III: Foundation-Funded Racism: Jeremiah Wright and Michelle 123American imperialism. She offers no analysis of conditions in the ghetto, or ideas for recovery,
reconstruction, and reform. Her axiomatic standpoint is her own greedy and infantile ego.
At that point in her life, Michelle thought that her future career after Princeton would bring her
towards “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will
only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” “In
defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community,” Michelle
elaborates, “I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very
different from white culture.” This is of course the central tenet of the pork-chop nationalist
position. It is not a scientific analysis of culture. It is rather a rhetorical strategy and political pose
for extracting more and better concessions from the affirmative action system, which has left two
thirds to three quarters of the black community in poverty for the last 40 years, since the system was
put in place by Nixon and George Shultz, his Secretary of Labor.
MICHELLE SHOCKED TO FIND WEALTHY SNOBS AT PRINCETON!
For this affirmative action method to work, it is indispensable that grievances be kept alive and
at the center of attention; if one is to be a beneficiary, one must always be a victim. Michelle writes,
with dubious orthography: “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and
academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their
enrollments.” Warming to the victimhood that this analysis offers, she goes on to complain that
Princeton in 1985 had only five black tenured professors on its faculty. The Afro-American studies
program “is one of the smallest and most understaffed departments in the university.” There was
only one campus group “designed specifically for the intellectual and social interests of blacks and
other third world students.” Today her pose is that she is a typical home girl of the south side
Chicago ‘hood; before that, she was from the third world, as we see here. The stance is determined
by the object she is seeking at that moment. She strove mightily to get into Princeton, but she now
finds the place “infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities.” If
she had wanted to avoid wealthy snobs, why then did she choose Princeton in the first place? Was
she a complete fool? If she wanted third-world students, she could have headed for a dozen ultra-
left campuses. What Michelle is evidently seeking here is the pose of going to Princeton and
scorning the place at the same time, the better to enhance her status as a person who has secured the
invidious best, but rejected it as not good enough.
At this time Michelle was interested in the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter
Wallace, who delved into white-black community relations. These two discussed the “integration of
black official(s) into various aspects of politics” and notes “problems which face these black
officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they
are representing all people and not just black people,” instead of seeking to build up “two separate
social structures.” This is the delicate question of how to make the transition from the affirmative
action black nationalist stance necessary to secure grants and set-asides, to the more inclusive
posture that would be necessary to run for office in any constituency not dominated by blacks.
Michelle had no solution for this problem then; the solution has been supplied by Axelrod, who
discovered that messianic platitudes and vapid utopian sloganeering about non-partisanship, hope,
and change would allow this shift to be carried out while duping the gullible and guilt-ridden white
liberals, who, after all, were eager to be fooled.
Michelle mailed out an 18-question survey to a sample of 400 black Princeton graduates, asking
them to estimate the amount of time and “comfort” level spent interacting with blacks and whites