Replies

A lot of people are going to misinterpret this gentleman's comments as a result of the - IMHO - imprecise use of the cant term "racism." Personally I prefer a more emotionally neutral term "tribalism." The visceral reaction to the employment of power by a member of a rival tribe is exactly what we see from Soros, Moore, and the other exemplars of emotion-based resentment - this is properly termed "bigotry." Clinton, a member of their own tribe, exercised a similar level of state power in the Balkans and these persons said not a word, which they most certainly would have been required to do were they guided by principle.

In fact, that bigotry was the mechanism that the Nazis and the Italian fascists and, for that matter, every xenophobic totalitarian employed in consolidating power by defining both internal and external non-tribal enemies. It is an explanation for the anti-Semitic nature of many of the Soviet bloc governments, who owed their very originations to Jewish and ex-Jewish intellectuals. It is strong, unreasoning, and has at its core a set of received truths that defy evidence. It captured the campuses in the 70s and the Democratic party shortly thereafter.

Bigotry is intensely seductive to the lazy and to those who are simply overwhelmed by the complexity and pace of contemporary events. And they vote with the tribe because it is too taxing to do otherwise and not to do so is to surrender control of events to the other tribe. American politics has always contained this element and it is perhaps a bit more prominent as a result of what has evolved into a two-party system. It is, fortunately, not a permanent feature, but while we're in it it's profoundly unpleasant.