the "political ethnic cleansing" thread made me think of this RW columnist

[Enrique]

John Derbyshire in the National Review fantasizing about eliminating the threat of Chelsea Clinton.

(this also relates to the thread about how much Obama is hated, and it can only be because he's black. I say, you call what Obama's getting hatred?).

http://old.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

(...)

At this point I had better make a confession. It's a bad one, I know it. It is low, contemptible and — yes! — mean-spirited. It may very well place me beyond the pale of civilized society. I don't care. Truth will out, I will be heard. Brace yourself: I hate Chelsea Clinton.


(...)

But this is all rationalization. More than anything, I admit, I hate Chelsea because she is a Clinton. Not just genetically a Clinton, but in spirit and habit and manner. The evidence for this is now, I think, sufficient to indict.

(...)

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished "to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — "let God sort 'em out".)


We don't, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn't over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a "friend of the family" (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. "She's been bred for it," avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taverner]

5. Huh? He's not the one threatening to kill Chelsea Clinton...

It's a National Review article he/she is showing

[Ilsa]

2. Derbyshire is an ugly barely-human being. But I wouldn't kill his children.

I suspect they won't want to be anything like him unless there's money in it, then who knows how they'll turn out? But I wouldn't declare them "guilty" or a threat.

[lunasun]

3. pleeeeeeez your counter point not accepted

[Taverner]

6. What's the original article?

[treestar]

4. what a sicko

:puke: