February 27, 2008

The Farrakhan Issue: It's always all about the Jews

In the candidate's debate last night, Tim Russert raised Louis Farrakhan's recent support for Sen. Obama, and even mentioned Obama's spiritual advisor's recent award to Farrakhan. But, of course, the entire fairly lengthy discussion was approached purely from the standpoint of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism rather than from his more general anti-whiteism (is that even a word?). There was nothing, for example, about the Nation of Islam dogma that evil Dr. Yacub on the Isle of Patmos genetically engineered Europeans to be a race of human wolves. These days, anti-Semitism is absolutely disqualifying, but anti-whitism (in fact, I don't even know how to spell the word, if it is a word) is not worth mentioning.

Obviously, Obama holds no particular animus against Jews. The problem will be that if he has to pander to organized Jewish lobbies to wash off the taint of Farrakhanism-by-Association, his foreign policy, which presently appears more sensible than McCain's by a long shot, could be up for grabs. 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.

For example, for Greg Cochran's benefit, here's a transcript from the New York Sun, "In Cleveland, Obama Speaks on Jewish Issues." After an earlier question from the audience at a Jewish gathering about Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. and Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Obama distances himself from Zbigniew Brzeziński, Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. While Brzeziński was born in Poland, like no doubt some in the audience, he was born to the wrong kind of parents in Poland (see "Borat" for details).
"There is a spectrum of views in terms of how the US and Israel should be interacting. It has evolved over time. It means that somebody like Brzezinski who, when he was national security advisor would be considered not outside of the mainstream in terms of his perspective on these issues, is now considered by many in the Jewish Community anathema. I know Brzezinski he's not one of my key advisors. I've had lunch with him once, I've exchanged emails with him maybe 3 times. He came to Iowa to introduce for a speech on Iraq. He and I agree that Iraq was an enormous strategic blunder and that input from him has been useful in assessing Iraq, as well as Pakistan, where actually, traditionally, if you will recall he was considered a hawk. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party was very suspicious of Brzezinski precisely because he was so tough on many of these issues. I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally."

In contrast to the anti-Semitism non-issue
, Obama's feelings about whites in general are very complex, as he explains at vast length in his autobiography. And they don't much fit in with the Oprahesque image he has been pushing on the campaign trail.

His denunciations of Farrakhan in public this week over Farrakhan's anti-Semitism differ sharply from his much more nuanced discussion of the anti-whiteism of Blacks Muslims and Farrakhan on pp. 195-204 of Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. On p. 200, Obama writes:
"If [black] nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence."

But, after a discussion of the failure of the Nation of Islam's attempts to sell black-only toothpaste and other consumer products, Obama rejects Farrakhanism as being unable to "create a strong and effective insularity."

In front of the Cleveland Jewish group, Obama addressed a question from the audience about the Farrakhan-Wright connection in greater detail

"It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. Most of them by the way are controversial directed at the African American Community and calling on them start reading books and turn off the TV set and engage in self help. And he is very active in prison ministries and so forth. It is also true that he comes out of the 60s he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African American experience. He was very active in the South Africa divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities During that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause - that was a source of tension. So there have been a couple of occasions where he made comments with relation, rooted in that. Not necessarily ones that I share. But that is the context within which he has made those comments.

"He does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behave of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements."

Obama is lying in this last sentence. The Wright family in 2007 put together an elaborate video tribute to Farrakhan that they presumably showed at their gala Hyatt Regency bash on 11/2/07 when they gave Farrakhan the newly concocted "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award" for "Lifetime Achievement."

The video praises Farrakhan for all sorts of things, but not for "his work on [behalf] of ex-offenders." Nor did they distance themselves from his "controversial statements." I gave Obama a break on this excuse of his back in January when he first responded, thinking he might not have known the truth, but he has since had plenty of time to review the copious materials the Wrights put together honoring Farrakhan, so now he is being deliberately misleading.

"And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to Jewish community and I said so. But I have never heard an anti-Semitic made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the Pastor. He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with. Including, on occasion directed at African Americans that maybe a possibility that's just - I am not suggesting that's definitive."

But Obama is, as always, highly vague about what exactly he disagrees with Wright about other than Wright publicly praising Farrakhan.

The implication is that this Farrakhan stuff is just Wright going senile. (Wright is all of 66 years old.) In reality, Wright also went with Farrakhan to Libya to visit Col. Muammar Gadaffi in 1984, at the height of Libyan-sponsored terrorism, four years before Obama chose Wright's church out of all the many he had come in contact with on the South Side of Chicago as a Saul Alinsky-style "community organizer." Wright, Obama's most important role model in the 1980s and 1990s, is simply a radical far outside the American mainstream. And that's one reason Obama carefully selected him when he needed to join a church to further his career.

So, to sum up, we see Obama working harder to distance himself from Zbigniew Brzeziński than from Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

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


Anonymous said...

Funny thing is I think Farrakhan is partly jewish. He was also a musician and can play the violin. In fact he kind of reminds me of Reinhard Heydrich, another musician who had suspected jewish ancestry.

Anonymous said...

"Obviously, Obama holds no particular animus against Jews" - I'm not sure how you can be sure of that. Black nationalism is so strongly anti-Jewish, it would hardly be surprising if he'd internalised some of those views. Really though I don't know how we can be sure of anything about Obama. He's deliberately spent his life maintaining himself as an unknown quantity.

Whiskey said...

Obama as a Black Nationalist very likely despise Jews. His pals Wright and Farrakhan sure do!

But his national security policy is idiotic and stupid (and also driven by Black Nationalism).

The LAST thing Obama wants is any threat to his massive Welfare State for various anti-White groups. So he'll cut defense to European levels. Euros can do that because Uncle Sam picks up the tab. The US can't -- but Obama wants his massive Welfare State.

And the last thing he wants is White Engineers and the companies employing them making ships, planes, missiles, missile defense, etc. That's the Budget End.

On Iraq he wants to pull out and get a big old defeat (just because) while saying he'll put people in Afghanistan (which he won't). Right when the new Pakistani Govt. is talking about cutting off logistics (most supply is trucked through Pakistan).

But then Obama's weakness is his Alinsky-model "hate America" and hatred for things ordinary white Americans love: Patriotism, the Flag, Defense Spending AKA White Engineer full employment act, and most of all WINS for American military.

That's his Alinsky-weakness. Can't connect with Joe Average White Guy.

His Anti-Semitism though can be an important signaling process to Joe Average White Guy. If he's viewed as anti-Semitic that brings on a host of other attributes described above. So it's useful for people who are not Jewish to judge him on that.

Anonymous said...

1/ The difference here is that while Farrakhan is anti-White in a very weird way (i.e 'Doctor Yakub' inventing whites in his lab) his anti-semitism is pretty similar to other anti-semites.

Also there hasn't been a huge slaughter of Whites by non-Whites for some time now I believe.

Anonymous said...

Amazing that the Zionist New Republic magazine would denounce Ron Paul for receiving a virtually anonymous donation from a fringe figure that has never been heard of, but when Farrakhan endorses Obama, it is simply a non-issue, not only for the people at TNR, but for the rest of the so-called “mainstream” media.

But it gets worse, as now the Tennessee Republican party has issued a statement questioning whether “Barack Hussein Obama” will defend the state of Israel. One would think that the policies regarding defending the United States and its Constitution would be the primary question to put to a candidate for the Presidency of the USA, but that would only be an issue if the citizens of the historic nation-state were permitted to defend their interests and thus the interests of their homeland. And that simply isn’t the case anymore.

Luke Lea said...

People on the right are starting to get really unhinged over Obama.

The notion that once elected he is suddenly going to "reveal his true self" is pretty far-fetched to say the least. Get a grip.

Anonymous said...

"letting them take over his foreign policy"
Steve, that sounds like Walt and Mearsheimer. But then if you like Obama's stated foreign policy you probably agree with them.

mnuez said...

Steve, I agree with you that's far too often "all about the Jews". I'm entirely against having a mini Abraham-Foxman stand at the mouth of every single gentile on Earth waiting to see what words or thoughts of his should be trumpeted through the media as disallowed and allegedly anti-semitic. I'm for free-thought and free speech and, as a Jew, I feel no more secure from murderous anti-semitism knowing that there are a thousand Abe Foxmans out there acting like asses and pissing everyone off in my name. Beyond this however I believe that not only does "the Jewish question" get babbled about too often but that it often does so at the expense of real issues that need discussing. On account of my general disgust with practically every single presidential candidate of the past quarter-century, I have no great fascination with Obama and I therefore can't comment as to whether I believe that investigating allegations of anti-whiteness among his colleagues is all too important. In line however with the complaint that you're making in this regard, I'd like to point to the example of Mel Gibson.

When the ugly piece of human filth known as "Mel Gibson" was arrested for drunk driving he spewed forth a great deal of drivel from his oral cavity. Some of it had to do with Jews and I do believe that to be newsworthy. What was far far more newsworthy however was his threat to the cop that he'd use all of his wealth to destroy the cop's life should he dare to arrest him. Mel's outburst could have brought to the fore the fact that rich people regularly get away with murder in this country while poor people regularly get fucked for crimes they didn't commit. Mel's belief that his wealth could buy him a few get-out-of-jail-free cards was no an illogical belief. His threat to the cop was not an irrational threat. The fact that money can buy influence, favors, excellent lawyers and excellent harassment of enemies is something that the media could and should (but of course never would) have focused on with regards to Mel's harangue. Rather, unfortunately, it became (yet again) "all about the Jews" - to the detriment of all, particularly the Jews (not because we're generally impoverished but rather on account of the enforced censorship regarding us [as well as with regards to blacks, gays, etc.] generally pissing people off - or so I imagine it does).


Anonymous said...

There already exists a word for "anti-whitism": leukophobia. However, it's mainly been used literally. There are poor souls who fear the color white in any form.

But it might be adaptable to the loathing of white folks. Leukanthrophobia, or perhaps leukotophobia, the modern Greek for "white person" being leukos.

Can any classicists be of help here?

Ron Guhname said...

"The notion that once elected he is suddenly going to "reveal his true self" is pretty far-fetched to say the least."

So you think he has shown us his real self? If so, please enlighten us because I can't make heads or tails of it.

Anonymous said...

But, of course, the entire fairly lengthy discussion was approached purely from the standpoint of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism rather than from his more general anti-whiteism...These days, anti-Semitism is absolutely disqualifying, but anti-whitism...is not worth mentioning.

None other than Karl Rove pounded Farrakhan's anti-white racism on Hannity & Colmes tonight 2.27.08. You can probably find the transcript on the foxnews web site.

Rove must be an iSteve reader because he specifically criticized the tunnel vision media emphasis on "anti-semitism" and shouted out that Farrakhan's message must be righteously denigrated as anti-white. Rove was very specific in his argument. I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

Incredible as it sounds, Rove has apparently woken up to the dangers posed by the monster he helped to validate. By the way, the monster is post-racial universalism for whites only. After all, Rove's children are going to have to live under the monster's shadow.

Just like yours, Steve.

Anonymous said...

As much as Obama tries to unify, there are a few people that try to divide. The Jewish community needs to stop witch hunts for anti-semites. Life for the Jewish Community in America has never been safer,they have never had more power, or more wealth. They dont qualify as disenfranchised minorties that need special protection anymore. Jews are simply to successful to bother hunting down every person who talks about them. In reality your better of being Jewish than a white protestant male statisticaly. They need to stop complaining its annoying.
This denouncing game is silly and it needs to stop. If anything it creates resentment toward Jewish influence and its use of fear and intimidation to silience people who critisize Israel.

Anonymous said...

Rove only wants to win elections, he couldn't care less about white group interests. If he did, he would use his influence to push for a pro-white immigration policy.

Anonymous said...

When the ugly piece of human filth known as "Mel Gibson" was arrested for drunk driving he spewed forth a great deal of drivel from his oral cavity.

How is Mel Gibson an "ugly piece of human filth", mnuez? I don't particularly care for his movies, but he seems to be a decent guy and good at what he's doing (i.e. making crowd-pleasing movies and money). He may have inherited some anti-Semitic beliefs from his father, but, really, if there's one person who can legitimately claim that there's a Jewish conspiracy against him, it's Mel Gibson.

Months before the release of "The Passion of the Christ", some (Jewish) people launched a world-wide campaign against Gibson and the film, claiming that it was anti-Semitic and even that it would instigate pogroms against Jews. Apparently many Hollywood bigwigs also vowed to never work with Gibson again because of the film.

Of course, all the vitriol against Gibson's film was baseless. Steve put it aptly: "[...] fifty million people have seen "The Passion" and, instead of anti-Semitic attacks, the most notable incidents have been repentant sinners confessing to previously unsolved crimes."

So I think it's understandable if a drunk Gibson blathers about Jewish conspiracies.

Anonymous said...

mnuez sed:

"When the ugly piece of human filth known as "Mel Gibson""

I was sorry to read you wrote that. Before I enjoyed your comments, but obviously this comes from a strong anti-Christian angle. Too bad.

Anonymous said...

That's some deep stuff, mnuez. Shovel it up on your way out.

Anonymous said...

"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."

I can't stand Glenn Beck, but I chanced upon him in a brief interview with David Frum, while channel surfing a few nights ago. Beck seemed utterly bemused by what appeared to be a somewhat dazed Frum, waxing lyrical about Obama's connection with Americans who are tired of being Americans, and want to be "citizens of the world." Beck finally just cut Frum off, but Frum certainly sounded as if he was angling for a job, if he isn't already in the bag.

Anonymous said...

Oh, you people are Hillary's surrogates!

Good for the Jews?

Hillary Clinton's surrogates are questioning Obama's commitment to U.S.-Israel relations.

By Michael Hirsh and Dan Ephron | NEWSWEEK
Mar 3, 2008 Issue

The comment seemed like a casual aside. Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, was touting the New York senator's strong support for Israel during a conference call in January with leaders of major American Jewish organizations. During the call, Lewis energetically contrasted Clinton's pro-Israel credentials with those of Barack Obama. To make her point, she said that Obama's "chief foreign-policy adviser" is Zbigniew Brzezinski, says one participant who would talk about the call only if he were not identified.

Brzezinski—the former national-security adviser to Jimmy Carter—is not Obama's "chief foreign-policy adviser." That is the job of a triumvirate who once worked for Bill Clinton: Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Greg Craig. But Brzezinski, who tells NEWSWEEK he has advised Obama "only on occasion," has a reputation that is close to toxic in the American Jewish community. "When Brzezinski's name appears on an advisory list, that's a red flag right away," says an influential American Jewish leader who did not want to sour relations with the Obama campaign. Many American Jews mistrust Brzezinski because he endorsed a 2006 article, later a book, called "The Israel Lobby," which blames many U.S. foreign-policy problems on Washington's ties to Israel.


In one case, Daphna Ziman, a longtime friend of Hillary Clinton's who has co-chaired several events for her, forwarded an e-mail from the Republican Jewish Coalition, a grass-roots GOP group, criticizing Obama for proposing a Muslim summit. In a Jan. 31 interview with Paris Match, Obama said he wanted "an honest discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows between Muslims and the West." Ziman, in her Feb. 2 e-mail, responded, "I am horrified at Mr. Obama's point of view." Her e-mail, sent to a group including Mike Medavoy, a Hollywood producer who supports Obama, contained a press release from RJC executive director Matt Brooks. "Nowhere in the Paris Match article does Senator Obama affirm Israel's right to exist," Brooks wrote. (Ziman says "the campaign had nothing to do with" her e-mail.)

In an e-mail sent Feb. 4—a day before Super Tuesday—Clinton finance official Annie Totah passed along a critical essay by Ed Lasky, a conservative blogger whose own anti-Obama e-mails have circulated in the U.S. Jewish community. Totah wrote: "Please read the attached important and very disturbing article on Barak Obama. Please vote wisely in the Primaries." (She didn't respond to a request for comment.)

The Obama-ites have counterattacked, rounding up endorsements from stalwarts in the Jewish community. Almost unanimously, American Jewish leaders say Obama's voting record and public pronouncements paint him squarely as an Israel supporter. "Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain and Governor Huckabee have demonstrated their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship," AIPAC president Howard Friedman wrote to NEWSWEEK. (AIPAC says all three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the U.S.-Israel relationship.) The few mainstream Jewish and Israeli figures who criticize Obama focus on his apparent willingness as president to talk to the Iranian regime. Danny Ayalon, Israel's former D.C. ambassador, says Iran would exploit Obama's gullibility and race ahead with a nuclear program. Hillary Clinton seems eager to remind voters of that argument.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.


Anonymous said...

to sum up, we see Obama working harder to distance himself from Zbigniew Brzeziński than from Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.

Just as the neocons would have it. The motherland - Israel - first, last, and always.

Anonymous said...

Rove must be an iSteve reader because he specifically criticized the tunnel vision media emphasis on "anti-semitism" and shouted out that Farrakhan's message must be righteously denigrated as anti-white. Rove was very specific in his argument. I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

That is astonishing. Keep in mind Rove is no doubt laying the groundwork for a Republican strategy; he probably knows the anti-Semitic angle is a dead end and wants to go with what works. If nothing else, this sounds like a clear signal that the Republicans plan to pick up their ****s at some point.

Ironic, considering I'm starting to think that Obama might be a better prospect for racially aware whites than McAmnesty.

Anonymous said...

It seems many WN's favour Obama over McCain. At least Jared Taylor does.