugenics its really trumps fault for tricking them! (aparently trump can time travel). It time to have the discussion of forced sterilization of progressives and socialists

    1. TDS is real, and it continues to effect the victims.

  6. In all of its packaging, CRT is concentrated evil. But progressives are gonna progressive.

  7. “Bipartisan”. Wow.

    A movement that is almost exclusively of the far left… Progressives and socialists… Worldwide… And we go with bipartisan? Because why? One or two people? The old ” yeah, but the parties flipped in the 60’s”?

    The progressives are flirting with eugenics again, without much rebuke from the DNC.

    But sure…. The bipartisan nature of the issue is the important thing..

    1. Dee squawked about how 1 R + many D is bipartisan. Two of the three definitions she provided opposed her use of the word.

    2. The old ” yeah, but the parties flipped in the 60’s”?

      But they can never quite point out when and how.

      And then when you ask them why the politicians stayed the same, both “before” and “after”, they get mad. And for some reason pre-“flip” FDR and his New Deal aren’t attributed to the Republicans. Only bad stuff (from their view), like racism.

      1. Mike Laursen argued this recently.

        1. Or was it Mike Laursen citing something White Mike posted?

          1. It’s the same picture.

  8. If anything, there is a “reverse eugenics” going on, with our best and brightest having one child at most.

    1. If anything, there is a “reverse eugenics” going on, with our best and brightest having one child at most.

      If they are having only one child, they are not our ‘best and brightest’.

      The best and brightest breed.

  9. Progressivism = attempts to turn population into New Man according to top-down central planning and through the use of force.

    Nazism was the purest application of progressivism, following The Science of their time, and, from their perspective, pursuing their Good Intentions to achieve Social Justice.
    Communism has been progressivism for the masses, with lower standards and a quantity over quality outlook in pursuing Social Justice according to their Good Intentions.
    Social democracy, aka the welfare/nanny state, is the passive-aggressive form of progressivism. It was conceived by Bismarck to co-opt communism and produce Good Germans, through public education (brought to the US by Dewey) and public programs, to achieve Social Justice with obedient citizens/subjects.
    Fascism isn’t really a type of progressivism, but a tactic to be employed as needed, as is racial marxism (demonstrated most clearly by nazism).

    All forms of progressivism are fundamentally collectivist and necessarily seeking a totalitarian state.

    1. Racial cleansing is a classic example of both eugenics and progressivism. It uses the violence of the state in an attempt at progress.

      This is why progressives are the most horrible people in the world. Instead of allowing the freedom of individuals to make advancements and improvements in society, it uses the violence of the state. Usually guided by the delusional minds of lunatics.

      1. Stop saying bad things about progressives!

        – Dee

        1. As soon as they stop being bad people.

    2. On the other hand we have ABBA and the Lebensborn program.

      “Nazism was the purest application of progressivism”

      Nazism was about Hitler, and his obsession with German national destiny. You should read the Volker Ullrich two part biography of Hitler. It’s quite thorough and should teach about Nazism.

      http://library.lol/main/A72AB5E95EB53B3E7C32CE796E4E9F69

      1. National Socialism was socialism.
        Not going to waste time (again) recommending where you can learn about that; you’re a stupid fuck and choose to remain so.

      2. mtrueman, thanks for the link! I’m glad to see that SOME people here treasure knowledge and facts!

        Please ignore Sevo and the other empty-headed trolls. They resent people who are smarter and more benevolent than they are. To understand the details of that, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ .

          1. The Church of Spaz.

            1. you are on a roll, sir

      3. “ Nazism was about Hitler”

        That’s like saying communism is about Marx. To some degree yes, to a larger degree, no.

        You can read about philosophies and nations on Wikipedia.

        1. Soviet communism was about Lenin. He abandoned Marx with the April Theses, 1917. Lenin called the shots in the Ussr. Marx was long dead.

          Hitler is an interesting character and you should learn about him. It was none other than Hitler who told the nazis what to do and think. Not the other way round.

          1. You got all of that right. Nazism was not an ideology, but a movement that could be gotten aboard and steered, and Hitler did it. There’s no telling what Nazism would’ve looked like if Hitler had been displaced after a short while, or in general if Hitler had been displaced or died while the Nazis still held power. He had plans for the movement to succeed him, but it’s not likely that much of those plans would’ve stuck.

            On the other hand, the plan set forth by Lenin more or less carried on long after his time. Take Cuba as an example in our time.

          2. It’s not real Communism! It’s not real Socialism! LOL WTF do you think you get with MORE Power to the State?

        2. No, Nazism really did become “about Hitler” in a way that communism was not about Marx. You could say Marxism was about Marx, at least at first, but communism is older and deeper. Nazism was really pretty darn shallow to begin with, and easily came to be about Hitler, that’s an accurate description.

      4. Nazism was about socialism, social engineering and scientific racism. Progressivism in a nutshell.

        Here’s a speech from Reich Minister Goebbels that wouldn’t be out of place in Salon Magazine.

        Why Are We Socialists?
        Joseph Goebbels

        We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.

        Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!

        The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.

        The bourgeois is about to leave the historical stage. In its place will come the class of productive workers, the working class, that has been up until today oppressed. It is beginning to fulfill its political mission. It is involved in a hard and bitter struggle for political power as it seeks to become part of the national organism. The battle began in the economic realm; it will finish in the political. It is not merely a matter of wages, not only a matter of the number of hours worked in a day — though we may never forget that these are an essential, perhaps even the most significant part of the socialist platform — but it is much more a matter of incorporating a powerful and responsible class in the state, perhaps even to make it the dominant force in the future politics of the fatherland. The bourgeoisie does not want to recognize the strength of the working class. Marxism has forced it into a straitjacket that will ruin it. While the working class gradually disintegrates in the Marxist front, bleeding itself dry, the bourgeoisie and Marxism have agreed on the general lines of capitalism, and see their task now to protect and defend it in various ways, often concealed.

        We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice for the very existence of a state for our people, not a question of cheap pity or insulting sentimentality. The worker has a claim to a living standard that corresponds to what he produces. We have no intention of begging for that right. Incorporating him in the state organism is not only a critical matter for him, but for the whole nation. The question is larger than the eight-hour day. It is a matter of forming a new state consciousness that includes every productive citizen. Since the political powers of the day are neither willing nor able to create such a situation, socialism must be fought for. It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers’ state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state.”

        https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/haken32.htm

        1. Josef Squirroebbels

        2. Last I checked Hitler, not Goebels, was in charge.

          Hitler hated socialists.

          Find me being anti Semitic yet?

          1. He led the national socialist party.

            1. National socialism=\=socialism

              1. They are similar with the national variety being more honest about the lack of egalitarianism and of course wrapped in a pro aryan cloth. Both promoted collectivism with one ostensibly for equality (and promotion of the state) and the other for advancement of the state and its chosen people.

                1. National socialism was pure unadulterated socialism. Not just similar, it totally was.

                  sarcasmic is such a complete and utter idiot he probably read some gaslighting bullshit on Jacobin, and swallowed it.

              2. Asshole gets two flags

              3. wut?

          2. Last I checked Hitler, not Goebbels, was in charge.

            Are you trying to tell me the Gauleiter of Berlin, Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Reich Plenipotentiary for Total War and Hitler’s named successor, the very last Chancellor of Germany, wasn’t in charge too?

            This is how I know you’re sarcasmic. The uneducated, ahistorical, unread garbage that you post.

            1. ” very last Chancellor of Germany, wasn’t in charge too?”

              Yes exactly. Hitler gave the orders, the Nazis followed them. There were a few Nazis of note who had socialist backgrounds. Gobbels was one, and the Strasser brothers were a couple more. The Strasser brothers were quickly sidelined or exiled, while Gobbels stayed on, putting his socialism to the side. An early entry to Gobbels diary calls Hitler a ‘reactionary’ and bemoans his right wing politics.

              Here is a link to the exciting conclusion of Hitler’s biography. You’d be doing yourself a favor to read it.
              http://library.lol/main/891813380486A4668D30A6A2C4200547

              Hitler is truly an interesting character and one of the most significant figures of the last century. The Nazis were just his toadies for the most part.

              1. Look, I understand that there are a lot of left-wing academics that want to put as much distance as possible between socialism and the destructive aspects of National Socialism. Just like many contemporary atheists’ try and downplay the Kirchenkampf.

                However, speeches on the greatness of socialism were given by plenipotentiaries at virtually every single Nazi event, including the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg by Hitler himself. Socialism was as prominent as nationalism in Nazi speeches, always.

                Socialism was explicitly listed as a goal of the Nazi party platform itself. Article 13 explicitly states “We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).”
                The platform was elevated to the Nazi Party’s official statement of goals following their election and all officials had to swear adherence to it.

                The war interrupted the nationalization of German corporations, at about 40%, but 100% of those functioned in a corporatist arrangement with the Nazi government.

                Anyone telling you that the Nazis weren’t really socialists or they only gave lip service to it for appearance sake, are practicing deliberate historical revisionism.
                It’s a purposeful effort to protect their political and economic ideologies from being tarnished by association.

                You can read all these speeches yourself online. You don’t need someone with an agenda to warn you not to believe your lying eyes.

                1. Here are the rest of the economic points from the platform:

                  10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.

                  We demand therefore:

                  11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.

                  The breaking of the slavery of interest

                  ~

                  13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

                  14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

                  15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

                  16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.

                  17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

                  18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

                  ~

                  25. To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

                  https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform

                  1. The platform was cynical lies. How can you take it seriously knowing with hindsight what kind of lies Hitler was capable of. I suggest you look into the Munich Agreement if you aren’t familiar with it.

            2. Goebbels killed himself and his family not long after Hitler, so he wasn’t in charge for long.

              We’ve argued about this before.

              Hopefully you’ve given up lying about me being anti Semitic.

              You got me! I’ve been Sarcasmic this whole time.

              1. That’s right, you’re actually only anti-beanie-wearing-Israeli, you jew-hating fuck.

                Also, you and I haven’t “argued about this before”.

          3. Protestants hated Catholics; they were still both Christians.

            Nazism, fascism, socialism, communism, Marxism, etc. are all closely related totalitarian, anti-capitalist, collectivist ideologies.

            The fine distinctions between these ideologies may matter to Hitler and you, they don’t matter to the people whose lives these ideologies destroy.

            1. The Nazis and Marxists are the Sunni and Shia of socialism.

              1. The nazis were Marxists, as I’m sure you realize.
                The nazis rivals were the communists

        3. The brownshirts were disproportionately socialist and communist.

          “In the early 1930s, the Nazis expanded from an extremist fringe group to the largest political party in Germany, and the SA expanded with it. By January 1932, the SA numbered approximately 400,000 men.[20]

          Many of these stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism. They expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy, once they obtained national power . . . .

          The head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, Rudolf Diels, reported that “70 percent” of the new SA recruits in the city of Berlin had been communists.[28] This is evidenced further by historians, “As for the prior youth group memberships, nearly half of the SS members and nearly one-third of the instant stormtroopers were with the Free Corps, vigilantes, or militant veterans’ groups during their first 25 years of life. They also came in disproportionate numbers from left-wing youth groups such as the Socialist or Communist Youth or the Red Front (RFB).”

          —- Sturmabteilung (SA) AKA Brownshirts

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

          1. Yeah, but then what happened to the SA? You’re not going to claim the SA were the true Nazis, are you?

            1. I know you’re being sarcastic, but I can actually see sarcasmic/KAR trying to make that argument.

              1. No true Scotsman aside, there is a legitimate debate to be had about who was what depending on who we’re talking about and at what point in time. I remember quoting that part about the Brownshirts being socialists and communists back when anti-fa was in the news. The case was being made at the time that anti-fa wasn’t like the Brownshirts because they were openly against fascism and trend strongly towards socialism, but that might have described the ranks of the Brownshirts themselves, too, at one point in time.

                Hitler wiped out the SA leadership and assimilated their ranks into the regular army, and a lot of that had to do with them having a competing ideology that didn’t synch with his own. If we’re asking about their socialism, the question is, “Which Nazis are we talking about–the leadership or the rank and file? Whatever differences there were between them, communists and fascists were both openly hostile to individual rights. Once you get past that hurdle, it’s pretty easy for the rank and file to slip back and forth between them.

                And progressives are ripe for the picking for the same reasons. They’re openly hostile to individual rights. They see the world in terms of black and white, and they see their fellow Americans as both as the source of their problems and using the government to control them as the solution. If some of them are fascist without even realizing it–because they’re so socialist–I see it as kind of beside the point. They disagree on the rationalizations, the motivations, and the objectives, but the agree on the basics.

                Communists and fascists think that using the coercive power of the state to force people to make sacrifices for the common good is the legitimate purpose of government–and progressives do, too.

                1. “and progressives do, too.”

                  No shit. Name a system of government that doesn’t use the state to force people to pay taxes, or pass laws on the consumption of alcohol, for example. The notion that only communists, fascists and progressives coerce their citizens into doing things they don’t want to do is laughable.

                  1. Name a system of government that doesn’t use the state to force people to pay taxes, or pass laws on the consumption of alcohol, for example.

                    Libertarianism doesn’t use the state to force people to pay taxes or pass laws on the consumption of alcohol.

                    Next question?

                    1. Are you claiming then that every party in German politics, or any politics, that is not Libertarian, are progressive, anti-capitalistic, and collectivist? That seems to be where you are going in which case your charge that the Nazis were socialists is close to meaningless. Which is what I thought in the first place. If all states use public money to maintain roads, as the Nazis did, does that make all states Nazis? That seems the argument you are making and I’m not persuaded.

                    2. Are you claiming then

                      Actually, I was just answering your question.

                      that every party in German politics, or any politics, that is not Libertarian,

                      There is no libertarian party in Germany, not now, not ever.

                      are progressive, anti-capitalistic, and collectivist?

                      Germany is a collectivist, authoritarian nation; that’s the essence of German culture and society. That has nothing to do with taxes or alcohol, it has to do with the German mindset. For example, you’re committing a crime if you give a police officer the middle finger or say something that disrespects the state, politicians, or government employees.

          2. To be clear, they were communists _before_ joining the brownshirts. This is discussed in depth in Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer”; radical organizations have an easier time converting radicals to their brand of radicalism, even if they are converting them from “enemy” ideologies, than trying to recruit people who don’t tend to have extremist personalities.

            1. Have you read ‘Peeling the Onion,’ part of Nobel laureate Gunther Grass’ autobiography? He’s the author of The Tin Drum and other works. As a lad he was drafted in the Waffen SS, and in the book he recounts some of the political arguments between himself and his fellow soldiers. Grass is a socialist from a socialist family and he served with communists and fascists as well. There was even a courageous and tragic Jehovah’s Witness, if memory serves.
              http://library.lol/main/F3D443248F483456A5F3887510914D67

              http://library.lol/main/F3D443248F483456A5F3887510914D67

              For those interested in the socialist side of Hitler, Grass’ Crabwalk is indispensable. It’s about the strength through joy cruise ship Wilhelm Gustloff and her eventual sinking by the Soviets.

              Grass, by the way, a resident of Danzig was a Kashubian, the only Slavic people deemed by Hitler to be capable of being Aryanized.

              GÜNTER GRASS, German author and winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1999, published his autobiography in 2006. In it he describes the time when he was drafted into the German civil defense. In the same book, he tells of a man who made such an impression on him that it has stayed with him for over 60 years. That was a solitary figure who stood up for his faith under persecution.

              In an interview published in the daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Grass recalled this extraordinary person, who refused to take up arms. Grass said that the man “did not subscribe to any of the prevailing ideologies, being neither a Nazi, a Communist, nor a Socialist. He was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Grass does not remember the name of the Witness, whom he dubbed We-don’t-do-such-things. Researchers of Jehovah’s Witnesses identify the man as Joachim Alfermann. He was repeatedly beaten and humiliated, and then he was placed in solitary confinement. But Alfermann remained steadfast and refused to bear arms.

              “I admired his incredible determination,” Grass noted. “I asked myself: How can he put up with it all? How does he do it?” After enduring prolonged efforts to break his integrity to God, Alfermann was finally sent to the Stutthof concentration camp in February 1944. Liberated in April 1945, he survived the war and remained a loyal Witness of Jehovah until his death in 1998.

              Alfermann was one of some 13,400 Witnesses​—in Germany and in countries occupied by the Nazis—​who suffered reprisals because of their faith. They followed the direction of the Bible, remaining politically neutral and refusing to take up arms. (Matthew 26:52; John 18:36) Some 4,200 Witnesses were interned in concentration camps, and 1,490 lost their lives. Even today, the stand they took impresses many who do not share their faith but admire their steadfastness.

              1. Grass is a socialist from a socialist family and he served with communists and fascists as well.

                Yeah, quite the socialist! He enlisted in the Waffen-SS as a young man and hid it for decades after the war. Grass was a liar and socialist propagandist.

                You may or may not appreciate his literature, but nothing he says about history can be taken as factual.

            2. radical organizations have an easier time converting radicals to their brand of radicalism,

              That shouldn’t be surprising, since most forms of radicalism (including fascism, socialism, and communism) are preaching basically the same totalitarian, anti-capitalist ideology.

        4. Except, Goebbels said that stuff only because it was of temporary advantage to the movement of which he was part. That movement was not ideologic, it was just a mutual admiration society with Hitler as boss.

          1. Goebbels and Hitler continued saying “that stuff” in hundreds of documented speeches, right up until the Russians took Berlin.

            And they said it because they believed it. It was in the party’s very constitution.

            Anyone who says it was “only because it was of temporary advantage to the movement” is gaslighting you.

            1. “Goebbels and Hitler continued saying “that stuff” in hundreds of documented speeches, right up until the Russians took Berlin.”

              Both men are cynical, manipulative liars. Taking what they say at face value is rank foolishness. Good lord, man, have you learned nothing from history? I beg you to take the time to read the biography of Hitler I provided on this page.

              1. “Good lord, man, have you learned nothing from history? I beg you to take the time to read the biography of Hitler I provided on this page.”

                You claims regarding the biography of Hitler in no way effects the cynicism or lack thereof in him or his lieutenants.
                Hitler was an evil, megalomaniac demagogue, and certainly manipulative, but you’re going to have to do more than point at a book to make the claim of his cynicism. By every account I’ve read, he BELIEVED!
                Similarly, Goebbels; he took his, his wife’s and the lives of all six of their children on Hitler’s suicide.
                Manipulative? He directed Nazi propaganda; it was part of his job description, for pete’s sake. Cynical? Show me evidence.
                IOWs, put up or shut up.
                Given your lack of providing any evidence at all since posting here, I’m guessing we’ll get the latter.

              2. Both men are cynical, manipulative liars.

                What matters is what ideology and political program they got elected on, and that was a typical anti-capitalist, collectivist, social justice program. And they delivered on it. It simply happened not to work because those programs never work.

                1. “And they delivered on it. ”

                  How? Private property was still respected, the industrial magnates made lots of money. Hitler even privatized the banks which were made public property under the Weimar regime. There were some socialist aspects to Hitler’s regime, like the construction of the highways, and the strength through joy program. Where Hitler lived up to his word was his anti-semitism and German nationalism.

                  If you’re looking for a communist program in its purest form, look to the east, the USSR under Stalin, where there were ideological purges of the most extreme imaginable. Hitler was not interested in ideological purity of the left or right, but personal loyalty instead.

                  1. How?

                    I didn’t say “Hitler promised to deliver a Marxist state and then delivered on it”, I said that Hitler largely delivered on his “anti-capitalist, collectivist, social justice program”. And he did.
                    You can go through his election program and check it off one by one.

                    Private property was still respected industrial magnates made lots of money.

                    Millions of Jews and many other individuals and institutions had their private property, companies, banks, investments, etc. taken away by the state. Hitler allowed high-ranking and loyal members of the party to keep their assets and transferred confiscated assets to them, under the condition that they were to be used as directed by the state. The net effect was a system that was little different from socialist or communist nations: state control of the means of production, and power granted based on political affiliation.

                    1. ” I said that Hitler largely delivered on his “anti-capitalist, collectivist, social justice program”. And he did.”

                      But you go on to say repeatedly that this somehow makes him a ‘progressive,’ a term you don’t define. Hitler was more a romantic nationalist than a collectivist. That’s probably his most enduring feature. His anti-capitalism was pure theatre. In the real world capitalists funded him and he defered to them. His deference to institutions like the military and the aristocracy were totally in keeping with a right wing mind set. Stalin is a good example to remember here. His treatment of military was tremendously different. For reasons that are still not clear, he purged them mercilessly. As for the aristocracy, the ex czar and his family were herded into the basement of their country home, shot full of bullets, and after being stripped of gemstones and valuable, stuffed down a mine, doused with gas and burned. That should give you an idea how leftists have dealt with aristos since the French revolution.

                    2. But you go on to say repeatedly that this somehow makes him a ‘progressive,’ a term you don’t define.

                      The term “progressive” refers to the ideology and policies of the progressive movement, from the early 20th century to the 21st century.

                      Hitler was more a romantic nationalist than a collectivist.

                      They aren’t mutually exclusive.

                      His deference to institutions like the military and the aristocracy

                      That was indeed a difference from Stalin and other communists: instead of killing the people in power, Hitler used them and gave them a choice: submit to the fascist state or be expropriated and killed. To describe that as “deference” is ridiculous. Hitler destroyed and subjugated those institutions; he had no “deference” to them.

                      were totally in keeping with a right wing mind set

                      German conservatives, the people with a “right wing mind set” wanted to restore the German monarchy after the obvious failure of the Weimar Republic. They hated socialism/fascism and were trying to assassinate Hitler during most of his reign.

                    3. “That was indeed a difference from Stalin and other communists: instead of killing the people in power, Hitler used them and gave them a choice: submit to the fascist state or be expropriated and killed. To describe that as “deference” is ridiculous. Hitler destroyed and subjugated those institutions; he had no “deference” to them.

                      were totally in keeping with a right wing mind set

                      German conservatives, the people with a “right wing mind set” wanted to restore the German monarchy after the obvious failure of the Weimar Republic. They hated socialism/fascism and were trying to assassinate Hitler during most of his reign.”

