WEBCommentary Contributor

Author: Nicholas Stix
Date:  March 21, 2008

Topic category:  Other/General

Obama: Saint or Nihilist? The Politician, the Preacher, and the Grandmother

Writing on Barack Obama Wednesday at his blog, Blithe Spirit, my Oak Park, IL journalist friend, Jim Bowman, raises “The Grandmother Issue.”

First, he quotes the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund:

Mr. Obama’s campaign has made clear that his 84-year old grandmother, who has asked to be left alone, should be considered off-limits to political reporters. But yesterday, it was Mr. Obama who didn’t leave her alone when he used her for one of the central themes of his speech.

(This is still more affimative action, whereby white critics are handcuffed and gagged, while Obama may strike and speak with impunity.)

Bowman:

O. said he can’t disown Rev. Wright, who spoke from a pulpit to a crowded church that sold CD’s with his sermons recorded, any more than his grandmother, who raised him and along the way made ‘stereotypical’ remarks in private that made him "cringe."

The problem is, Obama has his morals bass-ackwards. His apparent suggestion is that the preacher and the grandmother are morally equivalent, but his real story, as I see it, is that the black preacher is morally superior to the white grandmother who, for much of his childhood loved and raised and fed him, and paid for the roof over his head, after his black father deserted him and while his Marxist mother was off going native for her anthropology research.

Obama doesn’t see anything racist in his preacher—he apologizes if you take offense at what the preacher has said, and has denounced each of the Rev. Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright’s racist statements as it has been exposed, but has certainly lied in claiming to have never heard Wright make those utterances, and his statement in his Philadelphia speech that “Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity …” is as phony as his follow-up statement,

Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

Those aren’t mere “snippets,” they are the essence of Jeremiah Wright. And no “caricatures” of Wright are necessary; he does the job just fine, on his own.

The preacher, who is light, bright, and damned near white, has been speaking that way for a generation, and if anything, Obama chose Wright as his preacher in a very careful, political calculation, not in spite of his racism, but because of it, just as he chose to become a “Christian” in an equally careful, political calculation.

Whatever his momentary talking point, Obama sees nothing racist in his preacher, because his own racist worldview defines it as impossible to call black hatred of whites “racism,” while defining whites as “racist.” If the foregoing sounds like sophistry, it is because it is sophistry, the sophistry of black supremacy and of white communist “anti-racism.”

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me.... He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

But this means both that Wright is equally good and evil, and that he is as embraceable for the one as for the other. That sounds like Hegel or Marx (or Heraclitus. who influenced them), but not Christianity.

It's moral nihilism. Either Obama is denying the difference between right and wrong, or he's playing messiah. But what sort of messiah would be concerned with redeeming only one race of men, while disowning the others? And even that's just a role; Barack Obama is a cold, calculating politician.

I grew up surrounded by cut-throats, most of them white, and have no problem, whatsoever, disowning them. I disowned them when I chose to forswear crime and leave my neighborhood.

“I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

“These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”

Note too that Obama is placing Wright, his grandmother, and the entire “black community” (which played no role whatsoever in raising and nurturing him, but not the white community, which he has disowned) on an even plane. That means that any black cut-throat is as important to him as his white grandmother--more important, I believe. Obama and his media mouthpieces will doubtless say I am being unfair to him. No, I am simply taking him at his word of the moment. I don’t give affirmative action passes for rhetorical bombast.

For the black supremacist, for the white “anti-racist,” the preacher’s very hatred of whites means he is not racist, while Obama sees racism in the grandmother who raised and supported him. The grandmother’s specific sin of racism obtains in having once refused to take the bus to work, because she was being racially harassed and shaken down at the bus stop by a vicious black panhandler. To treat the grandmother as a racist is par for the course for black and white racists (in this case, the self-proclaimed “anti-racists”), who routinely condemn as "racist" whites who complain about black racism.

As Steve Sailer wrote, in Obama’s Philadelphia speech, he “slander[ed] his own living grandmother for his political advantage,” describing her as “a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.” Sailer corrects the record:

Well, no, according to Obama’s 1995 book, it is not at all true that she “once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street.” Instead, she once confessed her fear of one aggressive black beggar who didn’t pass by her but instead confronted her, demanded money, and then gave her — an intelligent, level-headed woman who had worked her way up to a mid-level corporate management position — good reason to believe he would have violently mugged her if her bus hadn’t pulled up.

The preacher, on the other hand, is a black supremacist, whose bottomless hatred of whites is not based on any particular acts of racism by specific whites. (Annie Coulter came up with the best line regarding Obama’s speech: “Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race.”)

The preacher, Wright, is a follower of soulless “theologian” James H. Cone, the father of “black liberation” theology. (The soulless remark is not gratuitous; just try reading the tin-eared Cone’s er, thoughts, on black music, The Spirituals and the Blues.) In combining Marxism, Islam, and black supremacy, Cone reached the Holy Grail of Hate. (I’m not sure why he felt the need to use Marxism; perhaps it was to gain the support of white Marxist academics and publishers.) But there is nothing Christian in Cone’s thought. He doesn’t believe in Jesus as the Christ; he believes in Blackness. Or rather, his primary belief is in the evil of whiteness; any love he has for blackness is secondary to his hatred, whence “derives” too his hatred of America. (That America and whites have been so good to Wright and Cone is to their minds all the more reason to hate both.) And what Cone and Wright believe, the Obamas also believe. Otherwise, Obama would not have joined Wright’s church 20 years ago, the couple would not have had Wright marry them and baptize their children, they would not have remained there, and would not have vastly increased their contributions to the church, from $400 in 1998, to $5,000 in 2005, to $22,500 in 2006, the only years that the Chicago Tribune was able to get information on for a 2007 story (a tip o’ the hat to Steve Sailer).

Since I nailed Obama’s racism, radical leftism, and phony Christianity three-and-a-half years ago, none of the recent “revelations” about him are news to me. And since the socialist MSM have been Obamazombies since 2004 (and even “conservative” David Brooks has just gotten on the bus!), instead of finding yet more dissimulation in his most recent speech (as in his eloquent but dishonest 2004 Democratic Convention speech), they instead found ever more proof of his racial holiness.

Nicholas Stix
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored


Biography - Nicholas Stix

Award-winning, New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix founded A Different Drummer magazine (1989-93). Stix has written for Die Suedwest Presse, New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Middle American News, Toogood Reports, Insight, Chronicles, the American Enterprise, Campus Reports, VDARE, the Weekly Standard, Front Page Magazine, Ideas on Liberty, National Review Online and the Illinois Leader. His column also appears at Men's News Daily, MichNews, Intellectual Conservative, Enter Stage Right and OpinioNet. Stix has studied at colleges and universities on two continents, and earned a couple of sheepskins, but he asks that the reader not hold that against him. His day jobs have included washing pots, building Daimler-Benzes on the assembly-line, tackling shoplifters and teaching college, but his favorite job was changing his son's diapers.


Copyright © 2008 by Nicholas Stix
All Rights Reserved.


© 2004-2008 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved