hymietown complot

The principal sources for the New Yorker cartoon of the Obamas on the cover of its 21 July 2008 issue are Christopher Hitchens’ dissection of Michelle Obama’s endorsement of Black Power and Daniel Pipes’ analysis of Barack Hussein Obama as an apostate Muslim. Hitchens twits the would-be First Lady for acknowledging, in her Princeton undergraduate thesis, her guidance by the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 opus, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. In his turn, Pipes reprimands her putative lord and master for dissembling about having been born a Muslim and having had a Muslim upbringing.


    Mixed messages are the most effective vehicle for political defamation. According to its editor David Remnick, the New Yorker’s cover image is “not a satire about Obama — it’s a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices about Obama”:

Obviously I wouldn’t have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics. I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed “lack of patriotism” or his being “soft on terrorism” or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
    The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are… We’ve run many many satirical political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many.

To be sure, the slide show of past political covers by New Yorker illustrator Barry Blitt accords the pride of place to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney amid luminaries ranging from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Martin Luther King, Jr. But it is preposterous to propose that the limitations of the speaker’s vocabulary should constrain the public implications of his speech. We have no control over the “aboutness” of words blowing in the wind. And the Obamas’ fusion of multicultural roots and separationist ambitions is due to receive more than its share of scrutiny in an election year as marked by suspicions of race and religion as it is inflected by imperatives of culture and politics, when their presumptive adversary already has been exposed as a deranged victim of three slant-eyed screws — a simian, a shrew, and a spook:


    How to combat these noisome slurs? Jesse Jackson was not far off the mark in wishing an orchiectomy upon Barack Obama. The wellspring of his difficulties is but a few inches away. It’s all about the Jews. David Remnick is one. Daniel Pipes is another. Even Christopher Hitchens, despite his name bearing our Lord on the inside, despite his hand officiating an inward baptism with a tumbler of whisky, aligns himself with the Chosen People. As a bonus, Jann Wenner, the skalawag responsible for racialist scapegoating of Senator McCain, is a Jewish homosexual.
    Only one escape is left to Obama. It is spelled out by another woman of color, Zadie Smith, in an even smugger organ of Hymietown booboisie, reassuring the kosher compatriots of Gregor Samsa: “We’re all insects, all Ungeziefer, now.” Clearly, his attempt to brand himself as a life-long Christian has backfired. He couldn’t do any worse rebranding himself as the second coming of the Jewish Negro, namely Sammy Davis, Junior, Junior. The writing is on the wall: in March 2008, 1% of registered voters believed that Barack Obama was Jewish. The least Barack would get out of repudiating Michelle’s separationism for the sake of embracing Zadie’s incorporationism to realign himself with subhuman vermin, is a better class of punani:

20 thoughts on “hymietown complot”

  1. Gonna be sinkin’ soon

    It is certainly more fun to watch two Capitalist parties go at each other than just having the one Communist party to vote for. The things they fight over in public are generally symbolic little tokens of social policy, chosen for ease of public posturing. The Communist party offered just one bitter pill. The two Capitalist parties offer a choice of two placebos. The latest innovation is the photo finish election, where each party buys 50% of the vote, and the result is pulled out of statistical noise, like a rabbit out of a hat.

    1. Re: Gonna be sinkin’ soon

      Sure thing, Michael. Go on whining that life is shitty all over. There’s gotta be something to help you abide in that pile of manure that you call Motherland. Meanwhile, our capitalist Supreme Court has reaffirmed the human right to self-defense, the likes of which craven Russian intelligentsia cannot begin to comprehend, let alone exercise.

      А приписывать северную поговорку Шаламова созданию Солженицына, это всё-таки позорно.

                1. Re: Gonna be sinkin’ soon

                  It must be a horrible letdown, to grow up in one empire and get educated in another, only to squander the rest of your life in a decaying shithole.

                    1. Re: better yet:

                      Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power.

                      Except apparently, the American ones.

                      The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide

                      Prof.Morris forgets the most obvious by far venue of retaliation – closing the straight of Hormuz. How would folks like 500 $-a-barrel oil ?

                    2. Re: better yet:

                      Please address your demagoguery to the designated spokesman for the folks. For my solitary part, the conversation ends at the point of desert. Outlaw nations that choose to refine uranium, merit a special delivery of critical mass. As to their venues of retaliation, fiat iustitia et pereat mundus.

                    3. Figuring out the terms

                      It is well known that, as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Iran is entitled to enrich uranium and receive assistance in nuclear matters. So “the outlaw nation who choses to enrich uranium” must be some other.

                    4. Re: Figuring out the terms

                      No idea. But if you throw around the appelation of “outlaw nation”, it is logical to pay some attention to what the actual international law says.

                    5. Re: Figuring out the terms

                      The actual international law is the law of the jungle, junior.

                      « Et ainsi ne pouvant faire que ce qui est juste soit fort, on a fait que ce qui est fort fût juste. »

                    6. Re: Figuring out the terms

                      I am shocked, shocked to hear that. But anyways, what is the meaning of “outlaw nation” then ? The one who has no means to make attacking it hurt very much ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *