I said that cancel culture were the new brownshirts, the mechanism used to stifle any opposition to centralized state policy.  

You then brought up the question, how is that anything to do with gas chambers.  

My point is that these are two aspects of the same national socialist policies that are actively being employed today by the american left.  

The Nuremberg laws?  They came from the united states left.  The segregation laws from the south were lifted and used against Jews instead of blacks.  

Eugenics and the belief in selective breeding is not uniquely anti semitic.  It's the general belief, for anyone willing to play god, that u can create a superior race of people through eliminating genetic undesirables.  

The most famous iamericab nstitution to that end is planned parenthood, and its founder Margaret sanger was recognized for her deep belief in eugenic science and proposed her own set of central Government policies to control every womb in the united states.

There are three key differences between the german holocaust and the american holocaust.  

1.) The germans isolated Jews as undesirable because they represented a faction of the well to do that three off the distribution of wealth etc. Etc.  In america we looked @ the poor and women who were "chronically sexual" as economic drags on society, much less evolved than our "betters."

2.) When the nazis contemplated their final solution they debated voluntary sterilization, forced sterilization, and finally settled on forced extermination.  This precipitated the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind and german nazism was defeated.  In America, the eugenicists learned from this.  They instead chose voluntary sterilization and extermination, rebranded it with the prongs of choice, feminism, and family planning.

3.) Unfortunately, as with most things in the last century, America has been light years more effective.  The germans killed roughly 6 million people in 4 year.  In America we've killed over 60 million in 47 years.  Soon well have the great distinction of crossing the 65 million threshold, surpassing the entire death toll of ww2 making american Feminism the most lethal ideology in the history of mankind.  

But it's not forced u say,  if the state legalized rape and defended its practice and issued licenses to institutions to kidnap women and sell them as sex slaves that would be a government policy.  Likewise when the state violates it's own founding to cancel the humanity of an unborn child stripping its inalienable rights, allowing it to be killed for profit by state licensed physicians it is the very definition of tyranny and the greatest hypocrisy ever forced on this republic.

You're conflating the pro-choice movement that began in the mid 1960s in the US with the eugenics that came before and the cancel culture that came after.  These are three separate phenomena.  While you could certainly find a person that advocates for all three, you could just as easily find someone who only advocates for one or two of them.  Importantly, all three of these phenomena are working within a framework of non-violent electoral politics, so none of them can be a meaningful analogue to the brownshirts.

No they aren't, they are the evolution of the entire philosophy.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I said that cancel culture were the new brownshirts, the mechanism used to stifle any opposition to centralized state policy.  

You then brought up the question, how is that anything to do with gas chambers.  

My point is that these are two aspects of the same national socialist policies that are actively being employed today by the american left.  

The Nuremberg laws?  They came from the united states left.  The segregation laws from the south were lifted and used against Jews instead of blacks.  

Eugenics and the belief in selective breeding is not uniquely anti semitic.  It's the general belief, for anyone willing to play god, that u can create a superior race of people through eliminating genetic undesirables.  

The most famous iamericab nstitution to that end is planned parenthood, and its founder Margaret sanger was recognized for her deep belief in eugenic science and proposed her own set of central Government policies to control every womb in the united states.

There are three key differences between the german holocaust and the american holocaust.  

1.) The germans isolated Jews as undesirable because they represented a faction of the well to do that three off the distribution of wealth etc. Etc.  In america we looked @ the poor and women who were "chronically sexual" as economic drags on society, much less evolved than our "betters."

2.) When the nazis contemplated their final solution they debated voluntary sterilization, forced sterilization, and finally settled on forced extermination.  This precipitated the greatest armed conflict in the history of mankind and german nazism was defeated.  In America, the eugenicists learned from this.  They instead chose voluntary sterilization and extermination, rebranded it with the prongs of choice, feminism, and family planning.

3.) Unfortunately, as with most things in the last century, America has been light years more effective.  The germans killed roughly 6 million people in 4 year.  In America we've killed over 60 million in 47 years.  Soon well have the great distinction of crossing the 65 million threshold, surpassing the entire death toll of ww2 making american Feminism the most lethal ideology in the history of mankind.  

