What can I add belatedly to the debate over Obama’s spiritual adviser, other than that he sounds like Chris Rock, and is probably overcompensating for not looking like Kunta Kinte? (Say you haven’t missed me.)

Much-missed Mercerisms aside, what Boobus Americanus cheering for Obama needs to take away from Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s words is not this or the other political message. Some of his statements have a core of truth; others are purely phantasmagoric.

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 permeated 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. Courtesy of the Clintons, the illiterate “poet” Maya Angelou—about whose oeuvre the Times Literary Supplement often has a hearty, cleverly-disguised laugh—became a national name. And worse, of course: Manufactured wars. Lies. Destruction of lives here and abroad.

However, with “Militant Mama Obama” prodding the president, whites will be the only group filled with more hate for Honky than are Michelle, her minister, and his many followers across hijacked American institutions.

I don’t mean whites of the liberal left variety pushing Obama. They love themselves, but do not consider that they are anything but a colorless, divine manifestation of justice on earth. I mean ordinary, self-effacing, brow-beaten, timid whites, who lose jobs daily to anointed “minorities,” and who’ve ceded historical truth to the minority’s “history from below.”

With Mama Obama prodding the president, history from below will blanket America. About the replacement of “the impartial, non-ideological study of American history and its heroic figures with ‘history from below,’” I wrote the following:

“This post-modern tradition regularly produces works the topics of which include, ‘Quilting Midwives during the Revolution.’ Or, ‘Hermaphrodites and the Clitoris in Early America.’ It seeks to obliterate memory of the “predominantly British Christian origins of the people who established the political order described by Thomas Jefferson as ‘a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, … derived from natural right and natural reason.’”

The establishment’s holy men are down with these humbugs. The corrupt media, as part of what I’ve dubbed the media-military-industrial-congressional complex, will proceed to propagate these perversions high-and-low.

Remember, when the Wright scandal percolated with great difficulty into cable’s quarters, that grizzled “newswoman” Anderson Cooper responded thus: “How do we make this go away?” Those were his words.

However, Rev. Wright’s wrongs are what the inimitable Diana West has dubbed an existential issue for Obama.

And for America.

Updated 1 (March 17): The chronically incurious media has fallen silent on investigating what may be the philosophical underpinnings of Obama—and certainly Mrs. Obama.

The impoverished argument according to which an anti-war candidate is being smeared has popped up here and there. This is in itself a smear—instead of investigating Obama’s worldview, those inquiring into this murky miasma are being discredited. Answer the questions; don’t cover them up!

It is not about what Rev. Wright said on this or the other date, and whether Obama was in the pews at the time; it’s about what he stands for with all his being, and whether the man he mentored holds the same despicable worldview about whites.

We are told by Time that Obama plans a major speech on race. He has indeed been very astute in subtly and genteelly ensuring any questions about His Illusiveness are framed as a racist. It appears Obama also plans to “explain” the black church. Read sanitize.

The pan-Africanism associated with Black Liberation Thinking has a proud tradition of fabrication—it invented an Afrocentric “Safari Scholarship” to finesse unpleasant historical realities:

“Afrocentric books such as Black Athena by Cornell’s Martin Bernal, Stolen Legacy by George G. M. James, and the school tracts known as the “Portland African-American Baseline Essays” [adopted in some American schools]…[claim] no less that thousands of years ago Egyptians-cum-blacks ‘flew in electroplated gold gliders, knew accurately the distance to the sun, and discovered the Theory of Evolution.’ According to Cheikh Anta Diop, a Senegalese Afrocentrist, Africans invented everything from Judaism, to engineering, to astronomy, including dialectical materialism (although Marxism is no cause for inventor’s pride.)”

In the same essay I posed “one nagging question”:

“Afrocentrics claim that practically every reprehensible occurrence in history is the doing of the Great White and his linear thinking. Why, if Eurocentric culture is so horrible, would they want to lay claim to it? By coveting it, aren’t Afrocentrists providing the ultimate validation of Western Civilization?”

Obama is certainly a product of Western culture. Outrageous as it may seem to some, I’d like to know if he holds it and its originators in contempt.

Update 2: “Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself.” This, from a press release courtesy of the Obama camp a year ago, when the senator was about to announce his candidacy. Back then, Obama intended to begin the event with a public invocation by Rev. Wright.

Where’s the pride now?

Update 3: The focus of most “analysis” vis-à-vis Obama and his preacher has revolved around whether the candidate has been sufficiently politic and strategic about his association with the repulsive Rev. Wright. He should have distanced himself from the man sooner goes this impoverished “argument.”

The tack tackles the patina of politics. Is Obama a sufficiently slimy operator to have slithered efficiently from under a tricky situation? Suppose he had come out swinging against Wright. That would not have obviated the only issue at hand here: does Obama too feel the filthy feelings Wright so obviously feels about white Americans; is Obama as rank a racist as Wright is.

There is no question that Obama has a deep bond with Wright; there is no question as to his loyalty to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The question as I posed it in this post is this: why has Obama been spiritually enmeshed in a church which holds such an unchristian, unevolved, hatful philosophy. Could it be that Obama doesn’t think Wright’s worldview is that hateful?