The View From 1776

Hillary Clinton, Racist Fellow-Traveler

Secretary of State Clinton’s praise of Margaret Sanger was an endorsement for the doctrine that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/25 at 09:39 PM
  1. No surprises here. Progressives are fascists. They just don't undestand what they really are.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/25  at  10:00 PM
  2. The eugenics movement became very popular among intellectuals and other radical leftists in the early decades of the twentieth century--even in America-- and Sanger a leading advocate. Many such members of America's intelligentsias still favor all sorts of social engineering, and of course, Hillary fits right in with that.

    Planned Parenthood, which receives billions of dollars of support from the U. S. Government, is run by a cadre of such sexual/social engineers who advocate abortion for just about everyone. Glenn Beck had a good feature on them tonight showing how they even urge 14 year old girls to abort their babies and return to their abusive 31 year old boyfriends, thus breaking the law and entering a conspiracy to look the other way at both rape and abusive relationships. The liberal mind is a scary thing!

    How can educated people believe in such horrors? Kurt Vonnegut addressed this question in his futuristic novel "Galapagos," wherein we learn that the human race has been wiped out simply because their brains got too big. Their thinking got so convoluted that they could no longer deal effectively with reality. Hillary could be a poster child for Vonnegut's fiction.

    Vonnegut can be humorous, but here he is deadly serious. "The big problem, again," he writes, "wasn't insanity, but that peoples' brains were much too big and untruthful to be practical." Thus with greater mental capacity comes greater capacity to twist meanings into falsehoods. Rhodes Scholars have been especially known to suffer from this disease of the intellect. They have a weakness for abstract ideologies, and evasive quibbling over semantics.

    My dictionary defines ideology as "theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature . . A body of doctrine, myth, symbol, etc., of a social movement. . .A cultural plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation." That last point is why intellectuals love ideologies--they can design and impose them from the top. One might ask, "What else are Yale graduates good for?" Does anyone know where Sanger went to school ?
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/25  at  10:34 PM
  3. "NO ONE IS SMARTER THAN THEIR CRITERIA." selah

    Choose criteria wisely.

    You either can't top it or can't get out from under it.

    One is God made and the other is man-made. Which is which?
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  04/26  at  12:17 AM
  4. ".....brains were much too big and untruthful to be practical.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  11:46 AM
  5. bill said: Scholars have been especially known to suffer from this disease of the intellect. They have a weakness for abstract ideologies, and evasive quibbling over semantics.

    He must be against the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because those documents were constructed through abstract ideologies and evasive quibbling and semantics. The Constitution was also constructed by men compromising and being pragmatic, something that doesn't seem to be understood or is shared on this site.

    The trouble with 'conservative' thinkers is that they think in narrow, simplistic term, thus overlooking and being ignorant of the complexity of political and social life. If we followed their rigged thinking it wouldn't be a very accommodating world. But I am comforted by the idea that conservatism is the handmaiden of liberalism.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  12:57 PM
  6. "The liberal mind is a scary thing! "

    The conservative mind is also scary, but more so. It devises things like Shira law, which abuses and denies human and minority rights. It believes in "the survival of the fittest', which is the other side of the eugenics coin. Politically the conservative mindset is far more hypocritical because its ideology wouldn't interfere in preventing such things like the Holocaust.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  01:10 PM
  7. Mr. Airth:

    With regard to your observation that, "The conservative mind is also scary, but more so. It devises things like Shira law," that's not what I understand to be true conservatism.

    British Whig conservatism as personified by Edmund Burke abhorred imposing anything upon people, as doing so would infringe their natural law political and social rights. Conservatives focus, or should do so, upon preserving / conserving what is good in the customs and political practices bequeathed to us by our forebears.

    Burke spoke of the "little platoons," the small, local units - family, church, local government, local businesses - which should be the units in which, by unforced trial-and-error, customs are slowly modified over the generations to conform to changes in economic conditions. Conservatism is a bottom-up paradigm in which all really useful and successful changes emanate from the little guy in the street, where the rubber meets the road, rather than from the ivory towers of university sociology departments.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  01:54 PM
  8. DA- The only narrow, simplistic thinking I see on this site is yours and the other guy's. Do you understand what classical liberalism is versus what it's said to be in the post progressive world?

    You consistently champion statism by calling it 'liberalism'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    A good place for a guy like you to start would be with the left/right poltical continuum absent the stalinist and progressive propagand which has distorted, deformed it over the last 80 years or so. It starts on the left, interestingly enough, with the anarchists and ends on the right with the totalitarians in all their forms.

