Murderer Robert Bowers was not a follower of Farrakhan

anon for this

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 12:32 pm

In another thread, some posters claimed that Robert Bowers was a follower of Louis Farrakhan. As proof, posters noted that in social media Bowers referred to Jews as "children of Satan", a phrase used by Farrakhan. While this slur is used by Farrakhan to refer to Jews, it did not originate from him, and is in fact from the New Testament.

Here is a link to screen shot of Bowers' Gab profile which shows the quote:

https://web.archive.org/web/20.....B9QkR

Of course Farrakhan is still an evil person and an anti-Semite. But I don't think there's any indication he influenced Robert Bowers.

If there is evidence I've overlooked, please post it here.

Fox

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 12:43 pm

Although I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, my understanding is that Farrakhan is more of a resource and inspiration for white nationalists than a direct influence. In fact, there were meetings between Farrakhan and white nationalists going back to the 1980s in which they discussed battling their common enemy, the Jews.

So while white nationalists aren't going to show up at the weekly NOI rallies, their content producers are definitely aware of him and make use of his arguments.

anon for this

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 12:49 pm

Fox wrote:

I can't find the thread either; it may have been deleted. A poster claimed that Bowers quoted Farrakhan and that Google had removed the evidence from their results.

While Farrakhan did meet with the KKK in 1985, I don't think it's clear that white nationalists today are much influenced by him. And I've not seen any evidence that Bowers was.

ETA: Wow, that meeting included a cross-burning ceremony. It's like I tell my kids, the 80's really were a different time.

Last edited by anon for this on Wed, Oct 31 2018, 12:58 pm; edited 2 times in total

simcha2

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 12:55 pm

My mum, growing up in England in the 40s (in a not jewish part of London), frequently had other children ask to see her horns because "Jews are the children of Satan". Pretty sure, this was before Farrakhan. (Of course the imagery of Jews with horns goes back centuries, related both to the satan ideas and the mistranslation of קרני אור).

Trying to connect Bowers, an extreme right wing nut, to Farrakhan seems to be a bizarre attempt to place blame for his actions on the left.

anon for this

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 1:05 pm

simcha2 wrote:

I agree with this.

yo'ma

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 1:20 pm

Fox wrote:

the lyrics

Quote:

Oh, the white folks
Hate the black folks
And the black folks
Hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule

But during
National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark are dancing cheek to cheek, it's
Fun to eulogize the
People you despise
As long you don't let them in your school

Oh, the poor folks, hate the rich folks
And the rich folks hate the poor folks
All of my folks hate all of your folks
It's american as apple pie
But during...

National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans cause it's very chic
Stand up and shake the hand of
Someone you can't stand
You can tolerate him if you try

Oh the protestants hate the catholics
And the catholics hate the protestants
And the hindus hate the muslims
And everybody hates the jews, but during

National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week, it's
National Everyone-Smile-At
-One-Another-hood Week, be
Nice to people who are
Inferior to you
It's only for a week so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year

Fox

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 1:26 pm

simcha2 wrote:

Trying to connect Bowers, an extreme right wing nut, to Farrakhan seems to be a bizarre attempt to place blame for his actions on the left.

Farrakhan doesn't fit into the left or the right in terms of his ideology or various hatreds.

He's primarily a black nationalist, and a lot of his rhetoric is about black empowerment through economic and cultural independence. In fact, if you took innocuous clips from his speeches, he says a lot of stuff that most of us would agree with and support.

It's very easy for me to understand why a black family would want their kids to listen to his message. Which is precisely why he's really, really dangerous. He regularly holds rallies of 10,000 people here in Chicago, and the hatred is only a portion of it.

His connection to the left has more to do with Chicago politics than ideology. Democrats dominate Chicago politics to the point that many -- sometimes most -- local races don't even have a Republican running. So any community leader, righteous or loathsome, naturally allies him/herself with the Democrats.

Farrakhan is no fool; he gives generously to local Democrats (and might give to Republicans if there were any) and sends his followers out to vote for them. While not a factor in national elections, Farrakhan has enough of a following to make a difference locally and in Congressional races. So the Democratic Party leadership has not been eager to cut off ties or urge their prominent members to do so.

simcha2

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 1:43 pm

Fox wrote:

I don't disagree with what you wrote, but not quite sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my assertion.

The way I see it those people trying to connect Farrakhan to Bowers or posting that left wing anti semitism is more dangerous (as opposed to different, as dangerous, more/ less insidious etc.) are motivated by an uncomfortable fact, that they themselves have made the same arguments as Bowers, but without the overt anti semitism.

It was only last week on the migrant caravan thread (introduced with hysteria and multiple exclamation points) that an amother accused Soros of funding the "invasion". Despite the fact that there is no evidence of this. It was rightly pointed out that using soros as a scapegoat is really just saying "Jews" without saying it. Think about it, a frum woman was parroting antisemitic theories.

Now you have an awful, disgusting mass murder and the "justification" by the murderer is the invasion of immigrants facilitated by Jews.

Self reflection at that point has to be painful. Better to blame the left.

No, I'm not saying any amothers are mass murderers, or to blame, or antisemitic. Or that there's any justification for antisemitism. Or that the Pittsburgh murders were in any way predictable.

Fox

Wed, Oct 31 2018, 2:35 pm

simcha2 wrote:

I don't really see the Pittsburgh tragedy as a matter of left versus right, and I was careful to stay out of that fray. Evil people do evil things. Sometimes those evil people identify politically one way; sometimes, the other. Most often, such individuals don't care about politics or culture at all.

The inevitable attempts to find the "cause" of the shooter's anti-Semitism is, IMHO, a form of magical thinking. It allows us to tell ourselves that there is a specific condition, that if remedied, would prevent such things from happening in the future.

The real reason is that Eisav soneh Yaakov. Attempts to correlate this tragedy with politics and culture are historically inaccurate and anyone doing so, whether left, right, or center, is profoundly misguided.

simcha2 wrote:

It was only last week on the migrant caravan thread (introduced with hysteria and multiple exclamation points) that an amother accused Soros of funding the "invasion". Despite the fact that there is no evidence of this. It was rightly pointed out that using soros as a scapegoat is really just saying "Jews" without saying it. Think about it, a frum woman was parroting antisemitic theories.

I disagree that suspecting Soros of involvement in this or similar matters is inherently anti-Semitic. It's not a conspiracy theory that the Open Society Foundations provide funding to various enterprises that are far, far to the left of anything most of us would support, as well as plenty of anti-Israel activities. Nor is it a secret that Soros has advocated for borderless states in one version or another.

Just as the right looks for Soros's involvement in any large-scale far-left activity, the left looks to Sheldon Adelson when conservatives mount any kind of big-bucks enterprise. Ideally, both men would use their money for more general forms of charity and community investment rather than advancing ideologies that may backfire not only on them, but on the entire Jewish community.