Award for worst equivocation of the year goes to Steve Sailer for comparing James Watson’s donation toward Barack Obama to Don (of Stormfront) Black’s contribution to Ron Paul. Steve himself had been defending Watson earlier and pointing out that he’s not some troglodyte but an intelligent though prickly political moderate. There really is no way to cast Don Black in a better light, and unlike Jared Taylor I don’t think he would even want you to. Even better, Steve could have pointed out that some white nationalists and neo-nazis (among them former Paul supporters) are down with Obama (I give more links in the comments there). Of course, you’re an idiot if you think that indicates Obama is a white nationalist or neo-nazi. You’re also an idiot if you believed that about Paul.
Elsewhere Steve discusses the odd lack of mention amidst the (weak) Obama-Farrakhan hubbub that the good (or not so good, depending on your point of view) minister hates white people generally, not just Jews. In the comments here I noted that there used to be bigotry toward white ethnics (that excluded WASPS) that is not considered acceptable anymore, but having problems with whites more broadly is considered acceptable. I would also wager that negative attitudes toward a relatively small Christian sect is considered more acceptable than toward Christianity or religion more broadly. Mormons are a tricky case between a mockable cult like Scientology and a protected minority. There were arguments over whether it was acceptable to refuse to vote for Mitt Romney based on his religion (my problem was that I didn’t think he believed in anything, and I’m an agnotheist!) but who would accuse someone of bigotry if they said they refused to vote for GWB based on his religious beliefs?
Via Larison (discussing the same subject), I find this from Glenn Greenwald comparing the McCain-Hagee connection to the Obama-Farrakhan one (especially funny is Tim Russert’s question to Barack about Harry Belafonte, whose only connection as far as I know is that he is part-black and somewhere to the left of the center of American politics). To me what makes the comparison lopsided is that Obama has always explicitly rejected Farrakhan and his support (I would just say “I despise him but welcome his support”*) while McCain gladly accepts Haggee without rebuke (as did Giuliani with Robertson). Personally, I reject guilt-by-association in the case of McCain, just as I did earlier with Obama and Paul. I have problems enough with Mr. “Bomb, bomb Iran” and his own actions, regardless of Pastor Haggee’s theology, which I highly doubt McCain has any serious belief in (his “Faith of my Fathers” is entirely militarist and secular, not religious).
Let’s discuss Haggee on his own terms though. An enlightened Occidentalist non-believer, I share some of his distaste for Islam and I agree that its scriptures endorse violence, however I don’t think scripture matters that much. Then there are his beliefs that God destroyed New Orleans and is going to destroy Israel acting through an alliance of Arab nations (though sparked by Iran) which will oddly enough be led by Russia. Since I don’t believe in God at all, all of that seems irrelevant to me. He can pray all he wants for God to smite, but unless he actually pushes for smiting policies no marginal people will be smitten. I can perfectly understand the line that supposedly “pro-Israel” foreign policy does not actually benefit Israel. As a libertarian I think a lot of government legislation “on behalf of the poor” screws them over, and even more similarly as a paleo-libertarian I think much of our “national defense” and “homeland security” does not render us better defended or more secure. I would like to see some people say “Maybe this policy isn’t in Israel’s interests, but we have to balance different goals and putting Israel first is the job of Israeli politicians”, but given how popular a free-lunch is compared to tradeoffs I don’t see that happening any time soon. At any rate, it strikes me as silly to say that evangelical support for Israel is “anti-Israel” because they think it will be destroyed in the Apocalypse. I was under the impression that the entire earth will be destroyed, so maybe they’re anti-everyone, but if you don’t believe in the Book of Revelation you have nothing to fear. Other than of course the likelihood that they will involve Israel in a massive war, which John McCain does quite competently without Haggee.
An entertaining bit at the end is the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue (who you may remember from South Park) complaining about Haggee’s anti-Catholicism (on display alongside philo-semitism in video here, hat-tip to Ann Althouse). Thought that was relegated to Jack Chick, eh? Dissaproval of anti-Catholic bigotry is still around, but weak, a fading remnant of the memory of nativist attitudes toward the Catholic “ethnics” that immigrated to America’s cities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (no one cares about the German immigrants from the early and mid 19th century). As it becomes evident that those Catholics have risen above the working class and merged with broader white Christian America, worries about anti-Catholic bigotry will be as non-existent as concern for anti-Protestant bigotry (whose most recent rallying cry I believe is the massacre of French Huguenots). As someone who shares the Derb’s mild anti-Catholic bigotry I look forward to the day when I can publicly express who I really am without opprobrium. I have a dream!
On a somewhat related note, while Catholics broadly have cause to be embarrassed that an ass like Donohue is taken to represent them and defend against “defamation”, it could be worse. The mafia attempted to create an Italian anti-defamation organization, and their failure might be one of the best things that’s happened to Italians. Right now it doesn’t seem like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is doing much good, though fortunately many Jews recognize this (I can’t recall Catholics doing the same for Donohue, which might be because nobody takes him seriously). I discussed that here (warning, that post is in large part a joke more offensive than funny) and an attempt by some Italians to grab the victim-card here, and now looking back at it it seems much of this post is a repeat of that one. Oh, well.
Also, I agree that “Hussein” is an odd middle-name for an American politician and it’s not surprising to point this out, but making fun of people’s names also tends to make you look stupid.
*Imagine a loony who has two goals: wipe out the Jews, and end the war in Iraq (which is of course caused by the Jews, as is his baldness and erectile dysfunction). None of the candidates is brave enough to touch the “should we kill the yids?” question, so he evaluates who is most likely to end the Iraq war and settles on Obama. Does that in any way discredit Obama? No. Does it cause Obama to shift in any direction towards semitocide? No. All of the loon’s support goes toward (well, maybe not) the anti-war cause, just as his patronage of Wal-Mart supports the production of adult diapers (that’s also the Jews’ fault). Wal-Mart does not need to reject his money or loudly disavow his affection for them as they are not tainted with anti-semitism, and neither does Obama.
February 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Sailor clearly thinks there is. The entry is ostensibly about a double standard but the real message is that Black is no more an evil racist than Watson.
February 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I don’t think that makes any sense. That’s equivalent to saying Watson is just as much an evil racist as Don Black. Sailer has defended Watson but said nothing in defense of Black (though he has defended some of the stuff in Paul’s newsletters).
February 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Yes.
And yes. This *is* Sailor’s defense of Black – Black is as defensible as Watson – and it has to have deniability to protect Sailer’s viability.
February 29, 2008 at 7:08 pm
This *is* Sailor’s defense of Black – Black is as defensible as Watson – and it has to have deniability to protect Sailer’s viability.
I just don’t see how it can be viewed as a defense of Black. He hasn’t said anything about Black or his actions other than that he donated to Paul. He even got the name wrong. He really just seems to be pulling a “gotcha”. Either we can say Watson isn’t really a racist (Sailer hasn’t discussed the surprisingly positive reception of Obama by white nationalists) as he was made out to be, or we can say its okay for a Presidential candidate to accept money from racists, or we can demand that Obama send back Watson’s money.
February 29, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I read that entry more as Obama supporters don’t draw a distinction between these two people’s beliefs (Watson and Black) so why isn’t Obama being hounded by the media to denounce Watson and his dirty money?
There are three things you can argue here:
1) taking money from those with bad beliefs is bad; Watson has bad beliefs therefore Obama should return the funds Watson donated
2) taking money from people with bad beliefs is acceptable; Paul shouldn’t have been harassed and found guilty of racism by association because he took funds from a tainted source
3) Black is beyond the pale but Watson isn’t; Black’s money is tainted and Watson’s isn’t
I don’t think Steve endorses (1) because he doesn’t believe that Watson has committed crime-think but he’s pointing out that those who do believe that Watson committed crime-think should be on board with hounding Obama to return the funds.
Does his post imply anything about Steve’s relative opinions of Black and Watson? Not the way I read it; the entry takes as given a view that sees both as equally unacceptable.
February 29, 2008 at 8:04 pm
You’ll never hear Sailer say Black is beyond the pale. What would make one think Sailer thinks so?
February 29, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Or
4)Obama is the Messiah, and therefore could not possibly be tainted by anything as trivial as a campaign contribution-no matter how nefarious the source.
I think that SNL skit that I’ve heard clips of in the last few days was based on that kind of understanding of his candidacy.
February 29, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“You’ll never hear Sailer say Black is beyond the pale. What would make one think Sailer thinks so?”
Do you have a list of names of people who Sailer needs to denounce? How many names are on the list? You should be able to find a venue in, say, Wheeling, WV where you can speak on this topic.
Of course, no one will pay any attention-but it’s the thought that counts.
February 29, 2008 at 8:29 pm
You’ll never hear Sailer say Black is beyond the pale. What would make one think Sailer thinks so?
Sailer hasn’t such much of anything about Black one way or another, he guessed his name was “Jon White”. I don’t think I’ve said much about Black either. Do you infer I am saying something about how beyond the pale he is through my inaction?