But it's not forced u say,  if the state legalized rape and defended its practice and issued licenses to institutions to kidnap women and sell them as sex slaves that would be a government policy.  Likewise when the state violates it's own founding to cancel the humanity of an unborn child stripping its inalienable rights, allowing it to be killed for profit by state licensed physicians it is the very definition of tyranny and the greatest hypocrisy ever forced on this republic.

You're conflating the pro-choice movement that began in the mid 1960s in the US with the eugenics that came before and the cancel culture that came after.  These are three separate phenomena.  While you could certainly find a person that advocates for all three, you could just as easily find someone who only advocates for one or two of them.  Importantly, all three of these phenomena are working within a framework of non-violent electoral politics, so none of them can be a meaningful analogue to the brownshirts.

Abortion is nonviolent?  Ok.  Antifa is nonviolent...  ok.  

And again, ur either lying or dont understand linear progression. Pp was founded on eugenic theory and its founder also advocated for compulsory government control of all reproductive activity in the country (a code for babies).  The Don drapers of the world marketed voluntary extermination as pro CHOICE.  that choice is the mass stripping of human rights from a certain class of persons.  I already included the basic example.  If congress passes a law tomorrow legalizing rape centers and issues licenses to rape practitioners the fact that it was democratic or non violent at the time does not negate the fact that its sanctioning a crime against humanity.

---

You're conflating the pro-choice movement that began in the mid 1960s in the US with the eugenics that came before and the cancel culture that came after.  These are three separate phenomena.  While you could certainly find a person that advocates for all three, you could just as easily find someone who only advocates for one or two of them.  Importantly, all three of these phenomena are working within a framework of non-violent electoral politics, so none of them can be a meaningful analogue to the brownshirts.

Abortion is nonviolent?  Ok.  Antifa is nonviolent...  ok.  

And again, ur either lying or dont understand linear progression. Pp was founded on eugenic theory and its founder also advocated for compulsory government control of all reproductive activity in the country (a code for babies).  The Don drapers of the world marketed voluntary extermination as pro CHOICE.  that choice is the mass stripping of human rights from a certain class of persons.  I already included the basic example.  If congress passes a law tomorrow legalizing rape centers and issues licenses to rape practitioners the fact that it was democratic or non violent at the time does not negate the fact that its sanctioning a crime against humanity.

I oppose abortion. I don't think women have a right to kill a baby just because the baby happens to be in her body at the time.  Many disagree, but clearly, you and I agree about this.  
But I also don't think that the government deciding that women do have a right to kill their fetuses at any time for any reason is analogous to the brownshirts marching through neighborhoods and picking fights on election day to prevent the other parties from turning out.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Abortion is nonviolent?  Ok.  Antifa is nonviolent...  ok.  

And again, ur either lying or dont understand linear progression. Pp was founded on eugenic theory and its founder also advocated for compulsory government control of all reproductive activity in the country (a code for babies).  The Don drapers of the world marketed voluntary extermination as pro CHOICE.  that choice is the mass stripping of human rights from a certain class of persons.  I already included the basic example.  If congress passes a law tomorrow legalizing rape centers and issues licenses to rape practitioners the fact that it was democratic or non violent at the time does not negate the fact that its sanctioning a crime against humanity.

I oppose abortion. I don't think women have a right to kill a baby just because the baby happens to be in her body at the time.  Many disagree, but clearly, you and I agree about this.  
But I also don't think that the government deciding that women do have a right to kill their fetuses at any time for any reason is analogous to the brownshirts marching through neighborhoods and picking fights on election day to prevent the other parties from turning out.

But it's all a form of dehumanization, of making some less than others.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Abortion is nonviolent?  Ok.  Antifa is nonviolent...  ok.  

