June 11, 2009

Speaking of Rev. Wright ...

From the Norfolk Daily News:
In an exclusive interview at the 95th annual Hampton University Ministers' Conference, Wright told the Daily Press that he has not spoken to his former church member since Obama became president, and he implied that the White House won't allow Obama to talk to him.

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me," Wright said. "I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office. ...

This, of course, has caused a bigger controversy than Wright writing in December 2007 about Italians' having "garlic-noses" and calling Jesus's Crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."

(To Wright, the Bible, and almost everything else, is just Chicago ethnic politics writ large.)

Wright goes on to say:
"They will not let him to talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. ... I said from the beginning: He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

Wright also said Obama should have sent a U.S. delegation to the World Conference on Racism held recently in Geneva, Switzerland, but that the president did not for fear of offending Jews and Israel. He specifically cited the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group.

"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said. ...

In the interview after a nighttime sermon Tuesday at the ministers conference, Wright offered that he has no regrets over the controversy that resulted in a severed relationship with Obama, a former member of the Chicago church of which Wright was the longtime pastor.

"Regret for what ... that the media went back five, seven, 10 years and spent $4,000 buying 20 years worth of sermons to hear what I've been preaching for 20 years?

"Regret for preaching like I've been preaching for 50 years? Absolutely none."

Wright said that when he went to the polls, he did not hold any grudge against Obama.

"Of course I voted for him — he's my son. I'm proud of him," Wright said. "I've got five biological kids. They all make mistakes and bad choices. I haven't stopped loving any of them.

"He made mistakes. He made bad choices. I've got kids who listen to their friends. He listened to those around him. I did not disown him."

According to their 2005-2007 tax returns, Senator and Mrs. Obama donated $53,770 to Rev. Wright's church after his election to the U.S. Senate.

From America's Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race and Inheritance:"

It’s sometimes argued in Obama’s defense that, while this kind of thing sounds crazy-left to white people, it’s actually merely on the left half of the mainstream among blacks. For example, Jodi Kantor wrote in the New York Times in 2007, “Mr. Wright‘s church, the 8,000-member Trinity United Church of Christ, is considered mainstream—Oprah Winfrey has attended services, and many members are prominent black professionals. But the church is also more Afrocentric and politically active than standard black congregations.”

Oprah, however, quit. As Allison Samuels reported in Newsweek:

[Oprah] Winfrey was a member of Trinity United from 1984 to 1986, and she continued to attend off and on into the early to the mid-1990s. But then she stopped. A major reason—but by no means the only reason—was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright‘s more incendiary sermons …


Unlike Obama, Oprah could quit because she’s black enough. Newsweek goes on:

Friends of Sen. Barack Obama, whose relationship with Wright has rocked his bid for the White House, insist that it would be unfair to compare Winfrey’s decision to leave Trinity United with his own decision to stay. “[His] reasons for attending Trinity were totally different,” said one campaign adviser, who declined to be named discussing the Illinois senator’s sentiments. “Early on, he was in search of his identity as an African-American and, more importantly, as an African-American man. Reverend Wright and other male members of the church were instrumental in helping him understand the black experience in America. Winfrey wasn’t going for that. She’s secure in her blackness, so that didn’t have a hold on her.”

Conversely, according to Obama’s campaign adviser’s logic, Obama is insecure in his blackness so he couldn’t quit.

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

94 comments:

Anonymous said...

Aw, with talk like that he's just angling for the next Supreme Court vacancy.

Anonymous said...

"Of course I voted for him — he's my son. I'm proud of him," Wright said. "I've got five biological kids. They all make mistakes and bad choices. I haven't stopped loving any of them.

"He made mistakes. He made bad choices. I've got kids who listen to their friends. He listened to those around him. I did not disown him.
"

Got to respect the attitude there.

Of course no conservative who came out fighting like that with regard to another conservative deemed to have transgressed against liberal values would be allowed to survive. Hence they dont tend to make speeches like that.

Dave R. said...

Tangentially, does Reverend Wright's use of the phrase "to call a spade a spade" mean I, a white man, can now use it in the original sense without being called a racist? Or is a single standard just crazy talk?

Darius Miles said...

Well, in fairness to the Rev., while "garlic-noses" is just downright stupid, describing the Crucifixion as "a public lynching Italian style" sounds pretty darn accurate to me. It's actually the most succinct, accurate description I've ever heard about the Crucifixion.

But I suppose, knowing the Rev., the use of "lynching" in his description has little or nothing to do with the fact that, well, it actually was a lynching, and everything to do with the fact that the Rev. probably believes that Jesus was black.

Shawn said...

When I see Rev. Wright I see an octoroon, or someone with even less Black ancestry. I wonder what his racial background is?

Perhaps he, like Obama, needs to prove his is Black enough?

Anonymous said...

This, of course, has caused a bigger controversy than Wright writing in December 2007 about Italians' having "garlic-noses" and calling Jesus's Crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."

Now why on earth would that be?

Hmm, maybe it has something to do with nobody promoting the extermination of the Italians unlike a certain other white ethnic group?

Anonymous said...

"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said."

I am not going to disagree with him there.

Mr. Anon said...

"This, of course, has caused a bigger controversy than Wright writing in December 2007 about Italians' having "garlic-noses" and calling Jesus's Crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."

"Anonymous said...

Now why on earth would that be?

Hmm, maybe it has something to do with nobody promoting the extermination of the Italians unlike a certain other white ethnic group?"