March 2, 2008 at 11:52 am
What I’ve always liked about Sailer is that he doesn’t seem to hold any idea or person “beyond the pale.” He’s gone head to head, on the most civil terms, with genteel racists like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis, for example, and he doesn’t seem dismissive of Kevin MacDonald’s overtly anti-Semitic scholarly work, even when pointing out areas of disagreement. Yet here he is making a mountain of a few thoughtfully qualified reflections on the possible merits of black racial consciousness and playing the Kevin Bacon game with those poisonous Farrakhan linkages (neither of which bothers me in the least). I know, ostensibly it’s all in the interest of calling the MSM on their cowardly double-standards, which I can sort of accept, but when the game turns to chiding Michelle Obama for a few mildly embarrassing typos in a mediocre thesis that was written 25 years ago, well that’s the definition of “petty.” And when Sailer goes out of his way to defend the lowest common denominator swill in those Ron Paul newsletters, it’s difficult not to wonder about covert priorities. Not his finest moment.
As to the question of returning the money to media-opprobriated scoundrel x versus media-opprobriated scoundrel y, I think Ron Paul has it right when he asks, what would be the point? If these people are really so bad, aren’t they better off being a little poorer?
March 2, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I agree with you and Ron Paul on that. Giving money to hateful people just seems transparently idiotic.
I agree that Steve can exhibit double-standards in seeking to expose the flaws of others. He seems comfortable with “enlightened black self interest” (possibly analogous to asking “is it good for the Jews?” or Taylor/Jobling forms of white nationalism) as with Carol Swain when it happens to coincide with his views.
I think some of the newsletter stuff held out for ridicule actually was defensible (if crude) while some other stuff was really nuts.
March 3, 2008 at 9:32 am
“I think some of the newsletter stuff held out for ridicule actually was defensible (if crude) while some other stuff was really nuts.”
I agree with this, actually. And I think the same is true wrt Nation of Islam rhetoric. I’m not interested in proscribing anything.
In his latest V-Dare column, I notice that Steve makes pejorative reference to “the black racism of Louis Farrakhan’s heretical Nation of Islam.” Fair enough. But honestly, that may be the first time I’ve ever seen Sailer invoke the “r” word sans scare quotes. He supports it with link to an account of the “Zebra” murders of the early 1970s. Read the story and you find one highly qualified reference to Farrakhan’s possible “obstruction of justice” in relation to a “similar” East coast ambush-style cop-kill that took place at one of his Mosques around 35 years ago. Not having studied the case, I have no idea whether the rap against Minister F pans out in this instance, but I do find it curious to see such a tangential linkage held up as prima facie evidence of “racism,” which is not to be confused with nationalism or racialism.
I’m pretty sure I could link Jonathan Haynes to Sam Francis by fewer than six degrees.
March 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I would feel silly putting scare-quotes around “racism” in reference to the Nation of Islam. Is there any dispute? I’m perfectly alright with them being racist as long as they keep it to themselves. Don Black is obviously racist, and though they to put a gloss on it Taylor and Jobling are as well. If I accused any of them being racist, would they actually deny it?
Who is Jonathan Haynes?
March 3, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I’ll go along. But the truth is, I don’t find the term to be very useful, with or without scare quotes. It’s too emotionally loaded, too subject to subjective distortion, and too much of a show-stopper. Sure, I tend to think of the Nation of Islam as being a racist organization. But I’m also curious as to what they have to say and why. Same goes for the JDL or American Renaissance. Sailer’s discretionary usage is what I find curious.
When I was in college I recall the professoriate being keen to rig the debate by insisting that it was “impossible” for a black person to be racist, since they lacked collective access to prequalifying institutional power. Something like that. Very silly.
As to Jonathan Haynes, see:
http://www.statesattorney.org/Jonathan%20Haynes.pdf
or:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DA1439F936A3575AC0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Or check out the chapter entitled, “Will Somebody Please Find a Mate for this Nice, Well-Mannered, Aryan Psycho-Killer?” from Adam Parfrey’s book, “Cult Rapture.”
March 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm
It’s too emotionally loaded, too subject to subjective distortion, and too much of a show-stopper.
I agree, though I think the term can be useful sometimes. I think just saying “Farrakhan” or “Nation of Islam” should be sufficient for any knowledgeable person. Haggee is less known, so saying he’s a bigot is more necessary.
When I was in college I recall the professoriate being keen to rig the debate by insisting that it was “impossible” for a black person to be racist, since they lacked collective access to prequalifying institutional power. Something like that. Very silly.
I’ve come across that idea before. Quite funny. It means that trailer trash can’t be racist either!
October 11, 2008 at 11:53 am
[…] Felt’s J. Edgar Hooverism. Since this is yet again a big issue, I will remind people of my earlier post on guilt by association. […]
July 7, 2009 at 7:38 am
Mormons are heretic cult. More information behind the good article:
http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/Mormons
July 7, 2009 at 6:27 pm
So are Christians.