Obama’s incredible denial

(Also, be sure not to miss the VFR thread, “Anti-Obamania!”)

A former pastor explains from his own experience how unbelievable it is for Obama to say after 20 years that he doesn’t agree with his own pastor’s preaching.

Update: A strong editorial on Obama and Wright in Investors Business Daily gives the full flavor of Wright’s Farakhan-like diatribes against evil white America. And we’re supposed to believe that Obama never heard these things? Over a period of twenty years? His denial makes him look like one of the biggest liars ever, and also like one of the biggest fools ever. It would be like St. Peter saying, “Gosh, I never heard Jesus say anything about his father in heaven. I thought he was taking us on nature walks.”

This exposure of Obama is a very good thing, because it reveals to whites the attitudes and beliefs of a major part of black America. With Obama, whites thought they were getting Sidney Poitier, but it turns out they’re getting the OJ Simpson verdict—the raw reality of American-hating black America which is always there, but which whites normally refuse to see because it would upset their reverie of racial equality and comity.

Even more, the fact that it is the nicest, least racial black man, even the race-transcending messiah himself, who has been uncovered as a life-long follower of a white-hating, Farakhan-like pastor, will shock whites out of their dream of racial sameness and into the reality of racial differences. But, as I see it, this is not just about stopping Obama for the Democratic nomination, and it’s also not about helping McCain. If, notwithstanding the current exposure of him, Obama is nominated and elected, that will not be bad, but good. Four years of Obama in the White House would be like four years of blacks dancing in the street over the OJ Simpson verdict. The white awakening would be irreversible. And if whites awoke and began to resist permanently the liberal lies about race, the lie that the races are the same, the lie that any race difference is whites’ fault for which they must forever atone, it could mean nothing less than the salvation of America.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Obama in the White House, as damaging as it might be, means life for conservatism, and thus life for America, or at least the chance of life for America. McCain in the White House means death for conservatism, and thus death for America, or at least a condition approaching closer and closer to death.

- end of initial entry -

Adela Gereth writes:

The pastor at The American Thinker writes:

“When intelligent people are serious about their faith, they pick their church home very intentionally and with considerable forethought. When they stay, they do so intentionally, and with commitment. If they don’t approve of what they hear from the pulpit, or what they don’t hear from the pulpit, they leave, as well they should. There are exceptions, but those are relatively few.”

My own family’s experience bears this out. My parents adored their minister. When he died, they didn’t take to his replacement and left the congregation. They found another minister they liked. Once again, when he left, and his replacement proved unsatisfactory to them, they left. In both cases, they left congregations with members whom they considered to be good friends. But the fellowship wasn’t enough to compensate for sermons they didn’t like.

By the way, I see the Obamas donated around $22,000 to their church last year. Must be hard to do that and still have to put up with living in a country run by rich white folks.

James M. writes:

How does “Obama’s incredible denial” fit with your earlier claim that “He is a genuinely nice person—that’s not something you can put on.”? He HAS put it on to make whites believe that of him. On first principles, I wouldn’t believe any major politician is genuinely nice. If one seems so, it’s simply a matter of looking harder and of remembering that all major politicians make promises they know they cannot fulfill. Obama has been happy to let whites hope for certain things (his presidency would “heal” America etc) that will never come to pass. He gets the power, they get the disappointment. It’s a confidence trick, in other words, and nice people do not use con tricks.

In his piece on immigration, Joseph Kay argues that a mark of the “democratic civilized West” is a “willingness to let opponents plead their cases.” The fact that he has to use a pseudonym is proof that undemocratic and uncivilized forces already have a great deal of power in the West. Talking about race and IQ has been made heretical by Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould. Destroying the old white Christian order is made much easier and quicker by mass immigration, which is an act of war in all but name.

Josh W. writes:

Has it occurred to you that the best explanation for the timing and content of Rev Wright’s (and Farrakhan’s) remarks is that deep down these two men would rather Obama not be elected president? Surely if they really wanted Obama to win, they would not be so stupid as to think that these sorts of kooky, ranting, and racist comments could in any way help him. They would lie low, perhaps issue the occasional conciliatory statement about interracial harmony and just keep out of the way drawing the least attention to themselves as possible. I really think Wright’s comments were, in a way, designed to sabotage Obama’s run for the White House.

Demagogues and charlatans like Wright and Farrakhan feed off and are sustained by an eternal sense of victimhood among the black community. To them whites are irredeemably and inherently racist. They have taught this to their respective flocks their entire lives.

If Obama were to be elected president, the usual excuse of white racism to explain away black dysfunction, criminal behaviour, and failure would start to look increasingly absurd. Whites would rightly say to blacks, “what are you complaining about? Look, you have a black president.” And if black belief in white “racism” is watered down, the likes of Wright and Farrakhan would have less to do and even begin to appear, to some at least, like the fools they are..

Even if Farrakhan and Wright are really so deluded as to genuinely believe in white wickedness, they could well feel that even with Barack in the White House, the realities of white “racism” on the ground will not change. But with a black in the White House, this “white” racism will be even harder to point out and fight against.

Randy writes:

As I recall from my Western civilization classes many years ago, the Revolutionary elements that overthrew the aristocratic order in France were the “liberal” French elite and academics. However, they were eventually turned out by the lower classes they liberated. The aristocrats and intellectuals were themselves then sent to the guillotine. It took Napoleon to restore order.

We see history rhyming again today. The white liberals are already being challenged (and will soon be replaced) by the minorities they have worked so hard to advance. Soon the Southwest will have mostly Hispanic reprensentatives and most of the states with large minority populations will replace the white liberals with blacks, Muslims, and other assorted non-whites. I guess it is inevitable given the large increase in the non white population.

James W., a collector of quotations, sends these:

Nothing is so unbelievable that oratory cannot make it acceptable.

A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so they will think they are as clever as he is.
—Karl Krauss, circa 1930s

LA writes:

The no-longer Magic Obama says:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity …

But what if—as an editorial at the American Thinker points out in a line-by-line analysis of Obama’s statement—Obama was not sitting when Wright made his inflammatory anti-American remarks, but standing on his feet and applauding and shouting along with the rest of the congregation, as seen in a video of one of Wright’s sermons? “Then this statement becomes true, if utterly misleading.”

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 15, 2008 01:50 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):