What really happened at the Walnut Creek City council meeting. Note Jewish council member frantically gesturing to the female mayor to “shut it down”, when the first caller begins criticizing Jewish wrongdoing. She immediately obeys, shows you who runs things.
https://gab.com/BlackScorpionNationalists/posts/110503466035774163
Here is what the lying Jewish media said happened, notice they will tell you only that “antisemitisms” happened, but will ignore that what was said was true.
Thank you for the courage of Scottie, Jeff Perrine, and another patriot, who all called into the Walnut Creek, CA, council meeting to address how criticism of Jewish wrongdoing is being constantly silenced.
Notice, in the video, the Jewish councilman begins to frantically gesture when criticism of Jewish wrongdoing begins by Scottie. It appears he has a distinct allergy to it. Not a doctor, but that’s what I’d diagnose, 😂
And the female mayor responds to the pressure, just like the Romans did 2,000 years ago when they crucified Christ, and she violates Scottie’s First Amendment Rights! She cuts him off!!
Jeff did a great job following up and showing how the First Amendment protects ALL speech, then I went, and the last Patriot upheld “Europa, The Last Battle.”
I have never seen a public council meeting in the last 60 years, where 4 men spoke up against Jewish tyranny. And it happened in Sonoma too, tonight as well. That video be coming up soon.
“Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.”
PLAYBOY founder, Hugh Hefner,
died September 27, 2017.
No man has done more
to destroy family values
by making sex an end in itself.While the PLAYBOY philosophywas touted as theheight of masculinity, it was reallyhomosexual
in essence.
This key article describes how baby boomers were brainwashed to behave like homosexuals, and eschew family in favor of promiscuity. This social engineering was designed to induct society into a satanic cult, Jewish cabalism (Freemasonry.) see also: Makow How Society Became a Sex Cult(Originally posted in 2001)by Henry Makow PhDWhat sort of man reads PLAYBOY?He is fastidious about his appearance, his home, and his possessions. He wants as much sex as possible and chooses sexual partners mostly on the basis of appearance. He is self-absorbed and doesn’t want emotional involvement or commitment. He thinks a woman would stifle him and children would be a burden.Does this sound like homosexual behavior?
It is also the masculine ideal purveyed by PLAYBOY magazine to men since the 1950’s. At the End of Time, when they open the envelope labeled “What is the essence of manhood?” I suspect it will say: “Looking after women and children. Men act as God’s agent by creating and supporting new life. The family is the red blood cell of society.” But in 1972, when circulation peaked at seven million, 75% of college men got their ideas about masculinity from PLAYBOY, at an incalculable price to themselves, women, children, and society.The similarity between the PLAYBOY and homosexual ideal is no coincidence. “The Kinsey Report” (1948) shaped current mainstream attitudes to sex. It championed unfettered sexual expression and became the manifesto of the counterculture and sexual revolution. Kinsey said that deviant and unhealthy sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that the “Kinsey Report” was a fraud. Alfred Kinsey, left, a Rockefeller-funded University of Indiana zoologist, pretended to be a Conservative family man. In fact, he was a child molester and homosexual pervert who seduced his male students and forced his wife and associates to participate in pornographic home movies.Kinsey’s agenda, in Reisman’s words, was “to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous “anything goes” bi/gay pedophile paradise.” (Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, p.4) More than 25% of his sample were prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey, who died prematurely of “orchitis,” a lethal infection in his testicles that followed years of orgiastic “self-abuse”, said 10 percent of American men were gay when, in fact, only two percent were. Kinsey and his team of pedophiles abused 2,000 infants and children to prove that they have sexual desires. Reisman concludes: “America’s growing libidinous pathologies…taught in schools…and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law and public policy largely mirror the documented sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself.” (Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences)HEFNER’S DEBT TO KINSEYThe Kinsey Report inspired Hugh Hefner to start PLAYBOY in 1953.
