January 15, 2008

The ominous logic of the Obama-Wright-Farrakhan fiasco

What’s worrisome about the publicity finally being directed toward Obama's spiritual advisor Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. for his long ties with Minister Louis Farrakhan is this:

Farrakhan is radioactive not because he hates whites in general (which he does), but because he hates Jews in particular (which he also does).

So, how can Obama wash off the taint of Farrakhanism-by-Association?

I bet that, as I write this, a lot of our neocon / neolib friends are busy thinking up ways for Obama to prove he’s not an anti-Semite ... such as by hiring them as advisors and letting them take over his foreign policy. (All those Giuliani advisors who aren't getting paid right now might well like another horse to ride at this point.)

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Farrakhan is radioactive not because he hates whites in general (which he does), but because he hates Jews (which he also does)."

Steve, you are absolutely right about this. No one in the media is willing to say this.

Bill said...

You've spent a lot of time in Chicago, right Steve? Why don't you let us know how these types kept Jesse Jackson in line?

Actually, I have an idea because I listened to an NPR show one time that described how, in the 1980s, Jesse Jackson went to a mikveh in Chicago and stood naked before the operators (some of the shows on NPR are really amazing), pledging his fealty in a sort of weird, pseudo-Masonic gesture. According to the program, they applauded his performance. This is all alien to me, so perhaps someone could fill me in on the significance of it.

My father, who is not a fool, told me there is, or was, a rivalry between NY and Chicago Jews. Clearly, Hillary is the candidate supported by (liberal) NY Jews, and Obama those from Chicago. So if Obama were to become President, he would appoint Jews from Chicago. I don't really know much about Chicago Jews, but I would guess that they support NAFTA due to commodities trading. Therefore, the Jewish effect on an Obama presidency would probably be toward an integration of the US and Mexican economies, and possibly a less intense involvement with Middle East affairs.

I think a lot of the anti-Semitism coming from Farrakhan and Wright is so much smoke, and serves only as a delimiter in urban racial politics. For me, it's a tough call between Obama and Hillary, because I don't have an interest in closer ties to either Israel or Mexico. But for us proles it's out of our hands either way, and the sooner we accept that fact the better we can deal with it and get on with our lives.

Chaim said...

""Farrakhan is radioactive not because he hates whites in general (which he does), but because he hates Jews (which he also does)."

So you guys would be cool with Farrakhan if he just hated whites? Somehow I doubt that.

Frankly, I also doubt you'll see many young lefty secular Jews bothered by Obama's association with Wright at all. They identify more closely with their liberalism than their Jewish background, and like many American Jews, they long to escape being singled out ethnically as Jews. Part of the attraction of Obama's rhetoric to them is it lets them imagine an America where no one dwells much on race or ethnicity.

TGGP said...

You kind of encouraged this, Steve, so you'll have yourself partially to blame. The establishment left perfected the art of this tactic of tarring a candidate and it shouldn't be surprising that it gives establishment left results even when applied to one of their own.

Ralph Phelan said...

Part of the attraction of Obama's rhetoric to them is it lets them imagine an America where no one dwells much on race or ethnicity.

But when you start paying attention to Obama's church the idea of him ushering in "an America where no one dwells much on race or ethnicity" suddenly looks much less plausible.

Wright doesn't just hurt Obama with Jews, he hurts him with all whites because Obama's church is part of the same-old same-old "civil rights" black victimology whinefest that whites are so sick of.

Unless Obama draws a clear ideological dividing line between himself and Wright on domestic issues, he stops being "Mr. Change" and is reduced to being "Sharpton with a nicer suit."

And so far all I know about Wright is what's been published in his church's magazine andin the NYT, which probably pulled some punches.

Once genuine oppo researchers start looking for "Rev. Wrights looniest and/or most offensive quote ever" don't you think they'll find a few gems that make "Farakhan is a great man" look kind of tame?

manindarkhat said...

Frankly, I also doubt you'll see many young lefty secular Jews bothered by Obama's association with Wright at all. They identify more closely with their liberalism than their Jewish background,

Or tell themselves they do. Self-deception is universal among humans, but it's stronger in some groups than others.

and like many American Jews, they long to escape being singled out ethnically as Jews.

In other words, "What's best for Jews" remains central to their politics.

Part of the attraction of Obama's rhetoric to them is it lets them imagine an America where no one dwells much on race or ethnicity.

But that doesn't mean race and ethnicity will cease to be crucially important. Communism and libertarianism are also Jewish attempts to create a world where "where no one dwells much on race or ethnicity".

Anonymous said...

Right. Because Jews control so much. The logic is that Hillary is going to do anything it takes to win.

And Jews are (as usual) totally irrelevant except for Steve's irrational obsession with them. Which does not reflect well on him.

Obama's real problem is with Latinos, specifically the large amounts of Mexican-Americans who want to exercise their political power. Look at who's endorsed Hillary: Tony Villaraigosa, Henry Cisneros, etc.

There's only room for one "minority" at the Affirmative Action goodies table and that won't be Blacks in the emerging Hillary-Latino coalition.

What does this have to do with Jews? As usual -- nothing.

Chaim said...

"Or tell themselves they do. Self-deception is universal among humans, but it's stronger in some groups than others."

Judging from the rest of your comment, it sounds like you might be a victim of self-deception.

"In other words, "What's best for Jews" remains central to their politics."

In other words, whatever any group of Jews does is wrong. If they act to preserve their ethnic and religious heritage, they are being ethnocentric and discriminatory; if they do the opposite and assimilate, they are just trying to advance "what's best for the Jews" by subtler means.