tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post3625273473541884407..comments2024-03-28T09:56:06.298-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: "The Dark History of Liberal Reform"Grimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-68846579662685987502016-01-26T10:22:39.971-05:002016-01-26T10:22:39.971-05:00National alliances aren't made to fight 1 stat...National alliances aren't made to fight 1 state out of 50.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-27175609309993848732016-01-26T08:42:10.624-05:002016-01-26T08:42:10.624-05:00Side-note: in the early 1900's, the Wisconsin...Side-note: in the early 1900's, the Wisconsin Republican Party went all-in on eugenics. That resulted in the Catholic/Democrat alliance which prevailed until the 1980's, with vestigial remains to this date. One will not be surprised to learn that a major 'eugenics' figure was a shrink (Rogers).Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-21837842528976497042016-01-25T15:56:47.486-05:002016-01-25T15:56:47.486-05:00Their hatred of the Bill of Rights does not seem t...Their hatred of the Bill of Rights does not seem to have diminished any over the last 101 years. <br /> ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-89914563441236893072016-01-25T11:24:37.153-05:002016-01-25T11:24:37.153-05:00right-wing paranoia
Heh, right wing paranoia. Tha...<b>right-wing paranoia</b><br /><br />Heh, right wing paranoia. That's like thinking Muslims have "good intentions" right. Germans have "good intentions" vis a vis Muslims, that's why they are allowing them in.<br /><br />The Progressive movement towards evil and slavery, they had "good intentions" too, you know. Anything else is "paranoia" or right wing Islamophobia.<br /><br />I think when people start loving evil and seeing it as progress, their claim to being "human" starts going away on a legitimate basis.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-75780619478167104142016-01-25T11:20:39.910-05:002016-01-25T11:20:39.910-05:00I mentioned that eugenics was present in early day...I mentioned that eugenics was present in early days for 1830 slave barons. Then an older generation fellow commenter, Oldflyer, said that Margaret Sanger wasn't even born back then, so eugenics could not have been there.<br /><br />I replied that Sanger didn't come up with the concept, she was born in an era where the concept had already taken hold in the collective consciousness.<br /><br />Breeding humans via Slavery 2.0 as livestock, tends to promote certain viewpoints due to that experience. It was perhaps more scientific than feudalistic breeding and mixing of bloodlines with social status, but on the other hand, it had certain degenerative ramifications decades afterwards too.<br /><br />The whole concept of no black - white pairings was due to a breeding lock, they were isolating the black "field slave" genes from the white "aristocrats of leisure and superiority". They weren't supposed to mix the "races", because one was deemed superior for citizen voting, the New Republic, and the other was deemed only fit to work for the Rulers.<br /><br />Part of the abolitionist wave against slavery 2.0, not slavery 1.0, was that some people must have figured out that Slavery 2.0 would eventually encompass the entirety of humanity. White migrants, women, anybody else that "was different" from the Ruling Class, genetically or superficially. Slavery 2.0 wasn't the plight of the poor Africans bred on the American continent. It was gong to be the problem of every person, white and woman, in existence.<br /><br />That tends to follow, since it was Islam itself that created the first rendition of Slavery 2.0 in the ancient world. It was never compatible with Western civilization to begin with. It was a contamination brought over via Islamic occupation and power.Ymar Sakarnoreply@blogger.com