                      Much of this is incorrect. Read those Ullrich books to familiarize yourself with the background.

                    4. were totally in keeping with a right wing mind set

                      So you are saying that not murdering the bourgeoisie after getting elected is a “right wing mind set”, while attempting to murder the bourgeoisie is a “left wing mind set”? Well, that’s certainly a left/right distinction we can agree on!

                      Much of this is incorrect. Read those Ullrich books to familiarize yourself with the background.

                      Can you point me to specific passages in Ullrich that contradict what I said?

                      I mean, it wouldn’t surprise me if Ullrich made big blunders: he is hardly a neutral or objective observer of German history, he’s a journalist working for a politically biased newspaper (Die Zeit).

          2. Except, Goebbels said that stuff only because it was of temporary advantage to the movement of which he was part

            Hitler and Goebbels were democratically elected. It doesn’t matter whether they believed what they were saying, what matters is whether the voters believed it, and they did. That’s why they voted for the Nazis.

            And today, it’s the same way. It doesn’t matter whether AOC, Omar, Pelosi, Biden, Harris, and Schumer believe the progressive/neo-fascist nonsense they are spouting, what matters is that enough voters believe it to get them elected.

            But I suppose you’re going to tell us next that “real fascism has never been tried”, right?

      5. Ullrich wrote a biography of Hitler (and a rather tendentious one at that), not an analysis of fascism.

        In any case, American progressives admired Mussolini as well, and progressivism is closely related to 1930’s European fascism.

      6. A biography of Hitler (and a rather iffy one at that) doesn’t tell you about the ideological relations between progressivism, socialism, and fascism.

        What does tell you about the relationship between American progressives and European fascism is what American progressives said about European fascism before the horrors of WWII became known, and they generally praised it.

        1. “A biography of Hitler (and a rather iffy one at that) doesn’t tell you about the ideological relations between progressivism, socialism, and fascism.”

          The book is about Hitler. He was never a Marxist, or Socialist, or even progressive, but always a man of the right, and owed his position to other men of the right, like Papen and Hindenburg. If you know of other biographies of Hitler that tell you otherwise, I’d like to know about them. There are so many and Ullrich’s has the advantage of being a fairly recent one with access to other documents that previous ones didn’t.

          “What does tell you about the relationship between American progressives and European fascism”

          Many mainstream politicians of the right had good things to say about Hitler and Mussolini. They had nothing good to say about Stalin.

          1. The book is about Hitler. He was never a Marxist, or Socialist, or even progressive, but always a man of the right

            It’s irrelevant what Hitler “was”; what matters is what ideology he publicly ran on and got elected on. We don’t have to peer into his brain to figure that out, we can simply look at the party programs. And those largely read like the party programs of modern American progressives; they do not read at all like the party programs of conservatives.

            Many mainstream politicians of the right had good things to say about Hitler and Mussolini.

            I didn’t make a statement about “politicians of the right having good things to say” (whatever that may mean), I made a statement about American progressives.

            The fact is that it was only American progressives that endorsed Hitler’s and Mussolini’s ideology and lamented the fact that they were prevented from instituting similar policies in the US.

            1. “The fact is that it was only American progressives that endorsed Hitler’s and Mussolini’s ideology and lamented the fact that they were prevented from instituting similar policies in the US.”

              Aren’t all American politicians progressive? Are there any politicians of note who weren’t progressive? My impression is they all are, at least at the presidential level.

              1. Aren’t all American politicians progressive? Are there any politicians of note who weren’t progressive? My impression is they all are, at least at the presidential level.

                Many conservative politicians (including Reagan and Trump) are not advocating progressive policies: they argue for privatization of healthcare, retirement, and education; they argue for less government spending and more individual responsibility; they argue for more voluntary association and less government-compelled association; they argue for the primacy of values over scientific experts.

    3. Nothing that the Nazis preached or practiced could in the least bit be considered science.

      Science the use of reason and experimentation to understand phenomena in the Natural Universe. It has reproducible results and can be understood by anyone with the faculty of reason.

      Nazism, however denied that there wasone objective Natural Universe and a universal faculty of reason to understand it. To the Nazis, there was “Aryan Truth” understood by “Aryan Logic,” “Jewish Truth” by “Jewish Logic, ” Negro Truth” by “Negro Logic,” etc.

      Also, the Nazis thought that the Earth, Moon, Stars, and everything in space was made of ice (The World Ice Theory.) Hardly anything scientific here.

      1. Wow.
        I’m embarrassed for you.

        1. The Nazi’s view of Polylogism was expounded upon in Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America.

          The Nazi’s belief in The World Ice Theory (Welteislehre) was expounded upon in Martin Gardner’s Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science..

          One thing about Nazi “Race” theories that Martin Gardner pointed out: When Nazi “Race” theorist encountered intelligent humans that were not of the “Aryan” look they attributed to “Aryans,” they just made the person an “Honorary Aryan.” This made Nazi “race” theories unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

          This was also how Nazis could justify the alliance with the Japanese, support for “national liberation” movements in India and the Middle East, and support for Black Muslims in the U.S.

          1. The Nazis racial theories weren’t just warmed over Hans Günther theories. They were everything that was taught at Harvard and Yale twenty years earlier.

            Most of the garbage came straight from progressive salons in New York. Look at the reasons Wilson gave to resegregate the Civil Service. Read the New York Times arguing that Mbuti people aren’t human and should be kept in the Bronx zoo https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/03/the-man-who-was-caged-in-a-zoo.

            The Nazi’s view on race was cutting edge progressive at the time.

            1. The “Race” theories crossed back and forth across the Atlantic. In fact, during the Nuremburg Trials for Crimes Against Humanity, the defense for the Nazis actually cited the sterilization laws of both Virginia and Indiana.

              In the Nineteenth Century, French “Race” theorist Georges Vacher De Lapouge eerily and presciently said that: “In the next Century, millions will murder each other over a one degree difference in their skull index.” How sadly right he was.

          2. Honorary aryan seems a lot like woke white kids wanting to be accepted by POC. If you check your privilege, you can sit at the table.

            1. “Allies”

            2. Precisely. Eventually, all that “Aryan” meant was “anyone who wasn’t Jewish.”

              And since anyone could be Jewish either by matrilineage and/or by conversion to the Jewish religion, that makes everything (dare I say) all Higgledy-Piggledy.

              Larry David would call it “A Race War About Nothing.”

      2. “…Also, the Nazis thought that the Earth, Moon, Stars, and everything in space was made of ice (The World Ice Theory.)…”

        I’m going to give you the benefit of doubt and guess you made that up as an attempt at humor.
        If not, you’re full of shit.

        1. See references above. No joke. They were not bright bulbs. And there is yet the third option that Martin Gardner and myself (who cited him) are correct.

          1. “See references above. No joke. ”

            So Gardiner found *a* Nazi who promoted those beliefs?
            Guess what; if you dug around, you could find *a* Nazi who believed almost anything you can imagine.

            1. Gardner (no ‘i’ in the name) found many Nazis eho believed the Welteislehre, including Mister “You Know Who Else?…” himself.

              Martin Gardner also pointed out how rife with superstition Weimar Germany was. Everything from Astrology, Dowsing, Ouija Boards, Phrenology, Tarot, Tealeaf reading, the whole batch of Woo.

              And as Volitare presaged, those who believed in absurdities were made to commit atrocities.

              1. It was Hess and Himmler who were the most notorious cranks among the Nazis. Hitler was fairly level headed about such matters, his vegetarianism and anti-smoking notwithstanding.

          2. Doesn’t seem specifically Nazi-related:

            Hörbiger’s ideas attracted support from across the political spectrum: on the right wing was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the leading theorist behind the early development of the National Socialist Party in Germany in 1923. Later Hitler was also to support the theory.[5] On the left wing Raoul Hausmann also supported the theory, and corresponded with Hörbiger.[6] Despite Hitler’s claim that the WEL constituted an “Aryan” theory, in fact a number of Jewish intellectuals supported his theory: for example, Egon Friedell who in 1938 committed suicide rather facing arrest by the SS.[7] Hans Schindler Bellamy, a Jewish member of the Austrian Social Democratic Party, was also a proponent.[8] He continued to advocate the viewpoint after he had fled Vienna following the Anschluss.

            And it’s hard to see why you think it’s so nutty. Until the 1920’s, we didn’t even know that there were other galaxies and the universe was thought to be a few thousand light years across.

            Furthermore, the three most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen, Helium, and Oxygen, which makes water ice the predominant solid in the universe. Nutty, isn’t it?

      3. they were better engineers. Rockets, automobiles etc. Their nuclear program under Heisenberg was an utter failure.

        1. Yeah, “better” engineers who wasted resources on material which could not help them one bit.
          You do have a bit of a smarts problem, don’t you?

      4. Nothing that the Nazis preached or practiced could in the least bit be considered science sincere.

        It just needed that typo fixed at the end.

        1. “Nothing that the Nazis preached or practiced could in the least bit be considered sincere.”

          A good point. Even their anti-semitism was a cynical sop to the morons. Hitler was willing to ignore his own anti-Jewish marriage laws and stretch a point to favor his pet film stars, Goering also rather than fire his Jewish cook, said “In this city, I decide who is Jewish.”

          I remember reading that it was well into Trump’s campaign that he mentioned the wall, in passing. The audience clapped themselves silly. From then on, he never stopped talking about the wall. Even if it was only a short section of attractive steel slats. I think it’s much the same with Hitler’s anti-Semitism. He had Jewish ‘friends’ in his Vienna days and he owes his career as an artist, such as it was, to Jewish dealers. His comrades in arms during WWI never noticed any anti-Semitic ranting on his part. It was only after Hitler became a politician that it was notable, much to the delight of his audience who responded to these anti-Semitic passages more than anything else.

          1. “…I remember reading that it was well into Trump’s campaign that he mentioned the wall, in passing. The audience clapped themselves silly. From then on, he never stopped talking about the wall…”

            i remember reading your bullshit years ago, thinking ‘this assholes fulls of shit’.
            Now you’ve proven that and added TDS to the list of your mental ‘issues’.

          2. A good point. Even their anti-semitism was a cynical sop to the morons.

            It doesn’t matter whether the proponents of a destructive ideology believe it, it matters whether the masses/followers do.

            Progressives today the same methods and ideas for recruiting mass followings as European fascists did a century ago.

            I have no doubt that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden don’t believe half the crap that they are saying. They are indeed cynically manipulating the masses, just like their predecessors.

            1. “It doesn’t matter whether the proponents of a destructive ideology believe it, it matters whether the masses/followers do.”

              I think this is misunderstanding. It matters whether the masses remain loyal to Hitler, what he says and promises is little more than theatre. Very well produced and conceived theatre, there’s no one who will deny that Hitler had a genius for public speaking. He made them feel good about themselves and gave them a scapegoat. Hitler was assured of followers as long as he could cast spells with his public speaking and keep the economy growing.

              “They are indeed cynically manipulating the masses, just like their predecessors.”

              They are not only ones, I assure you. The whole world is full of politicians. There are some politicians who are of good character, even if they get up to the same dirty tricks as the rest of them. Maybe someone tempered by hard work, sacrifice and many hours spent in front of the TV cameras.

              1. I think this is misunderstanding. It matters whether the masses remain loyal to Hitler, what he says and promises is little more than theatre.

                The German masses voted for Hitler’s progressive program because they believed in his political program, the same way that American masses vote for similar progressive political programs in the US today.

                He made them feel good about themselves and gave them a scapegoat.

                Yes, just like American progressives today, with their messages of “pride”, “empowerment”, and blaming the white cis-gendered patriarchy and “the 1%” for their plight.

                They are not only ones, I assure you.

                I’m glad that you agree that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden are cynically manipulating the masses, just like their progressive predecessors. The fact that there are other lying and manipulative politicians doesn’t change their guilt.

                1. “The German masses voted for Hitler’s progressive program because they believed in his political program, the same way that American masses vote for similar progressive political programs in the US today.”

                  The election results were equivocal at best. Not the masses but right wing politicians like Papen and Hindenburg and rightist industrialists like Thyssen had the final stamp of approval of Hitler’s rise to power. They knew that Hitler was no Marxist, no Socialist and no progressive, and they were right. Where they were wrong was their confidence in their ability to control him.

                  I’m not sure what party you think German rightists voted for in 1932? If it wasn’t Hitler, who was it? Was it the German National Party? Almost identical to the Nazis except they didn’t have Hitler. Are they another left wing Party? Were the Catholics yet another left wing party?

                  “I’m glad that you agree that Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden are cynically manipulating the masses”

                  It goes without saying that politicians manipulate masses. I wouldn’t want to say whether it’s cynical or sincere, as don’t really know anything about them other than the title of the position they hold. Life is short and there are other things more pressing than the delving into the character of a few politicians who will certainly be dead or retired within a few years. If I were more of a partisan team player, things might be different.

                  1. Not the masses but right wing politicians like Papen and Hindenburg and rightist industrialists like Thyssen had the final stamp of approval of Hitler’s rise to power.

                    We don’t have to guess or argue about who gave the stamp of approval to Hitler’s rise to power since we can simply look at the votes for the Enabling Act. And, in fact, all German parties voted for the Enabling Act, with the exception of the socialists and communists.

                    They knew that Hitler was no Marxist, no Socialist and no progressive, and they were right.

                    Yes, they were right: Marxism, socialism, progressivism, Nazism, and fascism all have difference between them. What I said is that they are all “totalitarian, anti-capitalist, collectivist ideologies” and that they share many policies, and that is true.

                    In particular, Hitler was smart enough to understand that using class struggle, abolition of private property, and the execution of the current ruling class, as practiced by previous socialist revolutions, didn’t advance his agenda. That’s why he took a different approach to achieve his totalitarian, anti-capitalist, collectivist objectives.

                    Like modern progressives, Hitler focused on racial differences, permitted private property, found arrangements with the wealthy and powerful, and instead of nationalizing companies, regulated them.

                    And if Hitler hadn’t gone on to start a mad war and murder millions of Jews, progressives would still be singing his praises.

                    1. “What I said is that they are all “totalitarian, anti-capitalist, collectivist ideologies” and that they share many policies, and that is true.”

                      If all parties are totalitarian, anti-capitalist and collectivist, then your claim that Nazis too were totalitarian, anti-capitalist and collectivist, doesn’t tell us anything, other than the Nazis too were a political party. a fact I’ve never denied.

                    2. If all parties are totalitarian, anti-capitalist and collectivist, then your claim that Nazis too were totalitarian, anti-capitalist and collectivist, doesn’t tell us anything, other than the Nazis too were a political party. a fact I’ve never denied.

                      I didn’t say that “all parties are totalitarian”. I said that “all of them [i.e., Marxism, socialism, progressivism, Nazism, and fascism] are totalitarian, anti-capitalist, and collectivist”.

                      Christian conservative and monarchist parties are generally pro-capitalist and anti-collectivist (though they may be authoritarian). Libertarian parties are anti-totalitarian, pro-free-market, and anti-collectivist.

        2. No FTFY required. Nazism was anti-science and very sincere about that. Nazi Germany also chased into exile, imprisoned, and murdered off it’s greatest scientific minds.

          1. Nazism explicitly appealed to science as basis for policy and belief.
            I’m sorry your God The Science has at times been used for ill, but this is pathetic deflection.
            In fact, this very attitude you’re demonstrating here is exactly the same as that demonstrated by nazi, and all progressive, science enthusiasts.

          2. Nazism was “anti-science” in the same way American progressivism today is “anti-science”: it corrupts science for political ends and destroys scientists who fail to agree with the politically desired consensus.

            Nazism was pro-science in the same way American progressivism is pro-science, in that Nazis embraced the image of being modern, scientific, and rational and used compliant scientists and academics to justify their policies.

      5. Little that American progressives preach could be considered science either.

        American progressives and European fascists thereby share the misuse of fake science for political purposes.

    4. Communism, fascism, socialism, and progressivism are all certainly about subjecting the the rights of individuals to the experts. Their experts differ in their qualifications, objectives and justifications, but the idea that individuals shouldn’t be free to make choices for themselves without an okay from the experts is common to all of them.

      1. Theologies, too.

        1. Whataboutism!

          1. White Mike isn’t entirely wrong here, though he uses the wrong word.
            Theocracy can be, and often is, a form of progressivism – like communism, fascism, nazism, socialism, social democracy.
            Whatever particular style you’d like to focus on or call any specific instance, it remains that all are types of progressivism.

            Again: progressivism = centrally planned collectivist production of New Man via top down force.

            Theocracy can certainly be a form of progressivism, as we see today with Islamism (I’m unaware of any other large scale theocratic movements, but welcome examples).
            The difference between theocracy and (I guess we’ll call it) civic progressivism is simply the justification/instruction referenced: “The Science” for Marxists, God/Allah for theocrats.

      2. In other words, the average Nazi was a decent, honest, hard working fellow. It’s those elite Nazis who deserve our scorn.

        1. The average Nazi was a fellow just like you, with pretty much your belief system. You tell us whether you are “decent, honest, and hard working”.

          1. I don’t even speak German.

            1. Why do you think millions of Germans and Italians became fascists? Do you think they were insane, uneducated fanatics and haters? Do you think they were taken in by some magical German incantations?

              Of course not. They thought they were standing up for fairness, for the downtrodden, and a better future.

              If it wasn’t so easy for ideologies like socialism and fascism to persuade decent middle class people to follow them, they wouldn’t have cause so much misery and destruction.

    5. I’ve learned that Nazism was sui generis, a thing of its place and time. Neo-nazis are not Nazis. Did it incorporate elements of all that stuff? Sure, just like all movements incorporate some things of their time.

      But you got those other -isms pegged right. I never thought of social democracy as passive-aggressive, that’s a great insight.

      1. Neo-Nazis may have different designs of pelts, dress, and hairstyles from Old School Nazis, but the ideology is the same for both and violence is the practice of both. And both are enemies of Libertarianism. The only difference between Nazism and Neo-Nazism is that the latter have yet to have political power over an entire nation…yet.

        1. Neo nazis are nothing compared to the New Nazis: the SJW left (though that’s pretty much redundant at this point), and they hold almost all power in the US.

        2. Neo-Nazis may have different designs of pelts, dress, and hairstyles from Old School Nazis, but the ideology is the same for both and violence is the practice of both.

          Neo-Nazis are largely crazy youths; they have little to do with the European fascists of the 1930’s.

          The ideologically closest movement in the US to the 1930’s fascists is the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

  10. Someone should probably pipe up that although the Progressive Party was largely a Republican affair back in the early part of the 20th century, that doesn’t really reflect the Republican party today.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Republican_National_Convention

    In other words, some of these ideas may have been “cross-partisan” back in the early 20th century, but the Republican party of Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, and those who followed aren’t indicative of the state of affairs in the Republican party today.

    Surely, no one is accusing the Republicans of being progressive today.

    1. Two thirds of the American people were progressives in the early 20th century, which makes sense considering the context of blooming industrial revolution, spread of electricity and communications, advancements in mobility, etc. It was the most dominant popular ideology of the time because it seemed Man was capable of mastering all nature. Progressivism of the early era had reason to believe that science could conquer all, and why shouldn’t they seek to engineer Man just as they molded steel, directed electricity, and mass produced products in factory assembly lines?
      Well, they soon found out that nature is inescapable even for Man. A decade after the Fed centralized banking it resulted in a catastrophic worldwide economic collapse and industrial warfare between factions of progressives killed tens of millions. The Nazis tried genocide through factory extermination, the Soviets did it with starvation, and nuclear weapons presented the prospect of Man wiping out the species.
      The civil rights movement was the most anti-progressive development possible, saying individuals had the same rights and inherent worth, rejecting a hierarchy based on classifying them into identities based on superficial traits.
      This is why modern progressivism must reject the civil rights movement even as it tries to corrupt and appropriate its memory. Not only that, but the scientific justifications that had provided at least a logical basis to their horrific ambitions have been thoroughly discredited, shown to be erroneous. Thus modern progressivism is completely psychotic. It tries to claim it’s heir to a thoroughly anti-progressive movement, it must ignore scientific discoveries/advancements, and a century of history has demonstrated the failure of its purest forms.

      1. Good post.

        1. Gracias.

          This is a subject I’ve spent many years on.

      2. You know who was not a supporter of Eugenics to engineer human beings, nor a supporter of slavery or racism? He’s the one everyone thinks was Pro-Eugenics, but wasn’t…Charles Darwin.

        Evolution was only a descriptive biological theory about the origin and development of species over millions of years, not a procriptive one, either on an individual or a societal level. And in the theory, the ultimate evolutionary trait is not brute strength or even intellect, but adaptability.

        Eugenics also runs at cross-purposes with evolution, because it demands everyone to be of one phenotype, even if natural environmental conditions may run anathema to that phenotype’s survival.

        It is also telling that North Carolina, and doubtless other States, had laws against teacing Evolution side-by-side with Eugenics laws and Eugenics Boards.

        1. Eugenics also runs at cross-purposes with evolution

          Darwin wasn’t a eugenicist because genetics hadn’t yet been invented. You’re correct that he didn’t make proscriptions for how species should be created/directed but he did lay out how it is done.

          To say Eugenics runs at cross-puropses with evolution assumed evolution has a puprose. It doesn’t. Moreover, you assume Eugenics to have a purpose of genetic purity it doesn’t necessarily. We’ve been breeding livestock for centuries both purifying for selected traits and diversifying, making strains and species that do not exist in nature.

          Whether mankind populates the planet and subjugates nature or mankind dwindles in an effort to restore and (re)balance nature, even if that means spcies-level suicide, Eugenics is inevitable. Controlled and directed evolution is required either way. Darwin laid it out thusly. Either nature directs evolution or we do.

          1. Moreover, you assume Eugenics to have a purpose of genetic purity it doesn’t necessarily. We’ve been breeding livestock for centuries both purifying for selected traits and diversifying, making strains and species that do not exist in nature.

            Being more clear, both myself and the author (and others) should be more clear about Eugenics (human-directed human evolution as enforced policy) and eugenics (human-directed evolution).