And again, ur either lying or dont understand linear progression. Pp was founded on eugenic theory and its founder also advocated for compulsory government control of all reproductive activity in the country (a code for babies).  The Don drapers of the world marketed voluntary extermination as pro CHOICE.  that choice is the mass stripping of human rights from a certain class of persons.  I already included the basic example.  If congress passes a law tomorrow legalizing rape centers and issues licenses to rape practitioners the fact that it was democratic or non violent at the time does not negate the fact that its sanctioning a crime against humanity.

I oppose abortion. I don't think women have a right to kill a baby just because the baby happens to be in her body at the time.  Many disagree, but clearly, you and I agree about this.  
But I also don't think that the government deciding that women do have a right to kill their fetuses at any time for any reason is analogous to the brownshirts marching through neighborhoods and picking fights on election day to prevent the other parties from turning out.

Thank u for not paying attention to the totality of my argument

---

I oppose abortion. I don't think women have a right to kill a baby just because the baby happens to be in her body at the time.  Many disagree, but clearly, you and I agree about this.  
But I also don't think that the government deciding that women do have a right to kill their fetuses at any time for any reason is analogous to the brownshirts marching through neighborhoods and picking fights on election day to prevent the other parties from turning out.

But it's all a form of dehumanization, of making some less than others.

And enshrining that difference in law/state policy.  

Going back to the concept of a political spectrum, to the right u have groups that feel the purpose of the state is to protect the rights of individuals.  

To the left you have people who want to use the state to specifically target, marginalize, and strip the rights from groups they dont like or are inconvenient.  

German national socialism targeted jews.  American socialists target unborn children and to a lesser degree white males.  

The great seductive power of the state is that once you have 50 plus 1 % you can then lend legitimacy to your anti-social, base, or even psychotic desires.  After all, its democratic.  But the concept of inalienable rights and limited government recognizes that just because a majority takes an evil position it doesnt make it any less evil.

---

My opinion on abortion is ironically the exact same as the Left...

I don't want that aborted fetus to instead grow up crappy and wind up stealing my car in 15 years.

---

My opinion on abortion is ironically the exact same as the Left...

I don't want that aborted fetus to instead grow up crappy and wind up stealing my car in 15 years.

At least your honest.

---

But it's all a form of dehumanization, of making some less than others.

And enshrining that difference in law/state policy.  

Going back to the concept of a political spectrum, to the right u have groups that feel the purpose of the state is to protect the rights of individuals.  

To the left you have people who want to use the state to specifically target, marginalize, and strip the rights from groups they dont like or are inconvenient.  

German national socialism targeted jews.  American socialists target unborn children and to a lesser degree white males.  

The great seductive power of the state is that once you have 50 plus 1 % you can then lend legitimacy to your anti-social, base, or even psychotic desires.  After all, its democratic.  But the concept of inalienable rights and limited government recognizes that just because a majority takes an evil position it doesnt make it any less evil.

That's a BS over-simplification of the political spectrum.

everyone agrees that the fundamental purpose of government is to organize a national defense.
The classical liberals added that the government should protect life liberty and property for everyone. They were reacting against slavery, serfdom, and the guild system.
After the classical liberals defeated all of those systems, you see the emergence of the progressives, who say that the government should do things that improve people's lives but that the private sector cannot or will not do. The progressives were never about taking rights away from anyone, or policing free speech. They just want more of your money, but it's not as if the classical liberals were going to let you keep it all anyway. That's why a two-axis political spectrum, where one axis is about money and the other access is about authority, becomes a lot more informative.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

And enshrining that difference in law/state policy.  

Going back to the concept of a political spectrum, to the right u have groups that feel the purpose of the state is to protect the rights of individuals.  

To the left you have people who want to use the state to specifically target, marginalize, and strip the rights from groups they dont like or are inconvenient.  

German national socialism targeted jews.  American socialists target unborn children and to a lesser degree white males.  

The great seductive power of the state is that once you have 50 plus 1 % you can then lend legitimacy to your anti-social, base, or even psychotic desires.  After all, its democratic.  But the concept of inalienable rights and limited government recognizes that just because a majority takes an evil position it doesnt make it any less evil.

That's a BS over-simplification of the political spectrum.

everyone agrees that the fundamental purpose of government is to organize a national defense.
The classical liberals added that the government should protect life liberty and property for everyone. They were reacting against slavery, serfdom, and the guild system.
After the classical liberals defeated all of those systems, you see the emergence of the progressives, who say that the government should do things that improve people's lives but that the private sector cannot or will not do. The progressives were never about taking rights away from anyone, or policing free speech. They just want more of your money, but it's not as if the classical liberals were going to let you keep it all anyway. That's why a two-axis political spectrum, where one axis is about money and the other access is about authority, becomes a lot more informative.

That's a childish denial of reality.  Progressivism is absolutely about stripping away the rights of groups you dont like to take their stuff.  

As you move to the left of anarchism and establish the state, it's TRUE that there is some form of compulsory taxation.  The question is to what end.  The constitutional republican/limited government proposition is that we erect the state to defend the inalienable rights of citizens through both domestic and foreign policy.  Progressivism postulates that freedom of the populace should be subjugated to the whims of the "disinterested experts" in the state that regulate every aspect of our lives.  The totality of the 20th century demonstrated the inherent flaws in this system.  

As for policing free speech, they dont even try to hide it anymore.  On college campuses across the country they are advocating that the first amendment is dangerous, you have armed thugs roaming the streets backed by the mainstream media, you have converted efforts from social media platforms to censor speech while claiming the legal protection of public platforms.  

Your denial of the realities of progressivism illustrates the consequence of their outright supremacy in education popular culture and news media.  

When Mussolini founded the first fascist government FDR sent his brain trust to study what he determined was the next iteration of progressivism "everything inside the state and nothing without it."  He implemented a lot of the basic platforms and laid the foundation for government expansion at a near exponential level.  

As for the political spectrum, the perpendicular axis model is based on the flawed assumption, which you share, that the left has something to do with libertarianism.  That's not true.  There is a difference between a dogmatic enforcement of counter culture as opposed to elevating individual freedom.  For example, as a libertarian it makes sense to say u can marry who you want.  That's wholly different to empowering the state to force a Baker or photographer to violate their religious belief system.  As a libertarian it makes sense that you believe in allowing anyone from any race creed or color participate in the economy.  It's another to enforce racial quotas from a centrally planned state to force equal outcomes or representation.  

The only meaningful way to group political ideologies is based on the role of the state and individual liberty.  That is a predictor of economic and foreign policy.

---

My opinion on abortion is ironically the exact same as the Left...

I don't want that aborted fetus to instead grow up crappy and wind up stealing my car in 15 years.

At least your honest.

That's what I love about the Right though, the honesty. The transparency. There are no lies of "love" like the left. The right thinks everyone, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or religion can succeed if they just work hard. The left thinks anyone not the right color needs help with everything.

I'm a drug using, socially liberal registered Republican.

I can be honest about why I want abortion - because people who consider abortion are usually garbage to begin with. That's the reason I'm pro-choice. I would never, ever want an abortion myself... but at the same time I also feel I don't have the right to tell a woman what she is allowed to do for the next 9 months.

All that is moot anyway because I've never had an unwanted pregnancy.... ya know... because I'm smart. Regardless... my point is... people who consider abortion are usually the worst of society anyway.. and no, it's not racist, I'm an elitist if anything. I don't like garbage people. White garbage, black garbage, hispanic garbage... there honestly doesn't seem to be much asian garbage except at international levels. People suck. ALL people.

Life sure can get complicated....

---

At least your honest.

That's what I love about the Right though, the honesty. The transparency. There are no lies of "love" like the left. The right thinks everyone, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or religion can succeed if they just work hard. The left thinks anyone not the right color needs help with everything.

I'm a drug using, socially liberal registered Republican.

I can be honest about why I want abortion - because people who consider abortion are usually garbage to begin with. That's the reason I'm pro-choice. I would never, ever want an abortion myself... but at the same time I also feel I don't have the right to tell a woman what she is allowed to do for the next 9 months.

All that is moot anyway because I've never had an unwanted pregnancy.... ya know... because I'm smart. Regardless... my point is... people who consider abortion are usually the worst of society anyway.. and no, it's not racist, I'm an elitist if anything. I don't like garbage people. White garbage, black garbage, hispanic garbage... there honestly doesn't seem to be much asian garbage except at international levels. People suck. ALL people.

Life sure can get complicated....

Hahaha wow...  I thought I was an elitist.  But from reading your post, I now realize, I can't hold a candle to you!  Jesus!

---

That's a BS over-simplification of the political spectrum.

everyone agrees that the fundamental purpose of government is to organize a national defense.
The classical liberals added that the government should protect life liberty and property for everyone. They were reacting against slavery, serfdom, and the guild system.
After the classical liberals defeated all of those systems, you see the emergence of the progressives, who say that the government should do things that improve people's lives but that the private sector cannot or will not do. The progressives were never about taking rights away from anyone, or policing free speech. They just want more of your money, but it's not as if the classical liberals were going to let you keep it all anyway. That's why a two-axis political spectrum, where one axis is about money and the other access is about authority, becomes a lot more informative.

That's a childish denial of reality.  Progressivism is absolutely about stripping away the rights of groups you dont like to take their stuff.  

As you move to the left of anarchism and establish the state, it's TRUE that there is some form of compulsory taxation.  The question is to what end.  The constitutional republican/limited government proposition is that we erect the state to defend the inalienable rights of citizens through both domestic and foreign policy.  Progressivism postulates that freedom of the populace should be subjugated to the whims of the "disinterested experts" in the state that regulate every aspect of our lives.  The totality of the 20th century demonstrated the inherent flaws in this system.  

As for policing free speech, they dont even try to hide it anymore.  On college campuses across the country they are advocating that the first amendment is dangerous, you have armed thugs roaming the streets backed by the mainstream media, you have converted efforts from social media platforms to censor speech while claiming the legal protection of public platforms.  

Your denial of the realities of progressivism illustrates the consequence of their outright supremacy in education popular culture and news media.  

When Mussolini founded the first fascist government FDR sent his brain trust to study what he determined was the next iteration of progressivism "everything inside the state and nothing without it."  He implemented a lot of the basic platforms and laid the foundation for government expansion at a near exponential level.  

As for the political spectrum, the perpendicular axis model is based on the flawed assumption, which you share, that the left has something to do with libertarianism.  That's not true.  There is a difference between a dogmatic enforcement of counter culture as opposed to elevating individual freedom.  For example, as a libertarian it makes sense to say u can marry who you want.  That's wholly different to empowering the state to force a Baker or photographer to violate their religious belief system.  As a libertarian it makes sense that you believe in allowing anyone from any race creed or color participate in the economy.  It's another to enforce racial quotas from a centrally planned state to force equal outcomes or representation.  

The only meaningful way to group political ideologies is based on the role of the state and individual liberty.  That is a predictor of economic and foreign policy.

You're conflating socialism and progressivism. Socialists are materialists and they view control of capital as the central question.  Progressives care more about the quality of life.  Socialists would accuse progressives of putting a band-aid on a corrupt and doomed system, and the progressives reply, it's not that bad, a bandaid is all it needs.
You're also not on firm ground bringing in a guy like Mussolini to the discussion because Italy didn't really pass through a classically liberal state. Germany did, briefly, but the 1919 treaty of Versailles and the abdication gutted everything that held them together and in order. The central question of the Weimars was how to deal with France and Belgium's demands for vengeance, not what role government should play in daily life.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Progressive is just a weasel word for totalitarian.
I always ask "progressives", when will you become conservative?
They always shriek back in horror - NEVER!
So then why change society to something not worth keeping?

---

Progressive is just a weasel word for totalitarian.
I always ask "progressives", when will you become conservative?
They always shriek back in horror - NEVER!
So then why change society to something not worth keeping?

They may not understand your question.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Progressive is just a weasel word for totalitarian.
I always ask "progressives", when will you become conservative?
They always shriek back in horror - NEVER!
So then why change society to something not worth keeping?

They may not understand your question.

They're progressives, no expects to them to.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato