Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, April 10, 2018
In recent weeks, Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam has become a target of mainstream media attacks because of his anti-Semitic views and ties to Women’s March leader Tameka D. Mallory. “Why won’t Women’s March leaders denounce Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism?” asks Jesse Singal of New York Magazine. Molly Roberts at the Washington Post characterized Mr. Farrakhan as “The anti-Semite who’s haunting the left.” Influential black columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. urges strong action when it comes to Mr. Farrakhan’s rhetoric. “Condemn it,” he wrote. “Condemn it loudly. Condemn it with vigor. Condemn it unflinchingly.”
Of course, Mr. Farrakhan is almost always denounced solely for his anti-Semitic views. His anti-white views are apparently not worthy of condemnation. Some of those who condemn Mr. Farrakhan for his anti-Semitism may even share his opinion of whites. For example, in 2007, the crime known as the “Knoxville Horror” took place when a group of blacks kidnapped, raped, tortured, and mutilated Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. Mr. Pitts responded to the outrage over the crime with the words “cry me a river” because of his scorn for any whites who feel themselves victimized in American society.
Despite his inflammatory statements, Louis Farrakhan still enjoys a verified “blue check mark” account on Twitter. Mr. Farrakhan also has had a close relationship with Democratic politicians such as Keith “Hakim” Ellison. Still, the media do not give him a total pass. He is consistently portrayed as an anti-Semitic extremist Democrats are expected to denounce. For example, Congressman Danny Davis of Illinois praised Mr. Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being,” but withdrew the comment after heavy media pressure.
It is therefore sobering that a recent poll from Rasmussen finds 21 percent of Americans have at least a “somewhat favorable” view of the Nation of Islam leader. Incredibly, 12 percent of whites have a favorable impression, though 57 percent have an unfavorable view. The other 31 percent don’t know enough about him to offer an opinion. This might seem surprising considering Mr. Farrakhan has been active for decades, but it makes sense as the mainstream media do not use the Nation of Islam as a daily boogeyman the same way it does the “Alt-Right.”
More importantly, 50 percent of black voters have a favorable opinion of Mr. Farrakhan, while only 42 percent view him unfavorably. Absent the almost unanimous media bias against him, these numbers would likely be even higher. Not unreasonably, The Final Call, the Nation of Islam’s newspaper, is trumpeting these findings as proof Mr. Farrakhan is “widely accepted, respected and admired by Black people.” In short, one out of every two black people one sees on the street support a man who think whites are a demonic race created by a scientist named Yakub (who was also the Joseph of the Bible).
The half-black, half-Jewish Adam Sewer writes in The Atlantic that many blacks support Mr. Farrakhan because he is perceived as someone who “would not cave to the white establishment.” Mr. Sewer argues there is a consistent pattern to the dynamic between the Nation of Islam’s leader and the mainstream media:
Farrakhan says something anti-Semitic, which draws press attention; he is roundly condemned, which draws more press attention, but also causes some black people to feel he is being disproportionately attacked; and the controversy further burnishes his credibility within the black community as someone who is unacceptable to the white establishment and is therefore uncompromised.
Whites should not dismiss this explanation out of hand. After all, this same dynamic may help explain why so many Republicans support President Trump even when he says something ill-advised. Even if the comment itself is hardly defensible, the resulting media meltdown is usually exaggerated, and conservatives may rally to the president as an act of defiance. It is probably no coincidence that President Trump’s poll numbers are slowly climbing as his enemies at CNN indulge in obsessive coverage about President’s Trump’s alleged tryst with a porn star more than a decade ago.
Of course, there is a major difference between reacting against political bias and a more primal reaction of racial loyalty. Even those who criticize Mr. Farrakhan often do so on the grounds that he is undermining the larger rainbow coalition with his anti-Semitic statements and conservative social views.
For example, Briahna Joy Gray at Rolling Stone writes:
Unlike other forms of ethnic prejudice, Farrakhan’s rhetoric is rooted less in a belief in Jewish inferiority, but in a conviction that they are responsible for black suffering–a conviction that is systemically false, but which is informed by a complicated history in which the two communities, forced into close proximity by anti-Jewish and anti-black prejudice, at times found themselves in cycles of exploitation and resentment.
Ultimately, according to this explanation, Mr. Farrakhan is stripped of agency, and a vague system of “prejudice” is to blame. We can infer that this system is imposed by whites, the common enemy of all.
Other leftist critics of Mr. Farrakhan simply equate the Nation of Islam leader with conservative political figures or deny his having any influence whatsoever. Juan Williams dismisses criticism of Mr. Farrakhan’s ties to Democrats as a “tired” smear, calling it “transparent” and “preposterous.” He admits “[Mr. Farrakhan] condemns white people as ‘devils’ in a twisted attempt to bolster the self-image of poor black people in the face of racism.” However, he contends the real problem is that large numbers of people believe President Trump himself is a racist.
Mr. Williams suggested the Republican attempt to link the Democrats to Mr. Farrakhan “fits exactly with the destructive strategy behind Russian-paid advertising on Facebook . . . . The Russians aimed to divide Americans by race and religion, as well as through specific hot-button issues such as gay rights and immigration.” Thus, Mr. Williams concludes his column by implicitly suggesting those trying to link Democrats and Mr. Farrakhan are furthering a Russian scheme to tear apart the country. “While it is being done to help Trump, the real winner is Putin–in his efforts to boost Russia by dividing Americans, undercutting faith in democracy,” he writes.
However, it is not Vladimir Putin who is “dividing Americans.” Nor can we dismiss Mr. Farrakhan as “fringe” when half of black America supports him. Given how so many institutions promote the poisonous idea that all black failures are the fault of whites, it’s not surprising so many blacks support a cult leader who believes that whites are demons.
Journalists who are so determined to paint white advocates as extremists should recognize that it is not our people who have a problem with prejudice or radicalism. Reporters should recognize that by their own standards, it’s black America, not white America, that needs to do some soul-searching about “hate.”