      3. At the beginning of the 20th century, the federal government controlled a few percent of the economy and was strongly constrained by the US Constitution. Most people simply couldn’t conceive of the meaning of “progressivism” that FDR or European fascists embraced, namely an all-encompassing, all-powerful national government. So, I think it’s misleading to say that “two thirds of the American people were progressives”.

        1. They were ideologically inclined to be persuaded by progressive arguments at the least, whether or not that made them progressives themselves.
          They supported (for its time) Big Government intervention and engineering, and considering what was happening at the beginning of the 20th century (and the relatively distant and hands off government they were used to), it’s understandable.
          Circumstances have changed drastically. If they’d known about the horrors of genocide, communism, and the Goliath nanny state we now have, I doubt you’d find many more receptive to progressivism than we have now, and likely far fewer.

  11. Democrats will revive this policy if they can pass their election laws to cement their one party dominance.

    I expect shitbags like Tony, jeffsarc, asshole Mike, etc to refute this because as left liberaltarians they voted for democrats, and they know it. We know it. They just refuse to admit it.

  12. America’s Cross-Partisan Dalliance With Eugenics
    A new book pulls the curtain back—but only partway.

    Eugenics was a movement squarely within the progressive movement; it was justified using science and promoted by major academic and progressive institutions.

    Trying to portray it as “cross-partisan” is an attempt at shifting blame and rewriting history. There were some Republicans who also happened to be progressive, but that largely sorted itself out after a few decades.

  13. “… with stretched analogies between her historical subject and Republican COVID-19 policy.”

    Where is the stretch? Isn’t the mandatory sterilization of women against their will exactly the same as being skeptical about a vaccine and not wanting to wear masks? (Please note that I am being sarcastic here).

    1. At the time many people thought that forced sterilizations where perfectly ok, for the good if the mother and society.

      Today many people think that forcing vaccinations is perfectly ok, for the good of the person and society.

      If you look at each issue from the point of view of someone from the time in question, they are very similar.

  14. Good thread on property rights:

    Blackrock/World Economic Forum

    What does the Mayor of a college town in the U.S. have in common with the President of France? The daughter of an American political family & Norwegian Royalty? Crenshaw & a Chinese Science Minister? Supposed Grassroots Tulsi and a young Kennedy?

    How are they being used to participate in a global reset? And why are they all participating in a 5 year development program designed to place individuals into positions of power all across the world to drive the 4th industrial revolution?

    [Continues]

  15. America’s Cross-Partisan Dalliance With Eugenics

    Eugenics was pretty much exclusively a progressive idea, and continues to be so to this day.

  16. The mindset this demonstrates is only going to go to a darker place

    https://twitter.com/echo_chamberz/status/1421320073067646978?s=19

    They’re saying it out loud [video]

    1. Unfortunately Kennedy is starting to say similar things on her show.

      1. You know things are bad when the broad who used to be on MTV is scaring R Mac.

        1. asshole shows up for a flag!

        2. She might be Mormon.

      2. She’s always been a mixed bag

  17. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1421495342600761346?s=19

    Our freedoms, all across the world, really are on the line.
    [Link]

    1. China coveting the flood deaths has been bad.

    2. China covering up the flood deaths has been bad.

      1. Coveting or covering up? Both? Yes?

  18. A dalliance with eugenics, eh? You know who else…..?

  19. Catte’s thesis nonetheless remains underdeveloped, particularly as it concerns the extent of symbiosis between the Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia and the modern, forward-looking, and often explicitly progressive thrust of eugenic “science” in its day.

    The problem here lies in what you mean by “progressive”.

    As near as I can tell, what the “the Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia” and the “modern, forward-looking, and often explicitly progressive thrust of eugenic “science” in its day” had in common was their belief that “Negroes” and poor whites were impeding “PROGRESS” towards some supremely desirable goal.

    IOW, you assume that the “the Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia” and the “modern, forward-looking, and often explicitly progressive thrust of eugenic “science” in its day” had different goals. But, in a sense, they did not.

    This whole view of “Southern reactionaries”, IMO is mistaken. There is actually no evidence that southern whites were opposed to industrialization or mechanization, in the form of say, the automobile or steelmaking or the telephone or electric light or skyscrapers in Atlanta etc. What they were opposed to was equal rights for people of what they considered were of an inferior race.

    The northern upper white class “Progessive” movement played right into their existing prejudices.

    1. This is to say, that while there were northern white progressives who believed that “Negroes” could be elevated and improved above their current primitive state through education and through Margaret Sanger’s idea of smaller families (which she also believed would also help poor whites) the “Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia” (and, in general, other southern whites) believed that blacks were irredeemably inferior and only fit for menial tasks.

      Far from wanting to exterminate blacks the “Southern reactionaries of Old Virginia” and other rich southern whites needed to keep them around to do the menial tasks that they felt were beneath white people.

      1. Good points

        1. Thank you.

          It’s funny that today’s “Progressives” talk all about “diversity” when you consider that the last thing on on the minds of “The Progessives” (ie; mostly upper-class well-to-do whites and intellectuals) was any kind of non-conformity to middle-class (middle-class meant something different back then, just as it does in England today) values of hard work, adherence to “Victorian” sexual morality and adherence to Protestant Christianity. IOW, Yesterday’s “Progessives” wanted everyone to be [W]hite [A]nglo Saxon [P]rontestants.

          Essentially they saw (correctly, IMO) that WASP values contributed to wealth-making and generally happy lives. Their were others who suggested that material wealth was not everything and that there might be cultural values that were more important, but the “Progessives” rejected this notion.

          Thus, “Progessive” education required that “the Indian must be killed to save the man” and that “we must teach the Geegee out of the Negro” for them to take their place in civilized society.

          Hence the residential schools for the Indians and the push to ban jazz (ie jungle music) etc.

          1. Great post, Issac! All very true things about “Progressives” of the day and the urge for pouring individuals into molds still persists with “Progressives” of today.

            Be careful about mentioning the Indigenous Residential Schools, though. Some of our Canadian members will accuse you of something, something “going along with some tribal grift,” mumble, mumble.

      2. And there were always at least three classes–not just whites and blacks. There was (at least) the white upper class, the white underclass, and the people of African ancestry.

        The animosity between the white upper class and white underclass could be intense, going back to the times when the children of indentured servitude were competing with slaves for salaried employment.

        “The change from primary reliance on bound white labor to the use of slaves occurred in two steps, with an initial transition from servants to slaves in unskilled field work, followed some time later by widespread training of blacks and substitution of slaves for servants in skilled occupations. The timing of the two steps can be explained as a function of the changing relative costs of indentured and slave labor in the markets for unskilled and skilled labor.

        https://www.jstor.org/stable/2120891

        The white underclass were preoccupied with competing with slave labor and machines long before they were worried competing with Mexican labor and labor in China.

        Anyway, the southern elite were predisposed to be receptive to eugenic theories about the “races of Europe”, too, which put the Anglo-Saxons up on the top of the racial heap and the Scottish and the Irish somewhere lesser than–and prone to laziness, alcoholism, etc. The eugenicists idea of “race” was not confined to white and black. They also had things to say about Huns, Slavs, the Irish, the Scottish, . . .

        Of course the Southern elite wanted to sterilize the “hillbillies”.

      3. “…rich southern whites needed to keep them around to do the menial tasks that they felt were beneath white people.”

        Kinda like Der TrumpfenFuhrer likes to slam (scapegoat) the illegal humans, but keep them around to prop up Social Security without them ever being able to benefit from the taxes that they pay in? “Taxation without representation” works very well for the slave owners, doesn’t it? Even while they throw out hateful “red meat” to their fellow slavers? (OK, Der BidenFuhrer is guilty as well, admitted).