Jews do not have an exclusive monopoly on having been the victims of an intended genocide (and if you doubt that, ask a Tutsi, an Armenian, a Pole, a Gypsy, or a Ukrainian). The assumption by some jews that they do have such a monopoly is petulant, and the desire of some jews to constantly rub thier unfortunate history in everyones noses is getting tiresome.

It is of course possible that the "Reverend" Wright's recent utterances caused a big stir because of the not-inconsiderable influence of jews in the media and in the Obama white house. Do you not concede that this is at least possible?

Melykin said...

The Republicans should clean up their own side of the street before they start criticizing Obama's crazy ex-preacher. At least Wright doesn't preach that the earth is 6000 years old, that God sends hurricanes to punish gays, and that Armageddon and the Rapture are coming.

Anonymous said...

Steve, this is really important, following as it does on Max Blumenthals recent video "Feeling the hate in Jerusalem".

Is Obama going to turn on them in the same way Stalin did? If that happens it could lead to the long term demise of PC. It would take a bit of time, but eventually they might decide it's more loss than win.

They are of course not the only factor but are an important one.

Anonymous said...

The black-Jewish alliance is one of the odder ones in American politics.

Of course, back when the Democrats were the party of segregation in the South, they still cleaned up with blacks in the North.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, maybe it has something to do with nobody promoting the extermination of the Italians unlike a certain other white ethnic group?



Hmm, I'm not seeing the connection there. Wright said that Jews were controlling Obama. He did not promote their extermination.

Do you lie awake at night worrying that people are plotting to exterminate you? if so, you deserve the sleepness nights.

Anonymous said...

"...describing the Crucifixion as "a public lynching Italian style" sounds pretty darn accurate to me. It's actually the most succinct, accurate description I've ever heard about the Crucifixion."

Except that the Italians/Romans had little to do with the mob consensus that lead to it. Pontius Pilate and the other Roman officials where merely functionaries of the popular demand and cared more for order and less in conspiring against the Nazarene. Wright is wrong in assuming that it was an overriding imperialistic ethos that inflicted the Levant with so many ills, especially since Rome had been initially requested for the arbitration of embroiled Jewish politics. Why does no one call Wright out on his historical distortions?

Anonmyous said...

It is of course possible that the "Reverend" Wright's recent utterances caused a big stir because of the not-inconsiderable influence of jews in the media and in the Obama white house. Do you not concede that this is at least possible?

Of course, the Jews, like any wealthy group of people, have influence. And yes, they are also way overly sensitive to criticism (being the target of genocide within living memory will do that to any small, historically vulnerable group).

But, so what if they have influence?

The Catholic Church, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Oil Industry - among many others - all have substantial influence over American society as well.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the mess the West finds itself in, and a (small) portion of that blame can be pinned on particular Jews.

I just fail to see why the Jews are uniquely worthy of opprobrium.

Richard Hoste said...

Why are the only foreign people that American left wing blacks care about the Palestinians? It really is strange. Do they just see Jews as white and so take the side of their enemy?

Arabs don't like blacks, and don't feel guilty about it.

HBD Books

Darius Miles said...

"Except that the Italians/Romans had little to do with the mob consensus that lead to it. Pontius Pilate and the other Roman officials where merely functionaries of the popular demand and cared more for order and less in conspiring against the Nazarene."

That's exactly my point. It was a "lynching" in that it was precipitated by the mob consensus. It was done "Italian Style", as the Crucifixion was a normal Roman method of execution.

Fred said...

"Jews do not have an exclusive monopoly on having been the victims of an intended genocide (and if you doubt that, ask a Tutsi, an Armenian, a Pole, a Gypsy, or a Ukrainian)."

That's not what the original commenter said, is it? He said that Italians haven't been the target of genocide, which is true.

"Arabs don't like blacks, and don't feel guilty about it."

A key difference is the concept of manumission in the Arab/Muslim culture, which is one of that culture's nobler traditions. It means that the son of a black slave girl and an Arab prince can be a prince himself (as was the case with Saudi Arabia's former, long-time ambassador to the U.S.).

"It was a "lynching" in that it was precipitated by the mob consensus."

It was a state execution, preceded by some 'enhanced interrogation', as John Yoo would call it. A lynching is a killing by the mob itself.

Reg C├Žsar said...

Jews do not have an exclusive monopoly on having been the victims of an intended genocide (and if you doubt that, ask a Tutsi, an Armenian, a Pole, a Gypsy, or a Ukrainian). --Mr Anon.

You left out "an Amalekite".

Oh, wait... there aren't any left to ask. Never mind...

Anonymous said...

That's exactly my point. It was a "lynching" in that it was precipitated by the mob consensus. It was done "Italian Style", as the Crucifixion was a normal Roman method of execution.

Indeed, Darius, it was done 'Italian/Roman style' seeing that crucifixion was of Roman invention. One must be careful, though, not to get caught up in a minor truth and so miss discussing Wright's overarching fabrication--namely, that is was the imperialistic Roman administration that was responsible for the Crucifixion for which the 'garlic noses' are justly deserving of opprobrium and that those supposedly oppressed had no role to play.

Vernunft said...

All these comments and I don't recall a single one pointing out that the Romans were not Italians.

They were not time travelers, folks!

testing99 said...

Oh please. Israelis have been dying (literally) for a deal for ages. Problem is, the Palestinians won't take "yes" for an answer because their society would collapse.

The entire Palestinian enterprise is built on the goal of extermination of the Jews in Israel (and elsewhere) and then ... profit. It's like the Underwear Gnomes. Old Sharon left Gaza, with lots of goodies intact, because the Israelis were tired of policing it. He got constant rocket attacks in return.

As for the Reverend Wright, his inconvenience is that most Blacks are rabidly anti-Semitic, virulent racists, with loony conspiracy theories to explain away the near total collapse of Black Culture ... AFTER Segregation. Blacks don't like the obvious answers: Black women's preference, for thugs and killers, creating generations of men proficient in thuggery but not much else. So like Wright, they fall into conspiracy theories, the easy hatred of Anti-Semitism, and delusions, much like the Arabs.

Musharraff gave a speech a few years ago where he blamed Polygamy and factionalism for Muslim decline vs. everyone else, and called for an end to both.

It's quite likely that Obama shares Wright's beliefs, since an honest appraisal of the Black "SWOT" situation, strengths, weaknesses opportunities, threats would have suggested that Booker T. Washington was correct and W.E.B. Dubois wrong regarding Black advancement. Much easier to believe in all-powerful fantasy enemies than the hard work of confronting flaws in your own culture.

I'll end with the note that Ancestral Scotland under the Clans achieved nothing, but forty years after Culloden under the rule of law it was fair to speak of the Scottish Enlightenment. Factionalism, tribalism, conspiracy theories are not the way to lasting dominance and achievement.

ERM said...

All these comments and I don't recall a single one pointing out that the Romans were not Italians.

It's true. Little known historical fact that Julius Caesar was just a small town kid from the Mohawk Valley.

Anonymous said...

Something I recently realized. You know how the neocons especially and the "conservative" movement in general defend leftist ideas in conservative terms? Because of the leftward shift of the culture?

Something I've been thinking about is that this goes back way further. Think about this very thread. Jesus fomented a slave revolt. Christianity was the religion of the poor and oppressed. The victim was the hero. The rich and the Roman rulers were the bad guys.

Christianity, in other words, was the original leftism. Not a novel interpretation, I guess (Nietzsche caught on two centuries ago), but a significant one.

Seen in this light, the liberals who play 'gotcha' with conservatives by bringing up Christian passages that sound leftist are FAR more accurate than they realize.

OneSTDV said...

I believe blacks generally side with the Palestinians because it fits their world narrative. It's the universal story of the light, oppressive group keeping down the dark victims.

I imagine many of them see a parallel between American whites and blacks.

eh said...

$53,770

That's a lot of money, even spread out over three years (I assume). You don't donate that much money to a church unless you really like the place -- the people, what you hear there. And by that point in time, Obama had heard all he really needed to hear to know what Wright was all about.

bjdouble said...

OT OT OT OT OT

This is an object lesson in cluelessness.

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=16334

It boils down to, race is not real but it is a real "social kind." No discussion of biology at all.

Anonymous said...

By the standards of this blog I am a guilty white liberal but even I can't understand why blacks are so obsessed with their "blackness". Considering that causes many of them to choose live in dangerous neighborhoods, send their kids to substandard schools and attend churches like Wrights it is surely an extremely destructive attitude.

Anonymous said...

Arabs believe that they are racially superior. ESPECIALLY blacks.

See this article for an example. I don't understand for the life of me why blacks love Arabs

Anonymous said...

"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said."

Ethnic cleansing in Gaza?

They certainly have a big job.

Gaza has 36.93 births and 3.53 deaths per thousand residents per year.
That gives Gaza a growth rate of 3.35%.

Israel's growth rate is 1.67%.
Israel has 19.77 births and 5.41 deaths per thousand residents per year.

CIA fact book

A Nonce Lily said...

The Catholic Church, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Oil Industry - among many others - all have substantial influence over American society as well.

[. . .]

I just fail to see why the Jews are uniquely worthy of opprobrium.



Can the Catholic Church be criticized in the popular press and works of academic history? Can it be condemned in toto? Could you talk to a neighbor or a colleague about historical misdeeds of the Catholic Church in a way intended to incite strong dislike? Could you portray Catholics as a negative political factor in American life? Does the Catholic Church have enough pull to prevent books that it doesn't like from being published or even translated? Could the Church prevent movies it dislikes from being distributed or even financed? Could it blacklist certain actors? Can it suppress negative reporting of itself? Are American lawmakers flown out, once a year, to Rome on junket? Does virtually the entirety of Washington turn out to be hectored by CAPAC representatives about how we must continue our constant suicidal wars to regain the Papal States? Are they able to suppress all positive coverage of the Southern Italian resistance groups, referring only to the 'cycle of violence' instead? Are Catholic spies caught passing information to the Holy See regularly released, while their American counterparts are jailed for espionage? Does the executive branch connive with the military to cover up - for decades - the unprovoked attack on a US ship in international waters by Papal military forces? Are American executives constantly surrounded by massively disproportionate numbers of Catholic advisers constantly pushing for wars in areas that will benefit Catholic power by destroying rival states?

Of course I'll grant you the total Catholic dominion of American television. That's a no-brainer. I can't wait until we are no longer under the intolerable domination of the Decency League!

A Nonce Lily said...

(con't)

How about the Chamber of Commerce or the American Medical Association? Are they powerful enough to prevent any discussion or criticism of their behaviors? Do you face social, professional, or legal sanctions for taking them on? Is Gary Taubes going to jail for publishing "Good Calories, Bad Calories?

And of course, the Red Hats are quite touchy about extermination: you know exactly what they faced in the Spanish Civil War. Not to mention the Soviet Union, etc. Indeed, I think they even have some complaints about the KKK in the United States. This unhappy trail of persecution goes back to the horrors of the monster Elizabeth in the sixteenth century. And yet, though persecuted for thousands of years by the Romans, the English, the KKK, world Communism and more recently, by hate artists like Madonna and Andres Serrano, this plucky little ethnic group has survived, and, by some miracle, prospered! I think it is because they are the True Israel.

As for the Oil Industry, this one always makes me laugh. Big Oil - with its admittedly enormous resources - lobbied fervently and at length during the seventies for a sane foreign policy with the Middle East. For their trouble, they were forced to desist and to publish a full page NYT retraction/ apology ad. Now, what group would be powerful enough to bring Big Oil to heel? The Rotarians?

Nonetheless, we hear everyday about how Big Oil is responsible for the war in Iraq. But the people who are able to discipline Big Oil? Whispers about 'Vulcans' and 'neoconservatives' . . . although for a while, even the NYT claims that neoconservatives didn't exist. Perhaps they don't.

A Nonce Lily said...

(con't)

As for the Chamber of Commerce and the AMA, their control of our capital markets and foreign policy has long been common knowledge. Nobody will soon forget the alliances between the AMA and the Chamber of Commerce with the post-Yeltsin oligarchs, even if we can't read about it in the papers. And these same CoC and AMA people now control the Treasury department of the Obama administration. But again, speech is impossible. We live in conditions of political terror, and that is the reason for the special opprobrium the AMA, the CoC, Big Oil and the mackerel snappers all deserve: it is not enough that they distort our political processes at every level, beginning with the prevention of the free flow of information. It's their power to punish those who dissent and therefore to remove evidence of their own distortions and criminality from public knowledge and the historical records.

In Plato's Republic, he discusses what would be the effect on a man's morals if he had a ring of invisibility:

Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point.

[. . .]

If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.



In totally unrelated news, Big Oil, the Chamber of Commerce, the AMA and the Catholic Church continued today to suppress English language translations of Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together. Moreover, they use use their control of the media and consequent immunity from any criticism to hide their own policy of supressing critique.

So, to answer your question, yes: Big Oil, the Chamber of Commerce, the AMA and the Catholic Church are uniquely worthy of opprobrium.

But what awaits those brave enough to say something out loud about Exxon? Or the Food Pyramid? Or the Doctrine of Transubstantion?

The answer: friendlessness, unemployment, bankruptcy, internal exile, travel restrictions, and jail cells in Canada, England, Austria &c. That is the measure of Big Oil's true power, of the brutality of the AMA, of the ruthlessness of the Chamber of Commerce, and the totalitarian mindset of the Catholic Church.

It is only here on the internet, under assumed names, that we may dare mention the names of these groups. We are the dead, and the circle of sanity increases one by one.

Anonymous said...

I think that this is the first time I've ever seen anyone try to fasten the blood libel on the Italians, or blame them for things that the Romans did two thousand years ago. You see something new every day. And of course Blacks only care about the Palestinians because white leftists only care about the Palestinians. It's not like guys like Rev. Wright are smart enough to come up with their own ideology. If leftist whites were bellyaching about the plight of the Ainu or the Tamils or the Basques, so would he.

Anonymous said...

"All these comments and I don't recall a single one pointing out that the Romans were not Italians.

They were not time travelers, folks!"

This all falls into the larger message of Wright's ministry - that it's okay, even encouraged, to hold a grudge against the descendants of one group for something their ancestors did to your group's ancestors.

As another commenter noted, in Wright's church Jesus was black and definitely not a Jew.

Anonymous said...

Chicago-style of change!

Obama ousts AmeriCorps' IG who investigated friend

Stephen J. Gould back from the grave said...

Oh more boo-hooing about "anti-semitism", even while the corpses of Palestinians in Gaza are still warm.

Anonymous said...

Re: concentration camps

The British created the idea of concentration camps targeting non-combatants during the Second Boer War.

While most of the captured men were shipped out of SA, most of their women and children were kept in concentration camps where more than half of the children under 16yo died largely due to starvation and disease.

Anonymous said...

"The Catholic Church, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Oil Industry - among many others - all have substantial influence over American society as well.


I just fail to see why the Jews are uniquely worthy of opprobrium."

They're not.

BUT, the hypersensitivity, the hysteria, when criticized makes it difficult or impossible TO criticize them when the criticism IS legitimate.
So the Bernie Madoffs of the world have more freedom to carry out their shenanigans, knowing that if criticised, ADL and SPLC will shriek "ANTISEMITE" at anyone who tries to point out said shenanigans before they get carried too far. Ergo, naughty Jews can cause outsized damage.

Harry Baldwin said...

I kind of like the way Rev. Wright speaks. He's not mealy-mouthed. He says what he thinks, lets the chips fall where they may, and even calls a spade a spade! I wish we all spoke our minds so freely.

Just a guy said...

Rev. Wright is fully correct - Obama is surrounded by Jews in his administration and they block access to him as they see fit.

See: http://zsidozas.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/obamas-jewschange-we-cant-believe-in/

Anonymous said...

"...in Wright's church Jesus was black and definitely not a Jew.--


Did His mother ever find out?

Anonymous said...

"Early on, he was in search of his identity as an African-American and, more importantly, as an African-American man. Reverend Wright and other male members of the church were instrumental in helping him understand the black experience in America"

"He's a politician; I'm a pastor. He's got to do what politicians do."

Does he mean like the politicians that have run Detroit, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Washington DC, Gary, Newark ad nauseum into the ground? Oh, did I forget Burris, Stroger, Davis and Garrett in Chicago?

Obama may be the first black (having denied his white mother) President, but there have been plenty of black politicians who have developed their own unique systems of graft and corruption. ACORN anyone?

Wright thought he was going to be Obama's rabbai, but he could only give the O street cred. Then the O let Emil Jones (one of our black politicians in Illinois) think he was the rabbai, but after Jones had given the O credit for all the important legislation, the O moved on to Axelrod and Emmanuel. Now there are some rabbai's.

But of course they're not really rabbais. Anymore than any of the other strong men that the O has sucked up to in his pathetic life after he was left with no father by his corrupt Kenyan progenitor.

The O needs adulation. And only money can buy that. Soros isn't a rabbai. But he is a bank account.

Victoria said...

the desire of some jews to constantly rub thier unfortunate history in everyones noses is getting tiresome.


Getting tiresome? Lord, it's exhausting! And yet they continue to build their "Holocaust museums" in every state of the Union and to make sure that they have high media visibility almost 24/7. Getting tiresome?

This recent tragedy will be milked incessantly, as Abe Foxman and his myriad minions dig in for the long haul.

Victoria said...

Much easier to believe in all-powerful fantasy enemies than the hard work of confronting flaws in your own culture. ===

What you say about black ignorance cannot be disputed, however, that does not discount the wisdom of certain blacks who understood the Jews' hatred and resentment of the goy establishment. These blacks knew that Jews used the rift between gentiles and blacks to work at undermining gentile power. They understood why a cadre of Jews would concoct something like the NAACP, and dump millions of dollars into the laps of certain black elites.

Some blacks were not as ignorant as you think.

Victoria said...

Roman officials where merely functionaries of the popular demand and cared more for order and less in conspiring against the Nazarene.===

Oh, come now, your point is well taken, but the bottom line is that it was the ROMAN Empire, not the HEBREW Empire. The system belonged to the Romans, and Pilate did not have to succumb to the pressure of a rabid mob of zealots.

testing99 said...

Reverend Wright, the Holocaust Museum Shooter (paleo Brun), Farrakhan, Obama ... now what the heck unites all of them?

What could it be? Hmmm ...

Victoria said...

Are American lawmakers flown out, once a year, to Rome on junket? Does virtually the entirety of Washington turn out to be hectored by CAPAC representatives about how we must continue our constant suicidal wars to regain the Papal States? ===

Great points -- all of them. And, I might add another question: Can someone write a "revisionist" history of the Catholic Church and dispute the stories about Catholic persecution, without risk of being locked up in several countries around the world?

clem said...

Christianity, in other words, was the original leftism.

Yes, and in more ways than simply giving all you have to the poor, etc. From Elaine Pagels' book, The Origin of Satan:

"Celsus warns that the 'insanity' that impels Christians to 'refuse their religious obligations, and rush headlong to offend the emperor and governors,' actually may ruin the empire, eclipse the rule of law, and plunge the world into anarchy. Celsus demands that Christians do instead what all pious and patriotic citizens should, 'namely, help the emperor in his effort to provide for the common good, and cooperate with him in what is right, and fight for him, if it becomes necessary.'"

Anonymous said...

"Oh, come now, your point is well taken, but the bottom line is that it was the ROMAN Empire, not the HEBREW Empire. The system belonged to the Romans, and Pilate did not have to succumb to the pressure of a rabid mob of zealots."

Rome was deeply invested in Judean government and it was increasingly puppeteering the affairs of that state. The emperors, however, cannot be said to have ruled directly until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Pilate would not have lightly summoned the might of Rome since the Jews still had a measure of autonomy and would have sparked a revolt against the Caesars.

"It's not like guys like Rev. Wright are smart enough to come up with their own ideology. If leftist whites were bellyaching about the plight of the Ainu or the Tamils or the Basques, so would he."

Sailer mentioned in 'America's Half Blood Prince' that Wright has striven to be viewed as an intellectually serious person or at least as an intellectual in the conventional leftist mode. So I wonder if this is true or if Wright is actually vacuous.

clem said...

the totalitarian mindset of the Catholic Church....

You're actually onto something there, however inadvertently, because if you go down Robert Lifton's eight characteristics of any totalistic group, the Catholic Church meets at least seven of them:

* Milieu Control – The control of information and communication. ["Cardinals take an oath to the pope to safeguard the church from scandal--to prevent bad information from becoming public"]

* Mystical Manipulation – The manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated.

* Demand for Purity – The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. ["Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect."]

* Confession – Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. [Masturbation is still technically a "mortal sin"--i.e., one for which the penalty is eternal damnation, if not confessed before death--as are homosexuality and the use of contraception]

* Sacred Science – The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. ["The French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was so reviled by the Holy Office for his vision of a spirituality in harmony with human evolution that his major works, which have reached millions of readers, were suppressed in his lifetime. Karl Rahner, who argued that theology should develop in the spirit of a time, and Yves Congar, who emphasized the role of laypeople in an evolving church, were marginalized in the 1950s by Pius XII, who had no use for their views." "The Anti-Modernist Oath, (enacted by Pope Pius X in 1910 and) sworn to this day in modified form by Catholic ordinands ... required acceptance of all papal teaching, and acquiescence at all times to the meaning and sense of such teaching as dictated by the pope.... There was no possibility of any form of dissent, even interior. The conscience of the person taking the oath was forced to accept not only what Rome proposed, but even the sense in which Rome interpreted it. Not only was this contrary to the traditional Catholic understanding of the role of conscience, but it was a form of thought control that was unrivalled even under fascist and communist regimes."]

* Loading the Language – The group interprets or uses words and phrases [e.g., "Communion"] in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand.

* Doctrine over person – The member's personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group. [Consider exorcisms performed on people who simply need psychiatric help, or spiritual experiences which don't fit into the theology being regarded as "from the devil."]

* Dispensing of existence – The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. ["In 1997 (Pope John Paul II) excommunicated the Sri Lankan writer-priest Tissa Balasuriya for diluting Roman doctrinal orthodoxy: Balasuriya’s writing had cast doubts on the doctrines of original sin and the virginity of the Mother of God"]

For more details, see here.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said: "Wright is wrong in assuming that it was an overriding imperialistic ethos that inflicted the Levant with so many ills...."

Reminds me of one of the best moments from "Life of Brian": 'What have the Romans ever done for us?'

;-)

clem said...

Could the Church prevent movies it dislikes from being distributed or even financed?

Perhaps not today, but you only have to go back a few decades to find something very close to that happening with Monty Python's (privately financed) Life of Brian, against a loose coalition of Catholics, Jews, and miscellaneous (esp. Deep South/Fried) Christians:

"Protests against the film were organized based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial [1979] release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils--some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves.... As recently as 2008, the mayor of the Welsh town of Aberystwyth (Sue Jones-Davies, who played Judith Iscariot in the film) was still trying to remove the local council's long ban of the film."

"In New York, screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns ... while the film was banned outright in some American states. It was also banned for eight years in the Republic of Ireland and for a year in Norway."

Again, the Catholics were leading that charge--which is why the members of Python debated the Bishop of Southwark on the telly, and also specifically thanked the Vatican for all the free publicity they were getting from the Church.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonmyous said...

Of course, the Jews, like any wealthy group of people, have influence. And yes, they are also way overly sensitive to criticism (being the target of genocide within living memory will do that to any small, historically vulnerable group).

But, so what if they have influence?"

So what? They have influence - and a rather outsized influence at that (3% of the US population, 10% or more of the US Senate, for example). That's not surprising, given that they tend to be a capable and ambitious people. However, I think I am not being unreasonable in asking someone like Barbara Boxer why, for example, "over-representation" is a defacto sign of racism, and therefore a justification for the Affirmative Action policies she supports, when her own ethnic group is "over-represented" in the US Senate.

"The Catholic Church, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Oil Industry - among many others - all have substantial influence over American society as well."

Agreed. And I disagree plenty with the Catholic Church and the Chamber of Commerce.

"I just fail to see why the Jews are uniquely worthy of opprobrium."

They are not, but in our society it seems impossible to openly critize them for anything, or to note that there are certain fields where they wield an influence much greater than their mere numbers would suggest.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

"Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing (by) the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don't want Barack talking like that because that's anti-Israel," Wright said."

I am not going to disagree with him there."

Nonsense. If the Israelis were serious about ethnic cleansing they would have expelled the million plus arabs who live in Israel as Israeli citizens (and who thereby enjoy more liberty than arabs anywhere in the arab world).

Truth said...

"Reverend Wright, the Holocaust Museum Shooter (paleo Brun), Farrakhan, Obama ... now what the heck unites all of them?"

46 Chromosomes?

clem said...

Pilate did not have to succumb to the pressure of a rabid mob of zealots.

But, he did have to contend with the wishes of the Sanhedrin:

"Jesus was then put on trial by Jewish authorities to determine whether his guilt, in their eyes, justified handing him over to the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate with their request that the Roman Empire put Jesus to death on popular demand from the people."

And what grounds could Pilate possibly have had for refusing that request concerning a near-anonymous, itinerant, apocalyptic preacher? What could Pilate possibly have gained, politically, by sparing that life, against the wishes of the Jewish authorities?

Elaine Pagels:

"John ... leaves no doubt that the chief priests want Jesus killed. John depicts the priests as evasive and self-righteous when Pilate inquires about the charge: 'If this man were not a malefactor, we would not have brought him to you' (18:30)."

That is, of course, assuming that there's any historical validity to the whole Crucifixion story, which is by no means certain. :)

Anonymous said...

Reverend Wright, the Holocaust Museum Shooter (paleo Brun), Farrakhan, Obama ... now what the heck unites all of them?

What could it be? Hmmm ...
-- Testing.


Hey Testing, how about a list of names of the most destructive liars in US history for comparison?

Anonymous said...

A Nonce Lily:

That might very well be the best comment I have ever read on any blog. Congratulations, sir. That was the equivalent of an armor piercing round that went straight through about 10 plates worth of sophistry.

I love me some Jewish mathematicians. Jewish activists and writers, eh, not so much.

Activists who can verbally attack a society with impunity have the power. Verbal attacks stimulate voluntary actions, like the decision about whether to enlist or who to vote for or where to send money.

In this context, impunity comes from invisibility.

Every other group can be generalized about and bean counted. How many first Hispanic this's, first black that's, and first female whos have you heard about recently? But we never hear about the ethnicity of the nth member of the Federal Reserve.

Great one liner: "when a [blank] does something of little importance it must be celebrated. when a [blank] does something of incredible importance it must not be mentioned."

I trust you can fill in the blanks. For the first one, think "Cool Runnings".

Anonymous said...

December 2007 about Italians' having "garlic-noses" and calling Jesus's Crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."
^^^^^^^^^^^^

'Cause Jesus was black, right?

Anonymous said...

Has BHO picked a new church yet?

Anonymous said...

This all falls into the larger message of Wright's ministry - that it's okay, even encouraged, to hold a grudge against the descendants of one group for something their ancestors did to your group's ancestors.

That's an interesting topic. The assumption on the "right" is that collective guilt is wrong. But isn't this a huge moral hazard?

it was the ROMAN Empire, not the HEBREW Empire.

Power's hardly black and white. I mean, this is the American empire...

More to the point, Rome was soon to be fighting a rather nasty war against these helpless Hebrews...

Not from nowhere, the term "zealot."

~ Svigor

headache said...

Darius Miles,
As for lynching: I'm just going to make a rough guess and reckon that many more blacks and whites were lynched, South African-style, than blacks were lynched, US-style. Of course you'll never hear about that, ANYWHERE.

Let's! said...

This, of course, has caused a bigger controversy than Wright writing in December 2007 about Italians' having "garlic-noses" and calling Jesus's Crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."

When Steve wants to us to think "it is because of the Jews!" why doesn't he approach the situation logically and connect the dots between a statement by Wright, Jews in the media, and ensuing excessive coverage?

Steve was pretty good at nailing John Podhoretz on this type of thing, but that doesn't give him a free pass for life.

Instead, Steve often cuts corners with a nudge and a wink. He stops short of marshaling his facts, in order to manipulate his fans into filling in the blanks - That Which Steve Will Not State Directly.

But yes, by all means, the disparity in media coverage is a travesty. Wright's drive-by on Italians should have been every bit as newsworthy as what he said about some guy he's known for decades who's only the President of the United States. Only a borscht nose would disagree.

Shawn said...

"This, of course, has caused a bigger controversy than Wright writing in December 2007 about Italians' having "garlic-noses" and calling Jesus's Crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."

Yes, but perhaps because there is a greater potential for anti-Jewish violence, as we have seen recently. I have never heard of someone shooting up an Italian museum.

Anonymous said...

The anti semetic tone of the commentators here is getting real tiresome.

Anonymous said...

Since my point that Jews had far more power over their internal affairs than the Roman officials has been corroborated by Clem, how come others have not called Wright into account for his historical misrepresentations? Is it due to lack of historical knowledge in the media and the populace at large or are they indulging the reverend's pretensions?

Lucius Vorenus said...

Anonymous: It's not like guys like Rev. Wright are smart enough to come up with their own ideology.

This is a very important point.

I don't know whether my 4096 character post will make it through Komment Kontrol, but guys like Wright & Obama & Sotomayor are too stupid to come up with ideology [or propaganda or anything else] on their own - they get their marching orders from the brains of the operation.

anony-mouse said...

Since so many people here agree with Wright, shouldn't Steve provide the url to Wright's church, at least for his readers in the greater Chicago area?

Oh heck, I'll do it

www.trinitychicago.org

Anonymous said...

A Nonce Lily -- brilliant.

Anonymous said...

Plenty of you guys can learn things from the statements at Wright's website in regards to how he expects his people to treat each other and what they should do to lift themselves. If ya'll haven't noticed, your clock's been cleaned and you're starting again from square 1.

Anonymous said...

"Plenty of you guys can learn things from the statements at Wright's website in regards to how he expects his people to treat each other and what they should do to lift themselves."

Yes, to lift Rev. Wright into an opulent neighborhood, filled with the very people he is supposed to abhor, is to lift oneself. One small step for man...

Anonymous said...

A nonce lily - awesome stuff. I will be cutting and keeping that one.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, to lift Rev. Wright into an opulent neighborhood, filled with the very people he is supposed to abhor, is to lift oneself. One small step for man..."

You can be snarky, but you're missing the point.

Paranoid Bitchy Incessant Whiner said...

Okay, take two - is there any hope that a list like this can get published at iSteve - or is it just too incendiary?

I'm particularly interesting in getting that Psychological Warfare Team into the Google cache [and Axelrod's work with astroturfing has to fall into that category as well]...



1) David Axelrod, Teleprompter of the United States [TOTUS]

2) Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

3) Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

4) Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury

5) Larry Summers, Chief Economic Advisor

6) Paul Volcker, Economic Advisor without Portfolio

7) Peter Orszag, White House Budget Director

8) Steven Rattner, Car Czar [etc]

9) Ron Bloom, Deputy Car Czar

10) Matthew Feldman, Legal Counsel for Car Czar and J'accuse Terrorism Denunciator

[11) ??? not sure about the ethnicity of law-student-cum-automotive-super-genius-extraordinaire, Mr. Brian Deese]

12) Thomas Frieden, Centers for Disease Control

[13) ??? not sure about the ethnicity of Steven Galson, Acting Surgeon General]

14) Penny Pritzker, Campaign Finance Chair and Money-Laundress-in-Chief

15) David Geffen, Prominent Early Supporter [and probably involved in organized Psy-Ops]

16) Dan Ariely, PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TEAM

17) Richard Thaler, PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TEAM

18) Cass Sunstein, PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TEAM

19) Daniel Kahneman, PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE TEAM

20) Henry Paulson, Goldman-Sachs Mole

21) Unattributed Goldman-Sachs Moles Associated with Paulson

22) Stephen Friedman, Goldman-Sachs Mole

23) George Soros, Consigliere

24) Herb and Marion Sandler, subprime crypto-Bolsheviks and Consiglieres

25) David Leonhardt, Hitler Apologist

etc etc etc

Paranoid Bitchy Incessant Whiner said...

If my list can squeak through Komment Kontrol, then please add this name to it:

26) Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President, and Conspirator in the Obstruction of Justice

Anonymous said...

I guess it comes down to two options:

Either push multiculturalism and muscle the white working/middle classes out of the way using a campaign of misrepresentation and scare mongering. Or, disinvest from the "Diversity is Strength" project and redirect resources behind a light form of Red-State "Nationalism?"

Who can be relied upon to always support Israel but not grow into a larger problem in the US? Who will be a bigger threat to the Diaspora (who work to ensure American support for the Israel safe haven)?

What major systems require administration to truly control a Nation State? This is essentially the Diaspora's job to figure out, while Israel is to be used as a base of operations and as a safe haven.

At one point is the multi-cult "too risky?" Is blow-back even possible from "Tea Baggers."

Steve Sailer said...

"4) Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury

"6) Paul Volcker, Economic Advisor without Portfolio

"20) Henry Paulson, Goldman-Sachs Mole"


We've been through this before. All three of these guys were raised as Protestants.

ben tillman said...

Regardless of Geithner's personal status, there is no doubt that his wife is Jewish, which means that his children will be as well.

Jews Under the Bed said...

ben tillman said...

Regardless of Geithner's personal status, there is no doubt that his wife is Jewish, which means that his children will be as well
.

Regardless of Mussolini's personal status, there is no doubt that he had a Jewish mistress, which is highly relevant because, uh, er, uh, it means the Axis Powers were in fact under the direct control of the Jews, or Jewish women have group evolutionary strategies, or paranormal hypnotic powers, or, uhh...

Do us a favor, Ben, and get a friggin life.

Or a job.

Jews Under the Bed said...

Regardless of Geithner's personal status, there is no doubt that his wife is Jewish, which means that his children will be as well.

One last thing,

How the heck did you know Geithner's wife was Jewish?

Do you guys at Majority Rights spend your days Googling for white politicians who have Jewish wives?

Paranoid Bitchy Incessant Whiner said...

Geithner's father is Jewish.

Geithner's wife is Jewish.

And Geithner's children are being raised as Jews.

[Geithner's father-in-law has said that he believes that Geithner is atheist/agnostic.]

Lucius Vorenus said...

Steve Sailer: We've been through this before. All three of these guys were raised as Protestants.

Yeah, but speaking purely from the point of view of an outsider looking in - as far as I can tell - that doesn't seem to matter.

It seems to be more of a "blood is thicker than water" deal [no pun intended] when it comes to joining The Club.

Lucius Vorenus said...

26) Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President, and Conspirator in the Obstruction of Justice

Jews Under the Bed said...

And Geithner's children are being raised as Jews.

[Geithner's father-in-law has said that he believes that Geithner is atheist/agnostic.
]

I'll ask this again,

How the heck do the antisemites know so much about the private personal lives of people they suspect of being Jews?

Are you all following around suspected prominent "Jews" and their families in vans and watching them at night through night vision goggles like "Buffalo Bill" from Silence of the Lambs?

Filthy Vile Shegetz said...

Jews Under the Bed: How the heck do the antisemites know so much about the private personal lives of people they suspect of being Jews?

Gee whiz, I wonder?

Tzvee's Talmudic Blog: Is Timothy Geithner Jewish?
tzvee.blogspot.com

Is Timothy Geithner Jewish?
jewishblogging.com

CAROLE M. SONNENFELD WED TO T. F. GEITHNER
Published: June 9, 1985
nytimes.com

My experience is that all you have to do is shut up and listen.

Truth said...

Are you guys whining about how some other ethnic group has it better than you...again?

Jew Under the Bed said...

Gee whiz, I wonder?

You miss my point,

The fact that the antisemites are so obsessed with Jews that they would even care enough in the first place to look for information about whether Geithner (and basically everyone else in the US government) is married to a Jew, or hs children who are being raised Jewish, or if those children identify as Jews, indicates you have people way, way, way too much time on your hands.

Filthy Vile Shegetz said...

Jew Under the Bed: you [people have] way, way, way too much time on your hands

Actually, "we people" just sit here and read the newspapers and the journals and the books and "we people" keep seeing the same names repeated over and over and over again.

And then "we people" scratch our heads and say, "Huh?"

But it sounds like the world would be a better place if "we people" made less time in our busy lives for reading newspapers and magazines and books, and instead contented ourselves with watching Seinfeld reruns.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that the antisemites are so obsessed with Jews that they would even care enough in the first place to look for information about whether Geithner (and basically everyone else in the US government) is married to a Jew, or hs children who are being raised Jewish, or if those children identify as Jews, indicates you have people way, way, way too much time on your hands."

Maybe Jews could stop writing about that stuff. Then goys like Filthy Vile Shegetz wouldn't read it.

Anonymous said...

Too much time on our hands...

Just a click away to the Wikipedia page on Rahm Emanuel, takes no time at all. Read that and you've pretty well got the classic case study. They don't even try and hide it.

For instance Emanuel, a man with no training in banking, economics, accountancy or finance at age 39 after spending his adult life in politics becomes an investment banker, just like that!

In 1999, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office. Emanuel made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker.

Anonymous said...

In 1999, he became a managing director at the firm’s Chicago office. Emanuel made $16.2 million in his two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker.

Wow!

That's a pretty damning indictment of the Jews because - as we all know - the only corrupt politicians in the United States are Jews.

-smirk-

Paranoid Bitchy Incessant Whiner said...

27) Susan and Alan Solomont, Embezzlers and Conspirators in the Obstruction of Justice [cf #26, Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President]

Anonymous said...

Hello TO all www.blogger.com members,
I just wanted to introduce myself to all of you and say that I am extremely happy to be a new member here[url=http://whatweknowsh.info/].[/url] I have been enjoying the conversations here for some time and look forward to participating now[url=http://behindthescenesbr.info/].[/url][url=http://submityournewsng.info/forum].[/url]

Glad to be a part of the community[url=http://acsportsnews.info/bookmarks].[/url][url=http://motivationalquotesli.info/forum].[/url]

Anonymous said...

Maybe you may want to get a twitter icon to your website. Just bookmarked this url, however I had to complete this by hand. Just my 2 cents.