Main Menu

Book review: The New Hate

The Hew Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right book coverI’ve learned a lot from Arthur Goldwag’s previous book: Cults, Conspiracies and Secret Societies, a veritable encyclopedia of crackpots. Goldwag says that he considered adding a paragraph or two on the Obama birth certificate theories to that book delivered to his publisher just after the 2008 election, but “decided that references to such a transitory political derangement might just as easily date it. ‘Who will remember any of this in six months?’”

Who indeed? I started the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog about the time Cults went to the publisher, with similar thoughts that the story was nearly over and that I had missed it. I missed the start of the story, but three years later the end is nowhere in sight and Arthur Goldwag has for his part written a new book, The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right, where he puts Obama conspiracies in the wider context of the increasing tendency of the Right to embrace far-out conspiracy theories from the past and to invent new ones.

In the book you will find Barack Obama’s birth certificate, enemies like Jerome Corsi and Joseph Farah,  and friends like Karl Popper, but it isn’t a book about the birthers;  the birthers fit into a much larger mosaic of right-wing nut jobbery. You can read the first chapter for free at Amazon.com. The cool thing about the Kindle edition is that many of the footnotes are hyperlinked to the sources.

You may also find Arthur Goldwag’s blog interesting. Here’s a teaser article  there for your consideration: Why they keep Invoking Saul Alinsky.

37 Responses to Book review: The New Hate

  1. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 22, 2012 at 3:31 am #

    “In the book you will find Barack Obama’s birth certificate…”

    Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

  2. avatar
    misha February 22, 2012 at 6:51 am #

    “Here’s a teaser article there for your consideration: Why they keep Invoking Saul Alinsky.”

    As I have said before – it’a a dog whistle to anti-Semites.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    Well, what I meant was “the topic of Obama’s birth certificate.”

    If you want an actual Obama birth certificate, get a copy of Barack Obama 44th President: Collector’s Vault. It’s a short form.

    Kenneth Olsen:
    “In the book you will find Barack Obama’s birth certificate…”

    Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

  4. avatar
    James M February 22, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    misha:
    “Here’s a teaser articlethere for your consideration: Why they keep Invoking Saul Alinsky.”

    As I have said before – it’a a dog whistle to anti-Semites.

    I’m also quite certain that none of them can show anywhere they ever used that name before they got into Obama opposition.

  5. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 22, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Just as some find it hard to accept the good faith of the birthers, I find that anyone who accepts pdf documents posted on the internet as evidence is devoid of intellectual integrity.

  6. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2012 at 10:06 am #

    Kenneth Olsen: Just as some find it hard to accept the good faith of the birthers, I find that anyone who accepts pdf documents posted on the internet as evidence is devoid of intellectual integrity.

    Really? Assuming you vote in the upcoming elections, in what form will the candidate you choose provide you with their bona fides? Have any done so as yet?

  7. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 22, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    Yes. We’ll see. Not that I know of. Thanks for asking.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2012 at 10:36 am #

    But it’s not just PDF documents on the Internet. It’s NBC News White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie saying that she saw the original and felt the raised seal, and it’s the Hawaii Department of Health press release pointing to the White House page with that document, two Hawaii Department of Health Directors reporting their personal inspection of the original in the files, and it’s 1961 Hawaiian newspapers confirming the same information, and the original certified short form birth certificate handled and photographed by FactCheck.org.

    If all we were dealing with was just a PDF on the Internet then some respect might be afforded even a wildly implausible theory that it was inauthentic, but that’s not what is happening. We have birthers running around like raving lunatics shouting so loudly that they can’t hear the obvious absurdity of their delusions when pointed out by others.

    Kenneth Olsen: Just as some find it hard to accept the good faith of the birthers, I find that anyone who accepts pdf documents posted on the internet as evidence is devoid of intellectual integrity.

  9. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    Kenneth Olsen: Yes. We’ll see. Not that I know of. Thanks for asking.

    So you criticize one person for making his information available in the form of a pdf (actually there is a jpeg as well), yet the others vying for the same post have literally shown nothing. By what standards does that show even the minimum of fairness?

  10. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm February 22, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    Goldwag has a very interesting website. I bet he is a INTP from the way he writes.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    I used the Obama Conspiracy Theories blog a lot when I was writing THE NEW HATE

    — Arthur Goldwag on Facebook

    [Preen]

  12. avatar
    JPotter February 22, 2012 at 1:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: [Preen]

    No emoticon for that?

    😎

  13. avatar
    JPotter February 22, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    By which I also mean, “Congrats, Doc!”

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm #

    This is as good a place as any to say that while I intended this web site to be a quick reference to a wide range of Obama conspiracy topics, it has never been intended to be a source, and it isn’t used that way by journalists and attorneys who visit. What I hope that I can provide, just as the Wikipedia does so well, is a summary of the issues with links to the actual source references. It is perhaps a “better Google” when it comes to filtering all that’s out there.

    I value Mr. Goldwag’s Facebook comment that he used this site. He’s not the only person that you would have heard of who has benefited from this collection (names I hold in confidence). It is things like this that provide a lot of the motivation that has kept the site going so long.

    JPotter: By which I also mean, “Congrats, Doc!”

  15. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    I’ll stipulate that you’ve got a bizarre pdf and hearsay.

    Why privilege access to a banal government document that has already been posted? On what principle? The president’s right to churlishness?

    The pdf and the conduct of the pretensident is patently absurd. Given this, it’s perfectly natural that you turn to language alleging mental illness and delusions in order to demean those who don’t share your views.

  16. avatar
    Kenneth Olsen February 22, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Whoops!
    The pdf and the conduct of the pretensident ARE patently absurd.

  17. avatar
    JPotter February 22, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen: I’ll stipulate that you’ve got a bizarre pdf and hearsay.

    And your basis of belief that other presidential contenders are eligible is….?

  18. avatar
    Arthur February 22, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen: I’ll stipulate that you’ve got a bizarre pdf and hearsay.

    You’ll “stipulate”? Look up the meaning of that word; you lack the authority to stipulate anything. You might “suggest,” “argue,” or “claim,” but for you, some fatuous blogging head, to “stipulate” what is and what is not acceptable evidence of legal birth in Hawaii, is pure . . . silliness. You are a very silly fellow. Welcome!

  19. avatar
    Bill DuBerger February 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    Any mention of the “LIHOP’s” or “MIHOP’s” in the book?

  20. avatar
    Woodrowfan February 22, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    And your basis of belief that other presidential contenders are eligible is….?

    They’re white Republicans. That’s enough for his ilk.

  21. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2012 at 3:47 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen: The pdf and the conduct of the pretensident ARE patently absurd.

    The President’s pdf and jpeg and vouching by Hawaii beat Rmoney’s and Sanitorum’s and Gingerich’s and Mr. Paul’s complete lack of ANY public documents. They have shown zip, zero, nada. What are they hiding?

  22. avatar
    Thrifty February 22, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen:
    I’ll stipulate that you’ve got a bizarre pdf and hearsay.

    A bunch of random schmucks saying “OMG THAT’S BIZARRE” does not equal bizarre.

    Statements verifying the authenticity of an official document, by the authorities that issued that document, does not equal hearsay.

    Kenneth OlsenWhy privilege access to a banal government document that has already been posted? On what principle? The president’s right to churlishness?

    Hawaii state law.

    Again, what evidence do you have that Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich are natural born citizens?

  23. avatar
    Paper February 22, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

    It’s unclear where exactly you think access has been privileged. I probably can guess your meaning, but it could be clearer.

    In the meantime, let’s start with the Constitution, Article Four Section One. Full faith and credit. That means we are required by the Constitution itself to give full faith, FULL faith and credit, to Hawaii in this matter. Therefore, we do not merely have some random PDF, nor does hearsay enter the equation, BECAUSE the state of Hawaii, on its own official website, provides a link to the very PDF in question, while also affirming, on more than one occasion, the record of Obama’s birth.

    That is not hearsay. That is Hawaii in its official capacities directly affirming the document in question. (Also, Savannah Guthrie herself is not providing hearsay. My talking about it may be hearsay, but you can look up her first person non-hearsay report yourself.)

    The only other level of access is to let anyone and everyone see and touch the b.c.’s (or the original state documents in Hawaii’s possession?) for themselves. That is not about privilege, but about practicality. Moreover, as pointed out by others here, such level of access has never been required of any other president or candidate. So we are not talking about *privileging* access. We are talking about an excessive inquisition beyond the Constitution and beyond anything required of anyone else ever.

    Hawaii cannot forge its own documents, just as you cannot forge your own signature. If you are not happy with the documents provided, it is not because they are forgeries (which is impossible). The only cause to complain would be that Hawaii is lying, committing not forgery but fraud. That is a whole other level of absurdity, but the only avenue that would mean anything.

    Kenneth Olsen:
    Why privilege access to a banal government document that has already been posted? On what principle? The president’s right to churlishness?

  24. avatar
    Thrifty February 22, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    Speaking of not being able to forge your own signature…

    My father is an instructor at a local community college, and has been since 1986. 12 years ago, I was a student at that college and he was my instructor in one of my classes. Being my father, we share the same last name, although we have different first names.

    Another student had a different last name but the same first name. At some point in the class, there was something that required my father’s signature, but for some reason the other student did not want to approach my father to request it. We toyed with the idea of him signing his first name (which is identical to my father’s) and me signing my last name (which is also identical) and claiming that since both of us was writing our own name (at least half of it), that this was not forgery. This was really just a flight of fancy thought though; I think we both knew full well that wasn’t a valid excuse and we never went through with it.

    Also, my father has one of those weird signatures that doesn’t really resemble his name in the slightest. As a child, when I had things that required a parental signature, I would always go to my mother if I could, because getting Dad’s signature usually ended up with me being accused by the teacher of forgery.

    Paper: Hawaii cannot forge its own documents, just as you cannot forge your own signature. If you are not happy with the documents provided, it is not because they are forgeries (which is impossible). The only cause to complain would be that Hawaii is lying, committing not forgery but fraud. That is a whole other level of absurdity, but the only avenue that would mean anything.

  25. avatar
    Paper February 22, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Hey, no spoilers! That’s the next episode of Community when it comes back on! ;-}

    Thrifty:
    Speaking of not being able to forge your own signature…

    My father is an instructor at a local community college, and has been since 1986.12 years ago, I was a student at that college and he was my instructor in one of my classes.Being my father, we share the same last name, although we have different first names.

    Another student had a different last name but the same first name.At some point in the class, there was something that required my father’s signature, but for some reason the other student did not want to approach my father to request it.We toyed with the idea of him signing his first name (which is identical to my father’s) and me signing my last name (which is also identical) and claiming that since both of us was writing our own name (at least half of it), that this was not forgery.This was really just a flight of fancy thought though; I think we both knew full well that wasn’t a valid excuse and we never went through with it.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    So I was reading Goldwag’s book and it mentioned people claiming that Barack Obama was fathered by Malcolm X. Nowadays, that’s the schtick of Martha Trowbridge, but it’s been around for quite a while, and I struck by the hyperlink in Goldwag’s book pointing to the Israel Insider web site.

    What strikes me is that the animated morph of Obama to Macolm X shown at Israel Insider is attributed to Polarik (who we now know as Dr. Ron Polland). Israel Insider was also one of the earliest sites to claim that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth was a fake, another Polland/Polarik theme. It looks like we owe a lot of the craziness of the birther movement to Polland, just as we can attribute the legal craziness to Leo Donofrio.

  27. avatar
    JPotter February 23, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It looks like we owe a lot of the craziness of the birther movement to Polland, just as we can attribute the legal craziness to Leo Donofrio.

    They recognized a need, and filled it. Just another day at the office of soulless capitalism. Though, if you’re going to sell out, why not do so for something remunerative?

    A great entrepreneur creates a needs to fill. Great entrepreneurs birthers are not. Lord knows what needs they might create.

  28. avatar
    Paper February 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    Actually, speaking entrepreneurially, if anyone wants to really really prove me wrong, is willing to put their money where their mouth is, I have the perfect method for you to do so. Send me a check. Let’s say, your choice of $100, $500, or $1,000.

    You can write “education” in the memo. I’ll offer simple, plain home-printed certificates of completion, for beginner ($100), intermediate ($500) and advanced ($1,000) levels.

    The important part is you must sign the check in your own hand. You can tell anyone you like, including the bank if you really want, that you yourself forged the check, but you must also tell them that you approve and affirm the check, want it cashed by me and intend for me to have the money for services rendered. You cannot have anyone forge the check, nor say anyone else forged it, nor do anything to impede the check from being cashed. You can only claim that yourself forged it, but if you do, you also must approve and affirm the check at the same time and admit that the check should be honored by the bank.

    Once the check clears into my account, you will have earned the equivalent level of certified education, which plain home-printed certificate I will send out promptly.

    Let me know if I need to open a P.O. box to accept the flood of checks!

  29. avatar
    torreon February 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    What does this mean???

  30. avatar
    Stanislaw February 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Kenneth Olsen:
    I’ll stipulate that you’ve got a bizarre pdf and hearsay.

    The fact that the President’s birth certificate doesn’t say “Place of birth: Kenya” doesn’t mean that it’s bizarre. It just means that reality disagrees with your delusion.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    It means that women become citizens under the same constitutional provisions as men.

    I suppose by the way you posed the question that you believe that there is some other self-evident conclusion to be found in the text, and I would venture to guess that that self-evident conclusion is not actually true, but I can’t be sure unless you disclose what you’re looking for.

    If you think that this settles the question of whether the children of aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens or not, then you clearly didn’t catch the part about the court not deciding this question.

    torreon: What does this mean???

  32. avatar
    Arthur February 23, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    torreon: What does this mean???

    Just in case no one feels like explicating this particular passage . . . check Wikipedia for a quick overview of the Supreme Court case “Minor v. Happersett.” Then, use the search function at the top of this site and search articles for “Minor v. Happersett.”

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm #

    Trying again …

    What does this mean?–Answer.

    We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

    Luther’s Small Catechism, explanation of the 8th Commandment.

    torreon: What does this mean???

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 23, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    Or access: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/minor-v-happersett/

    Arthur: use the search function at the top of this site and search articles for “Minor v. Happersett.”

  35. avatar
    Northland10 February 23, 2012 at 11:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Trying again …

    What does this mean?–Answer.

    We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.

    Luther’s Small Catechism, explanation of the 8th Commandment.

    Being ecumenical:

    VIII To be honest and fair in our dealings; to seek justice, freedom, and the necessities of life for all people; and to use our talents and possessions as ones who must answer for them to God;

    IX To speak the truth, and not to mislead others by our silence;

    X To resist temptations to envy, greed, and jealousy; to rejoice in other people’s gifts and races; and to do our duty for the love of God, who has called us into fellowship with him.

    An Outline of the Faith commonly called the Catechism, The Book of Common Prayer

  36. avatar
    Keith February 24, 2012 at 1:32 am #

    Northland10: An Outline of the Faith commonly called the Catechism, The Book of Common Prayer

    This year is the 350th Anniversary of The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons.. There were earlier one’s, but the 1662 version is the ‘gold standard’. There have been a couple of other attempts to revise it, but they all met with failure.

    It has sort of fallen out of favor in the last few decades, but is in the process of being updated, yet again, by the Anglican Church in Australia.

    The 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

  37. avatar
    Whatever4 February 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    Keith: This year is the 350th Anniversary of The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter or Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in churches and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of bishops, priests, and deacons.. There were earlier one’s, but the 1662 version is the ‘gold standard’. There have been a couple of other attempts to revise it, but they all met with failure.

    Totally off topic. I attended services at the Royal Chapel in St. James Palace a few times and they use a very old version of the BCP. I asked the officiant after service one day what the version was. He said it was the (I think) 1549 version. He said that after all they wrote it, and haven’t seen a need to change it since then. The books were a modern printing with gold embossing on the cover of a simple cross and “Her Majesty the Queen.” I had to stop my mother from pocketing one.

    They did let her play on the organ. Queen Mary’s heart is buried beneath it.