Reflections From a Murky Pond

The Truth will not set you free. Truth is a tyrant that will enslave you and cast you into a bondage more absolute than any falsehood or ignorance could.

— jonolan

The old adage, “the Truth will set you free” is sadly wrong. No freedom is bestowed by knowledge of the Truth. Knowledge of any Truth removes the possibility of error or judgment, and thereby eliminates one’s freedom.

The enslavement by falsehood or ignorance can be replaced by another falsehood or error that provides for more freedom than the original lie or error did. However, no such alternative exists for the Truth. That is an absolute and does not brook dissembling or evasion.

While the truth is unknown one has the freedom to take various actions, many of which will be based on false premises. These opportunities represent a freedom that falsehood or ignorance provides. A person, innocent of Truth, can do many things; one’s choices may well be near boundless.

Once one knows a truth one can no longer dissemble or evade the consequences of that knowledge. It is a thing that is. The choices one has are now chained by that Truth. To act differently is to act in willful error.

All life is conflict; there is no peace this side of the grave.

— jonolan

All living things are in a state of conflict with other living things. Even plants struggle against each other for sunlight, water and soil. The natural cycle of predation is a very basic and primal example of the constant struggle between lifeforms for their very survival.

There is also the even more basic struggle the living engage in with their environment. The old adage of “adapt or die” is a perfect summation of this struggle to adapt to changing conditions that are at odds with a creature’s or plant’s continued survival.

Among people these primal conflicts are often expanded into conflicts over wealth, status and power. No longer just a struggle for survival, the conflict turned into wars of ideologies as Man grew to think beyond his immediate fleshly needs.

Finally there is Man’s internal conflict – his struggle with himself. The unrelenting struggle Man engages in with himself will outlast all other forms of conflict that he engages in and will continue until death.

A lot of people have strong opinions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor. Many Blacks stick by him and many Whites decry him as bigoted and anti-American. The simple fact is that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is one of the current leaders of the Black Liberation Theology movement along with James Cone and Dwight Hopkins, who are considered the founders of contemporary Black Liberation Theology.

Since Wright is a fully committed and passionate advocate of this system of belief it would be best to define him in the context of that theology.

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

— James Cone
A Black Theology Of Liberation

There you have the distillate of Black Liberation Theology as announced by the movement’s founder in 1970. It’s a angry, exilic theology with a core doctrine centered on fear and hate.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a pastor and when he speaks he speaks as such – as he has firmly said. Black Liberation Theology is what he speaks and preaches. His words should be judged on this basis. His actions should be judged on their merits and effects.

On Friday Apr. 25, 2008, the National Journal’s Linda Douglass held and interview with David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s campaign manager. Here is an excerpt from the interview:

Douglass: Well, one of the things to which some Democrats point — the Clinton campaign has not said this publicly at least, but one certainly hears it in talking to supporters in more of a background way. Look at the racial polarization in the last several contests — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi — is that going to be a problem? Is race going to be a problem for Barack Obama in the general election?

Plouffe: We really don’t think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain’s camp already. And I think if you look at the Democratic voters who are voting for Senator Clinton in some of these states, when you sort of look beneath it and you project how this is going to happen, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He is going to be articulating policies and ideas that they believe in. They won’t agree with John McCain on issues like the economy and health care. And so I think that we are going to get the vast, vast majority of Democratic voters.

And, you know, I think if you look at — we have won white voters, particularly white voters under 60, in a lot of states. We’ve won white men voters in most of the states we’ve competed in, and, you know, again, if you look at our favorable/unfavorable ratings and the characteristics and the traits with some of these voters that have voted for Senator Clinton in recent primaries, you know they are strong and they are going to be supportive of us in the fall.

Now, listen, this is a heated contest. So our supporters, the Clinton supporters — this question of will you vote for the other person in the election in the fall — you know, there’s hard feelings. So a lot of people are saying no, but we seem to forget history. There’s always hard feelings, and then the party comes together. And I think everyone ought to take a deep breath here and understand that the Democratic nominee is going to get the majority of Democratic voters. The question is, who can do best with independents and moderate Republicans, and who can create the best dynamic for turnout. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I think turnout amongst African-Americans, turnout amongst all voters under 40, and our ability to register new voters is going to be a very important piece of the puzzle.

OK, let’s distill that down to its essential elements. Will race be a problem for Obama in the general election? According to Ploufe, it won’t be – because the White racists are all already in McCain’s camp and so apparently a non-issue. Plouffe also implies that Hillary is unelectable because the Blacks won’t support her like they would Obama.

Face it people, Race and Gender are both going to be factors in the election and the camps are already there and glaring at each other.

• White Racists will vote for McCain. They’re not going to support a Black or the wife of “America’s 1st Black President,” Bill Clinton.
• Black Racists will vote for Obama. He’s the only Black who might be on the ticket. A few would vote for the wife of “America’s 1st Black President,” if she went up against McCain.
• Male Sexists will vote for either Obama or McCain. I’d guess a strong showing for either male candidate.
• Female Sexists will vote for Hillary, period. I’d expect a write-in campaign, if Clinton isn’t nominated.

The question – to me at least – is what about the “crossover bigots” such as Black males racists who also sexists, or White female sexists who are also racists? In an election that is going to put a White man up against either a Black man or White woman who who the multi-vector bigots vote for?

The above is not sarcasm. There’s been quite a lot of vitriol spewed by the supporters of both Democratic candidates. In a general election that is going to be as close as I expect the 2008 elections to be even the minority of voters who vote solely based on Race or Gender could tip the tide.

No matter the outcome though, there’s going to be some very angry and embittered people in America.

Rev, Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor, gave an interview to Bill Moyers on Wednesday, April 23, 2008. Far from improving his image, he tarnished it further and managed to denigrate Obama’s integrity and honesty in the process.

I don’t talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God.

He’s a politician, I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds.

I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.

— Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Former Pastor, Trinity UCC

Wright refused apologize or back away from his racist and hate mongering remarks in the interview, instead saying that people wanted to show him as “some sort of fanatic.” I can actually laud his standing firm in his opinions. Better the open and honest racist than some overtly dissembling apologist who would just stab you in the back later. I’ll take a “stand up” hater any day of the week.

What’s sad is the way he dragged Obama into the mud with himself. In Wright’s apparent estimation Obama said what he said solely out of political necessity instead of out of belief. Is it possible that Wright’s hatred of America and of success has caused him to attack Obama now that Obama has achieved a level of success that shows the lie of Wright’s hatred and racism?