I doubt this represents any change whatsoever on Hillary Clinton’s part. She has been a hard-core leftist from the time of her service with the Stalinist lawyer Saul Alinsky. This is simply a way to soften the language of Noel Ignatiev’s basic idea so it will be more palatable to the white soccer moms in the suburbs.

I agree with Carl that the statement probably does not represent a substantive change in Mrs. Clinton’s position and that of the Democratic Left. It’s the explicitness of what she’s saying—openly altering the very wording of King’s sacred text—that is new. In left-liberal politics, a radical change may be effected silently at first, while its promoters deny that any radical change is happening. Then, at a certain point, the left comes out and announces that the Revolution has indeed occurred. Something like that is happening here.

It is likely that Mrs. Clinton feels it is now politically possible to say what she has believed all along. As Larry says, this is supposed to mean compensatory priveliges forever.

The Beltway Right will be hard put to oppose this, due to their recent actions in the Lott affair.

In responding to Carl, Mr. Auster writes,

“In left-liberal politics, a radical change may be effected silently at first, while its promoters deny that any radical change is happening. Then, at a certain point, the left comes out and announces that the Revolution has indeed occurred. Something like that is happening [with this new change of language by Hillary Clinton].”

The English Fabian Socialists of the late 1800s and early 1900s (whose membership included George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb) explicity repudiated the Marx/Engels idea of violent class struggle and revolutionary imposition of “socialism” by overthrow of societal institutions. Instead, they favored a policy of gradual take-over of existing societal institutions by incrementalism — by working hard to have their ideas “permeate” society slowly, transforming it bit by bit into socialism, so that before people knew what was happening, voilà, socialism was installed and it was too late for any opposition.

The Fabian Society took its name from Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus who, lacking sufficient strength to confront Hannibal directly, pursued a strategy of harrassing the Carthaginian army with ambushes, hit-and-run, cunning delays, cleverly forcing the enemy to undertake exhausting marches, hitting his supply columns, all while staying highly mobile and cautiously avoiding direct battles which might be decisive. Thus was Fabius Maximus able gradually to wear down Hannibal’s forces though he commanded an army inferior in strength.

It was from a comment by Richard Poe on his web-site that I first learned about the way in which the modern left still employs a Fabian strategy in its struggle to overthrow society as we know it, wherever it hasn’t the force to pull off a direct confrontation. When they must, they fall back on exactly the same stealth-incrementalism which Mr. Auster alludes to.

The left may change tactics when they have to … but they never sleep, or slacken their diabolical toil. Ever.

True, the left pursues a so-called Fabian policy, but it occurs to me that that is really a misuse of the name of the great Roman general. After all, he was not seeking to revolutionize his society by stealth as the socialists do; he was seeking to preserve his army from destruction by avoiding a direct battle with a superior foe, thus keeping his army, and his country, in existence.

I wonder if Mrs. Clinton would care to define what “character” traits are defined by one’s race? Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, greed, cruelty, kindness are all the content of one’s character. Which of these are intrinsic to blacks, which to whites? That race is a part of character is ridiculous. It’s just another Liberal attempt to redefine an argument that you are losing. If you can’t accept the fact that Rev. King said character was more important than race, then you just redefine character to mean race. Voila!

Obviously, what Sen. Clinton meant was that the experiences of ‘race’ can influence the development of character. For example, the ‘race realists’ i.e., racists, at this site have been influenced by being white. Few of them could maintain their hostility to nonwhites but for their ‘race.’ Said hostility has become part of your characters.

Many thanks to Gozo for confirming, from the left, my own interpretation (which some readers may have thought strained) of what Mrs. Clinton meant when she said that race is “a part of our character”: that anti-black racism is an intrinsic part of whites’ character, just as the victimhood resulting from that racism is a intrinsic part of blacks’ character. From which it follows that the punishment of whites and the compensatory privileging of blacks must continue indefinitely.

“For example, the ‘race realists’ i.e., racists, at this site have been influenced by being white. Few of them could maintain their hostility to nonwhites but for their ‘race.’ Said hostility has become part of your characters.” — Gozo

Gozo, I am a race realist and I harbor no hostility toward non-whites. No race realist whom I respect does.

I reject the term “racist” to describe what I believe. Furthermore, I suspect the term racist was originally a Marxist-inspired propaganda term devised, along with others like “patriarchy” (which wasn’t introduced to the wide world until the 70s but which David Horowitz says was common in Marxist households as far back as the 30s), to further the aim of tearing down traditional society, despite being intrinsically meaningless though extremely clever and effective propagandistic terms (no one — NO ONE — understands propaganda like the left).

I would not want for myself to live, together with my wife and children, in a predominantly Negro neighborhood, but that is not hostility toward non-whites. It’s a preference based on a variety of perfectly legitimate — and not in the least “hostile” — factors having simply to do with the particular quality of life I want for myself and my family … a preference, moreover, which is my business — and is none of the government’s or your business, Gozo.

If I prefer coffee ice-cream to vanilla, must it be that I harbor hostility toward vanilla? I once learned in a discussion with a Chinese guy from New York City’s Chinatown that there were few Chinese there who’d have prefered to live in a predominantly white neighborhood. (That was over twenty years ago, but I have no doubt the same is true today.) It’s funny, but he said that without the slightest hint of hostility toward whites … and, unlike you and your ilk, I didn’t take it to imply any.

Learn to keep your nose out of other people’s business, Gozo, and stick it instead where it belongs, which is back in your own business, you espèce de busibody. Perhaps a good place to start minding your own business would be to take an honest look at the disgraceful left-wing-led social disruptions which over the past thirty-five years or so have utterly debased all quality of life in Negro inner-city neighborhoods in this country, making them unlivable for anything but animals.

As for race realists’ willingness to face the fact that ability to score well on certain intelligence tests seems to be partly inborn and to vary among races, that reflects honesty and respect for truth rather than hostility of any sort.

As for race realists’ skepticism in regard to the rightness of deliberately submerging the traditional ethno-cultural mix in this country and in European countries with unprecedented levels of totally incompatible immigration, that’s also not based on hostility. White Christian society here and in Europe has a right to exist, and to resist being erased.

Dan Seligman said, something like a decade ago in “National Review,” that no ethnic or cultural group was morally obliged to commit ethnic or cultural suicide merely in order to prove it wasn’t racist.

I assume you disagree with that, Gozo.