        See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/
        This is a part of a long pattern of Government Almighty fuck-ups making necessary, MORE Government Almighty fuck-ups! Government Almighty mandated WAY too many licenses, before we’re allowed to earn an honest living… Put too many of us into poverty. To “help” with this poverty problem that Government Almighty created, Government Almighty gave us welfare. Welfare then attracts too many illegal sub-humans, sometimes, so to fix THAT problem, Government Almighty now wants e-verify and giant border walls and giant border armies, so I suppose Government Almighty will next fire up the military draft to fix THAT problem! (Lack of a large enough wall-and-army forces).
        Those of us who like individual freedom, would like for Government Almighty to SHRINK, for once, instead of always making itself BIGGER to fix all of the problems created by Government Almighty in the first place!

        1. No, that is not what I meant at all.

          1. That you didn’t mean the truth of it all, does NOT invalidate the truth!

          2. Speaking of taxation without representation… Something that the American revolution was fought over… How about all these parolees who can’t vote? Are their earnings taxed? You bet! Time for another revolution! I hope that it will be with ballots and not bullets!

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/20/crystal-mason-texas-upholds-sentence-voter-suppression

            Texas upholds sentence for woman who didn’t know she was ineligible to vote

            Crystal Mason was previously sentenced to five years in prison for a mistaken vote that was not counted

            I bet her black skin did NOT help her ONE tiny bit!

            1. Spastic asshole gets three more flags!

            2. Written on the ballot is a statement that cautions individuals and explains that a person cannot vote if he or she is on supervised release as Mason was.

              She had to sign that.

              And Crystal Mason wasn’t “previously sentenced for a mistaken vote”, she was previously sentenced for tax evasion. So, not only did she violate voting law, she, in fact, did not “pay her taxes”.

              1. Is she exempt from all taxes while on parole, and not allowed to vote? If she IS paying taxes while on parole, this is taxation without representation… Something that the American revolution was fought over!

                The simple fix is to allow parolees to vote! Except self-righteous power pigs (with YUUUUGE punishment boners) don’t like that idea!

                1. The simple fix is to allow parolees to vote!

                  The simple fix is to limit voting to people who pay more in annual income taxes than per captia government spending, because if you don’t make a net positive contribution to government, you shouldn’t have a right to decide how the state operates.

                  Except self-righteous power pigs with huge collectivist boners don’t like that idea.

                  1. ^

        2. Stop bringing up that debunked Atlantic story.

          And it’s progressives who want to keep “illegal humans” around to work on corporate farms and prop up social security; conservatives want “illegal humans” to be returned to their countries of origins.

          Conservatives would be happy to refund them all their Social Security contributions, with interest (and while we’re at it, we should give the same option to US citizens).

          1. “Stop bringing up that debunked Atlantic story.”

            Who debunked it, on what basis? Citation please!

            1. People responded to you at length here. Look it up.

  20. Progress!
    The Science!

    https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1421558944275779587?s=19

    Has everybody lost their effing minds?
    Is it time to stop saying, “Twitter isn’t real life” yet?
    The insanity is mainstream and it’s everywhere.

    “@WebMD
    Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates, the American Medical Association (AMA) said Monday. [Link]”

    1. Whichever woke apparatchik came up with that probably isn’t getting any “sex.”

      1. When asked, on forms, about “sex”, Chumpy Chump writes in the “other” slot… “No, never! Unless inflatable dolls count!”

        1. And yet one more, asshole!

        2. I used to have sex with your mom but she is rather ugly. How ugly is she you ask? Your mom is so ugly that one time when she was giving me a blowjob I thought I was fucking her in the ass.

          1. My mom has been dead for many decades.

            So you are a necrophiliac, then, and proudly admit it? Nice to know!

            (You like to feel and smell those maggots crawling up your twat?)

            1. This was some years ago. She had some little kid at the time. I suggested that she stop feeding him paint chips but she knew better.

  21. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1421457944659513345?s=19

    It’s indescribably chilling how — since the pandemic began — Big Tech monopolies have banned any questioning of or dissent from official COVID orthodoxy. As that orthodoxy morphs and changes, so too do the rules of what’s permitted and banned: a frightening template. [Link]

    No matter how many times public health officials got caught lying, misleading or just having erred, the Big Tech dedication to banning any questioning of them has somehow intensified, acclimating everyone to the idea that the internet will not allow dissent of official views.

    The Founding Father of MSNBC liberalism calls for the banning of one of the country’s most popular YouTubers from Twitter and every other internet platform. It’s hard to overstate how authoritarian is US liberalism: begging for corporate censorship is one of their leading tools: [link]

  22. Michael Crichton’s remarks in “State of Fear” are apropos. Nearly all advocates of at-gunpoint beer and other substance prohibition were eugenics congregants and pre-Hitler parroters of TR “race suicide” eructations. Even in 1926, Republican National Socialism exported eugenics to Brazil, where Monteiro Lobato published “America’s Black President.” Based on comparisons of growth equations for fertility rates, Blacks were expected to pull about even with pink people by the year 2228. Nowadays, selective memory loss is the dominant fad.

    1. Paraguayan exceptionalism

      It was March 1 1814, and José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia, was about to become “Supreme Dictator”, a title he would hold until his death in 1840.

      Many credit Francia with modern Paraguay’s pluriethnic, plurilingual, and multicultural society. He remains a mysterious figure, who had a doctorate in theology but in politics behaved as a French Jacobin. Running an austere and orderly iron-fisted government, Francia secured Paraguayan independence by isolating his nation from the outside world.
      Francia was Paraguay’s ‘Supreme Dictator’ from 1814 to 1840. Thomas Jefferson Page/Wikimedia Commons

      In 1814, Francia issued a decree forbidding marriages between “European men” (namely, Spaniards) and women “known as Spanish” (born in Spain or of Spanish descent). European men would only be allowed to marry indigenous, mixed-race or black Paraguayan women.

      By preventing the white elite from reproducing, Francia’s decree had the undeniable potential to allow the newly independent Paraguay to rise as a mixed-race nation.

    2. Well the birth rate in Africa is still high. They are growing rapidly.

  23. The more interesting question is why progressives turned on eugenics. What is wrong with social engineering through genetics as opposed to education? I think some of it has to be some inferiority complex on the part of modern progressives. They feel like outsiders and want to use power of the state to destroy their host civilization rather than preserve it.

    1. The more interesting question is why progressives turned on eugenics.

      Eugenics was the direct cause of genocide in Europe and Asia and it had become a political liability. Furthermore, science eventually demonstrated that the genetic assumptions underlying eugenics were wrong and that we lacked the knowledge to select for advantageous mutations.

      But true to form, progressives went from one extreme to another. A century, they embraced genetic determinism and essentialism, now they deny any kind of genetic differences altogether: they deny that intelligence is largely inherited, they deny that sex is genetically determined, they deny obvious genetic population differences.

      Ultimately, a pretense of “science” for progressives is just a means for obtaining political power and bamboozling the masses. Whether the scientific theories progressives use for obtaining power are correct or bogus doesn’t matter to them.

  24. I would rather see a discussion about how genetic manipulation to “improve” athletic or intellectual ability fits into the eugenics framework,

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-gene-editing-can-do-for-humankind-11613750317?page=1

  25. Of all the things government taxes, taxing stupidity and ugliness seem the least offensive to me

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.