An anti-white president? Obama wouldn’t be the first

Ilana Mercer is undeceived on the badness of Barack Obama. She writes:

What’s crucial here is the tenor of the message uttered by Obama’s mentor—it bespeaks a vile, vociferous, overwhelming hatred of whites.

Rev. Wright’s river of racism runs deep in America and manifests in, for example, violent crime against pale faces, as well as in an ideology that has slowly permeating all cultural products and institutions.

And it has now arrived at the White House.

The Obama presidency will bring this dark force to the White House—and don’t mistake me for claiming said abode has not been infested by the most demonic of forces. It has.

Mercer then mentions President Clinton, and Maya Angelou’s multicultural, and implicitly anti-white, poem at his first inauguration. Yes, but that was 15 years ago. There are more recent exemplars of anti-whiteness in the White House whom Mercer doesn’t mention. There is, for instance, George W. Bush, who in his speech at Gorey Island, Senegal in July 2003 said:

My nation’s journey toward justice has not been easy, and it is not over. For racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. [Italics added.]

The president of the U.S. went to Africa and said that America at this moment (i.e., post-segregation America) is characterized by the “racial bigotry fed by slavery,” thus strongly suggesting that there is a moral continuum between America under slavery and America today. The stain is on us—and Bush, along with his twin brain Condoleezza Rice, loves to remind us of it. Which of course is also the Jeremiah Wright attitude toward white America.

I wrote at the time of Bush’s 2003 African visit:

… Bush, in leftist fashion, denies any moral value to the early America, making the sin of slavery its whole meaning. He implies that George Washington and all other Americans who owned slaves were morally depraved. Bush’s message is that America has no moral legitimacy apart from what it does for blacks.

But Bush has white America in a double bind. On one hand, he suggests that white America has no legitimacy apart from what it does for blacks. On the other hand, Bush ignores or cancels out what whites have actually done for blacks. Thus he said in Senegal:

The rights of African Americans were not the gift of those in authority. Those rights were granted by the Author of Life and regained by the persistence and courage of African Americans themselves.

This black and leftist propaganda line—that blacks’ freedom came only from themselves (and God)—leaves out the 650,000 white men dead in the War between the States and everything else whites did in that tremendous struggle and afterward, including the Civil Rights Revolution in which the white American majority delegitimized itself as the majority in order to be fair and just to blacks. Yes, Bush mentions historical American figures, white and black, whose “moral vision caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race.” But, he seems to say, the main impetus throughout came from the blacks. “By a plan known only to Providence, the stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America. The very people traded into slavery helped to set America free.” So in American history according to Bush, blacks were the change agents, the moral visionaries leading white America out of its darkness! And the only decent whites were those who saw the injustice of slavery. Meaning that the entire historical origin of America—apart from those occasional whites who condemned slavery, and apart from that universalist promise of equality which we still have not fulfilled, because we still harbor among us the racial bigotry fed by slavery—is morally without value. And how can you love a country, how can you, in Michelle Obama’s words, be “really proud” of a country that will only become good when it attains a universalist ideal that it has not yet attained? And how can you be “really proud” of a country that is still characterized by the racial bigotry fed by slavery? Why single out Mrs. Obama for saying that she had never before in her adult life felt really proud of America, given that she was only making explicit the message of President Bush?

In addition to undercutting any moral basis for pride in country, Bush’s distorted and deeply unsympathetic portrayal of U.S. history helps justify the common black belief that “whites have done nothing for us” and that blacks’ situation in America is as bad as ever—which in turn feeds unending black racial resentment against whites. Yet, in Bush’s scheme, there is nothing whites can do about this. The white majority, as Bush at least implicitly suggests in his various statements on race and immigration, is a permanently tainted entity, to be tweaked and administered and ultimately to be managed out of existence by the “good” white elites like Bush himself. As for American’s majority language and culture, Bush made it clear as a candidate in 2000 that he welcomed its replacement via the steady spread of the language and culture of Hispanic immigrants.

Liberalism is the ideology of white guilt and national suicide. The only hopeful path for America and the West is to oppose liberalism—all liberalism, not just the liberalism of blacks and Democrats, but the liberalism of Republicans as well.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 16, 2008 09:46 PM | Send