    In between anarchy and totalitarianism you will find the natural rights and limited governmnet advocates such as those who wrote the declaration of independence and the Constitution as well as Adam Smith, John Locke, Montesquieu, Burke and others while on the far right it moves from left to right toward the 'democratic' socialists, fascists, national socialists, bolsheviks and absolutists of all kinds, from monarchists to dictatorships to oligarchy to plutocrarcy. You should notice that all of the far right (left to you) statist ideologies are influenced by and include all or some of the traits characteristic of monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy and plutocracy (as does modern liberalism as a derivative of progressivism) while they are all foreign to the natural rights paradigm which provides the only alternative to anarchy or totalitarianism.

    There is enough confusion regarding political philosophy and the nature of political economy without the old nonsense being constantly revisited vis a vis the stalinist propaganda resulting from the molotov-ribbentrop pact and subsequent German National Socialist invasion of Russia and it's effect on the progressive zeitgeist of the early to mid-20th century. The period in question being the bloodiest, most destructive era in human history by the way, and it's hallmark is statism in all of it's forms on the extreme right (left, to you) of the political continuum far removed from the natural rights assumptions charcateristic of the American founding documents as is intellectually possible.

    Hubris is the founding father of the institutionalization American progressivism's baseless yet fashionable assumption that the constitution had become old-fashioned, out of date or even unscientific realtive to the progressivism of his day. W Wilson belived as much and his arrogance or hubris is sickeningly absurd in relation to the experience of the 'enlightened' 20th century. 110-160 million people were murdered by their own governments during the period and those governmnets all had a couple of things in common: the pretense of 'science' and a self-serving acceptance Rousseau's theorizing about the 'General Will' which rationalized all of their violence toward their own people. The other commonality was their defining of themselves as 'leftist' or 'liberal' when they were nothing but garden variety totalitarians bent on destroying all who disagreed with their 'science' of race, class, central planning or economics. Nothing liberal or open about it although if power is the game their actions were clearly pragmatic and pragmatism seems to be your highest good. Political pragmatism, absent the natural rights assumptions regarding the nature of man and the nature of the state, is the definition of tyranny while the uninformed, romantic and naive left (right) seems to always be in it's service.

    You play a dangerous game with your fundamental misunderstanding of poltical philosophy and all of the propaganda which encourages that misunderstanding. The unlimited state is a disease, a beast which rules through fear and is always and everywhere dependent on the ignorance of it's subjects. Liberalism, in it's classical sense, is the antidote
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/26  at  02:50 PM
  9. "(Bill) must be against the Constitution and Declaration of Independence because those documents were constructed through abstract ideologies and evasive quibbling and semantics. The Constitution was also constructed by men compromising and being pragmatic, something that doesn
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/26  at  09:46 PM
  10. It seems to me that David Airth was close to the point in linking the conservative mind to rigidity and the tendency to pigeon hole everything as either black or white, good or bad.

    I shudder when I think how close to a dictatorship the country was under the conservative theory of the so-called "Unitary Presidency" of Bush/Cheney, where whatever the president did was considered, by definition, to be legal.

    Don't like somebody? Declare him an "illegal combatant" and lock him up with no legal recourse. You really don't like somebody? Have your CIA use "extraordinary rendition" to fly him out of the country to be tortured by the pros!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/27  at  10:57 PM
  11. Jay seems to have very selective antennae when it comes to civil rights violations- FDR and his two greatest Democratic liberals were the ones who locked up thousands of innocent American citizens during WWII, and it was Janet Reno who incinerated the Koresh compound and sent a Swat team into terroize a Cuban child.

    Such "injustices" have been a mark of many past administrations. The main difference has been that FDR and Reno perpetrated their astrocities against American citizens who were primarily blameless, while Bush's mistreatments were confined to suspected terrorists, most of whom were found armed and in combat situations, who were not American citizens, and where there was a preponderance of guilty evidence against them.
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/27  at  11:15 PM
  12. JJ, you are beginning to sound like a boob. Locking up citizens because of their 'race'. Killing them because of their religion. Are you intentionally ignorant or simply a rigid ideologist? Modern liberalism has become a form of insanity but you shouldn't worry, the advocates of God-given rights will protect you from the jack-booted statists. You're free to remain oblivious.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/27  at  11:31 PM
  13. Tom,

    Who said anything locking up people because of race or religion -- unless you mean that George Bush locked up people because they were Islamic.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/28  at  06:08 PM
  14. FDR invented the American concentration camp.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/29  at  08:39 PM
  15. Let's get back to the posting subject-- Hillary Clinton and Sanger and most leftist liberals believe in central planning, governmental edicts and in regulatory planning from above. This ideology results in human engineering, genetic manipulation, and attempts by the government to manipulate the behavior of its citizens.

    Now, all those actions reduce the freedom of the citizens. Which is exactly what liberals of today want because it allows them to impose their grand theories on how to make society better.

    The blind spot among such liberals is that they fail to realize that the citizens when left alone, unhiundewred by "supervision" and "direction" frpm above, have always been the engines of progress. Quite conversely, the programs designed from above by ideological "leaders" have always ended in failure.
    Posted by bill greene  on  04/29  at  08:59 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.