Hefner said the Kinsey Report “produced a tremendous sexual awakening, largely because of media attention…I really view Kinsey as the beginning. Certainly, the book was very important to me.”
With messianic fervor, Playboy took its message of sexual freedom to the American male who, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, still consecrated sex for marriage. But the freedom was illusory. Playboy’s aim, the aim of all pornographers, was to hook men on the glossy fantasy. To do this, they had to prevent them from finding true satisfaction in marriage. In Reisman’s words, “Playboy was the first national magazine to exploit college men’s fears of women and family commitment. Playboy offered itself as a reliable, comforting substitute for monogamous heterosexual love.” (Soft Porn Plays Hardball, p 47)Thus “sworn enemies,” Playboy and feminists, found common ground in their hatred of healthy heterosexuality expressed in the nuclear family. As a result of the (homo)sexual revolution, society now suffers from epidemics of family breakdown, pornography, impotence, child sexual abuse, sado sexual violence, teen pregnancy, a cocktail of STD’s and, of course, AIDS. The birthrate has plummeted by 60% since 1960 and is now below replacement level. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT HEALTHYHomosexuality is a developmental disorder caused when a male child fails to bond with his father. Psychologist Richard Cohen, in “Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality” (2000) argues persuasively that, by having sex with men, the adult gay is trying to compensate for father-love denied in adolescence.
Cohen was a homosexual himself and is now married with three children.
He attributes lesbianism to a woman’s reaction to being rebuffed or abused by her father. He has cured hundreds of homosexuals but is under constant attack for undermining the gay political agenda, (i.e. redefining societal norms.)Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has pointed to another cause of homosexuality. A 1990 survey of 1000 gays shows that an older or more powerful partner physically assaulted 37% of them before the age of 19. (Homosexuality and American Public Life, 1999, p.24). In addition, according to Anne Moir in “Why Men Don’t Iron,”some men may be “born gay” due to fetal hormone imbalances. They seem to be a minority.In 1973, the Rockefellers bullied the American Psychological Association into proclaiming homosexuality normal. Together with feminists (who believe heterosexuality is inherently oppressive), gays began to dismantle all heterosexual institutions: masculinity, femininity, marriage, the family, the boy scouts, sports, the military, and the education system. Using their control of the media, the Rockefellers (i.e. Illuminati bankers) largely dictate our cultural sensibility. They are responsible for the obsession with pornography and the occult that pervades television, music videos and the Internet. This state of arrested human development is characteristic of homosexuals who cannot form long-term relationships with the opposite sex. With straight women acting like men and vice-versa, with TV and schools promoting it, we are being turned into homosexuals. SHOCK TACTICSGay activists talk about “normalizing” their gross-out sexuality and “de-sensitizing” straights by flaunting it. I was livid when I took my 10-year-old son to see Adam Sandler’s movie Billy Madison and heard one teenage male youth in the film casually ask another: “Would you rather bone Pamela Anderson or a young Jack Nicholson?” Just as Communists once conned do-gooders to think radicalism was chic, gays define trendy for gullible liberals today.Gay and feminist activists think traditional morality was invented to perpetuate an unjust status quo. In fact, morality is the accumulated wisdom of mankind regarding what is healthy and fulfilling.
Perversion is the deviation from what is healthy.
(Relic of bygone days?)
Heterosexual morality places sex in the context of love and/or marriage because it “humanizes” the sexual appetite. It ensures that the most intimate physical act between two people expresses a commensurate emotional-spiritual bond. This is the only way sex can be truly satisfying for both men and women. It is also healthy for society because it provides for the natural and necessary outcome of sexual love, children.With Hugh Hefner’s help, Alfred Kinsey detached sex from love and procreation. He reduced it to titillation like an amusement park ride, or relief like urination. Homosexuals seem to champion anonymous bathroom sex; some fornicate through a hole in a cubicle wall. Most have 10s -100s of partners each year. In less extreme form, this is the model heterosexuals have adopted. Recently a social columnistenviously described straight couples she knows who have just broken up: “they’re out partying, having the time and the sex, it seems of their lives.”In conclusion, the “sexual revolution” was really a triumph of perverse homosexual norms and values. The gay-feminist agenda is to redefine healthy as pathological and vice-versa and they have succeeded. In 60 short years, almost all sexual constraints have dissolved and heterosexual society is reeling. The cultural and social breakdown will only get worse. We need a counterrevolution.
—
RelatedHefner- A Crypto Jew? Playboy’s “team of Jewish editors” Makow – Is this Gay Behavior Sick?
Makow – All Porn is Gay (Hefner watches gay porn)Background on Alfred Kinsey
Excuse Me, Gay is Not Good, by Charles Socarides MD
First Comment by Jude: The corporate sexual revolutionaries worked in the certain knowledge that there’s nothing human beings are more insecure about than sex. As C.S Lewis wrote many years ago, many men engage in extra-marital shenanigans, not out of overwhelming desire, but in order to reassure themselves of their virility, modernity, or whatever. In my experience, the most avid bed-hoppers among men are rarely the ones most appreciative of women – even on the physical level. Instead, they tend to have pronounced narcissistic personality traits. This ties in with something else Lewis said: the lascivious man thinks of women’s bodies, the lascivious woman thinks of her own. The Playboy style stud has a feminine personality when it comes to sex – he’s thinking primarily of his own starring role as Don Juan.The most promiscuous (in the heterosexual sense) guy I ever knew outed himself to his friends as bisexual on a drunken night out. Hefner himself admitted to engaging in homosexual swinging.
The Amazon show “Shiny Happy People: Duggar Family Secrets” is a lie, women. The entire agenda is to discredit biblical teaching on God’s authority structure, sexual purity, homeschooling, biblical roles for men and women, protecting children from worldly influences, accepting children as blessings, and disciplining children. They made all of these look wicked and lead to abuse. They also made false accusations against Gothard and the Pearls. They said that they promoted spanking children even when they were adults and support domestic discipline in marriage. “If a wife doesn’t call her husband ‘lord,’ there must be a consequence so inflict pain until the wife complains.” This is so completely false! Neither of these men promote this. If they did, they would have had clips of these men saying these things, but they didn’t because there aren’t any.
I carefully listened to the many clips they had of Gothard speaking. I didn’t hear him say anything that was heretical or out of line. Yes, he had convictions about modesty, allowing God to have control of your womb, homeschooling, protecting your children, and many other things that were common among most Americans before the 1950s. He saw how wicked our culture was becoming and taught parents to protect their children from it. Many were raised with his teachings and turned out great. Our culture sure isn’t turning out many great children now; that’s for sure. (Please understand, I am not condoning his behavior that caused him to resign from the ministry, and I don’t know all that he taught.)
Most of the people who spoke on the show probably had abusive parents which they blamed on Pearl and Gothard. Amy, a Duggar cousin, seemed to have rebelled against the Lord a long time ago. Derrick and Jill were on the show. I don’t know where they are with their faith but accusations were made about Jim Bob owing them money. There’s always two sides of the story, and we have no idea what Jim Bob’s side is.
These people claimed that Gothard’s teaching gave women no rights and that children are to be taught “instant obedience.” They weren’t allowed to go to dances or wear jeans. There were no TVs or radios. They accused the Duggar children of never arguing and being meek and mild, and the parents were peaceful. For some reason, these were bad things? The daughters were raised to do the cooking and cleaning and help with the younger siblings.
They hate the umbrella of protection authority picture with God over all, then the husband, then the wife, and finally the children. They also thought it was wrong for these men to be against public education. They didn’t like that they focus upon character qualities and teach servanthood. ALL of these things that they spoke against Gothard and Pearls can easily be convictions people hold from their study of the Bible!
The show showed a clip of Jill and Jessa being interviewed by Megan Kelly many years ago after the Josh Duggar incident came out. Both girls said they didn’t even know it happened. Their parents told them about it after Josh confessed. They adamantly said that Josh was not a pedophile or sexual pervert (at that time). They were distraught that all of this was exposed to the media. Jill didn’t update anything she had said in that interview, but you can clearly see that she holds bitterness towards her parents now which is sad. (I absolutely do not support Josh and his recent allegations and imprisonment.)
None of the other siblings are supporting Jill and her new book coming out in January that I can see. In fact, one Duggar son was defending his parents in the comment section and was viciously attacked by many. Time will tell, but it seems the rest of the siblings are walking in the faith and have come to their own convictions. Their marriages seem strong, and they seem joyful. I am sure they are heartbroken about Josh and pray daily for true repentance and belief.
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
3 John 1:4
https://thetransformedwife.com/shiny-happy-people-duggar-family-secrets/
King Charles 1625-1649
Most people think that the murder of King Nicholas of Russia in 1918 was the first Jewish excursion into regicide but, in fact, England’s long descent to satanist hellhole began almost 400 years ago when Organized Jewry had King Charles I, left, beheaded. We could add King Louis XVI’s murder in 1793 to this list.
These four revolutions were steps leading to the Jew World Order: The English Revolution (1650); The American Revolution (1776); the French Revolution (1789) and the Russian Revolution (1917.)
OLIVER CROMWELL & THE BEHEADING OF KING CHARLES I IN 1649 FINANCED BY THE JEWS
by Brother Nathaniel
(Excerpt by henrymakow.com)
JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.
A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:
Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —
To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —
Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.
Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England. (See Sources #2 Below original )
JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.
The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.
To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant a charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.
In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England.
In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.
The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.
Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.
The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront
Tony Martin
The Majority Press, 1993; Black Classic Press, 2022
I recently wrote an article on the very controversial The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: The Jewish Role in the Enslavement of Africans, which was published in 1991 without authorial attribution by the Nation of Islam. That book was a fusillade against the American Jewish community inasmuch as it drew attention to the outsized role that the Jews played in the African Atlantic slave trade. The Jews mounted a ferocious—and largely successful—effort to marginalize the book by characterizing it as antisemitic “pseudo-scholarship.” Indeed, some thirty years later, here is a typical refrain about how the work has been dismissed:
Mainstream scholars have on the whole rejected [The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews]. In addition to the study by Faber cited above, refutations have been published by Davis, the Yale professor mentioned above, and Ralph Austen, an emeritus professor of African history at the University of Chicago. Winthrop D. Jordan, a history professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who specialized in slavery, wrote that the book employed shoddy scholarly methods and cherry-picked information, ignoring evidence that modified or countered its pre-ordained conclusion. Henry Louis Gates, director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University called the Nation of Islam’s book “one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled,” and charged that it “massively misrepresents the historical record.”
For my part as a lay historian, I am relatively well-read in the American Civil War, the antebellum South, and American slavery. Like most Americans of my generation, I share their disdain for the institution of slavery. While the history of African chattel slavery in the Americas is as loathsome as it is dehumanizing, the concept of slavery itself is a historically and economically complex practice. Its ubiquity and complexity, however, do not excuse its horror. If there is a maxim that we must live by, it should be that we never subject someone to something that we would not wish to abide by. And, at least for me in applying the Golden Rule, I can think of nothing worse than being subjected to slavery.
To be sure, I am sure that my visceral reaction to slavery is influenced by the historical epoch into which I was born—i.e., we live in an age that elevates maximal individual autonomy to the highest human good and therefore a systematic restraint of individual autonomy (slavery) must be seen, under that principle, as the lowest form of human institutions. In any event, I have studied chattel slavery enough to know it was a terrible and debasing economic and political structure. And even if I take issues with how the United States cured itself of chattel slavery (and I do)—and even if I take a more nuanced view of the war between the states (and I do)—and even if I abhor what the United States has become after it abolished slavery (which I do as well)—none of that flavors my opinion of chattel slavery itself.
Despite the modern historic gloss, Europeans neither invented slavery nor were its chief practitioners. Slavery has existed for as long as the stronger group prevailed over the weaker group, which is another way to say that slavery has existed since man was ejected from the Garden. That said, European involvement in the systematic practice of African slavery will forever be a mark of odium for us. That we constructed a multi-generational regime of chattel slavery tied to race is something for which we continue to pay a moral price—and increasingly, a price in crime and unending programs for uplifting the ancestors of slaves. It is something, pardon the pun, we own as a people and as a civilization. And there is an irony then—in this essay and the subject matter that it covers—that the Jews have self-deputized themselves as our moral lights to remind us of the horrors of what we, as a people, did. True enough, even though I don’t have a lineal ancestor in the United States before the twentieth century, I own it on behalf of my European people. That the Jews, however, should be our ethical guide in this matter is something altogether different and patently objectionable.
So, I approach the topic as neither an apologist for European slaving nor as someone naïve enough to believe that there is something congenital about us in terms of European slaving. It is a lamentable chapter in European history, but it is merely a chapter. All it says of us is that some of us were capable of inflicting collective and unjustified harm on others—and, at least in that, we are no different than any other group of people. The very doctrine of original sin, which posits that human beings (individually and collectively) have damaged moral compasses is validated when something like slavery is analyzed. Only morally damaged people could justify its perpetuation. I, therefore, own the history of my people like anyone else. All we can do—whether we are discussing the failures in our own lives or the collective failures of our people—is repent and resolve to do better. The study of history then is more than the collection of isolated facts but rather an opportunity for the Christian to be exposed to examples—both good and bad—to use them as a means by which personal growth and moral improvement are undertaken. And our failures, which are bound together in humanity’s congenital and spiritual failures, do not make me love my people any less. Like family, they are mine, warts, and all.
I had multiple reasons to read The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. It was an intersection of two of my historical interests: the Jews and the institution of slavery. In my study of the Jews, which has included both positive and negative portrayals, and in my study of slavery, I found The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews to be both scholarly and persuasive. The thesis of the work is quite simple: the Jews, from the very beginning of the discovery of the New World, were dominant and instrumental in the Atlantic slave trade. They had no qualms about it or the dehumanization of Africans that accompanied it. The Jews were more involved with slaving, slave-trafficking, and slaveholding, at least on a proportionate basis, than non-Jews. Simply put, the point of the book is to highlight this outsized Jewish role in African slaving. As one might imagine, this enormous role is something that modern Jews would like to remain obscured and hidden. Unlike most guilt-ridden Euro-Americans, the Jews refuse to acknowledge their collective role in slavery. Not only do they not want to apologize for it, but they also evidently wish to deny it. It is the height of historical hypocrisy for the Jews to abuse others for the same moral failings that they enacted with enthusiasm. This is a type of gaslighting of the worst kind.
While the book has its blind spots, I marvel at the publication strategy of the Nation of Islam in three ways. First, it is bereft of authorship—it was merely written by the “Historical Department” of the Nation of Islam. This stratagem prevented the Jews and their minions from attacking the author(s) or his/their relative credentials as opposed to the work itself. In an alternate history, the author or authors, would have been the story—and we would remember this entire episode as the ultimate beatdown of “N” who dared to synthesize all the material that substantiates the outsized role of the Jews in enslaving and continuing the enslavement of Africans.
Second, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews is based upon, almost exclusively, the citation and use of past Jewish scholarship (albeit of an older vintage). This is where knowledge of the history of history, as it were, comes in handy. There was a time—before 1960—in which chattel slavery and its dehumanization of Africans was not as acutely detested as it is today. Today, we are horrified by chattel slavery and modern scholarship reflects that axiomatic moral gloss. What this means is that older scholarship—before the age of today’s moral grandstanding—could discuss the phenomenon of chattel slavery in a relatively dispassionate way. In this earlier milieu of slavery’s historiography, the accurate recounting of the role that the Jews—or anyone else—played in it did not subject them to special scorn—it was what it was. Earlier Jewish scholarship, which is always interested in Jewish history, simply laid out what the Jews did regarding slaving and slaveholding. If anything, prior Jewish scholars were impressed by the ability of the Jews to dominate something commercial like the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Moreover, slaveholding itself was a sign of wealth and having “arrived”—that the Jews owned slaves everywhere was a sign of their “arriving” and “arriving” splendidly in the New World. Little did they know that this economic and ethnic pride would later become such a historical liability for future generations of Jews. By relying on this older Jewish scholarship, the authors of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jewsmanaged to get a more unvarnished account of Jewish involvement, and they insulated themselves from relying upon “antisemitic” sources—indeed, no one can sensibly argue that Jewish historians from the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries were antisemitic.
Third, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews makes no grand claims regarding the role of the Jews: it merely lays out the various ways in which the Jews were involved and dominated, at least at different periods, the importation and trading of slaves. It does not, for example, claim a special Jewish propensity for slave-trading nor does it assign a special Jewish moral disability for slave-trading either. In other words, it is not a work that makes a special claim of Jewish moral or genetic inferiority concerning their slaving—it simply was what it was. Rather, the whole of the work is a historical recitation of a particular people’s significant role in a commercial venture and system that we all take for granted now is odious. And, at least from a disinterested perspective, this is something that historians do all the time: they make their living, at least today, by splicing and reviewing historical phenomena from various angles and perspectives. Had any historian presented the special role that, for example, the Portuguese, the Spanish, or the Italians played in the African Atlantic slave trade, no one would have cared. Indeed, today, the more specialized the perspective, the more it is valued—so a dissertation, for example, of the role that Austrian candlemakers played in the trans-Atlantic slave trade is sure to have a ready audience (albeit specialized) and ready approval. Such scholarship would be deemed to be another contribution to the overall historical mix of our collective understanding of slavery. The only issue here is that the Nation of Islam had the temerity to focus upon the Jews, which is unforgivable under current conditions.
The Nation of Islam wanted to publish this work presumably for three reasons. First, it adds to the scholarship of slavery, which is something that all Black nationalists wish to see expanded. Second, they probably wanted to expose the fact that the Jews’ role in African Atlantic slavery has been “airbrushed” by subsequent Jewish historians who now know that such involvement is as toxic as it is unhelpful to current Jewish historiographies. When I say “airbrushing,” I mean that the Jews, as a historical group, have been written out of the narrative of slaving peoples. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews then forces the Jews to account for both the reality of Jewish slaveholding and the airbrushing of Jewish slaveholding—even in dismissing it. Third, the Nation of Islam represents that portion of the Black nationalist spectrum that is hostile to Jewish involvement generally in Black liberation—they have an agenda to weaken the bonds of a partnership that they see as ultimately negative. The Nation of Islam sees the Jews as instrumentalizing Blacks for whatever the Jewish agenda is—and, for that reason alone, they published The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews to “wake up” Black America to the idea that the Jews are not—and never have been—the friends of Blacks. Thus the Nation of Islam drew upon a strain of Black thought that sees Jews for who they are—patronizing “friends” who do nothing for Blacks, and, worse, “friends” who harm.
While I can understand why the Jews would denounce the third prong (seeking to decouple Jews and Blacks as groups) as “anti-Semitic,” they studiously ignore the reality that the Jewish doctoring of the role of the Jews in slavery is as real as the role of the Jews in slavery itself. And that airbrushing is a much larger indictment of Jewry than their copious involvement in the slaving business hundreds of years ago. The airbrushing demonstrates control over the allowable narrative—really a manipulation of history itself—that bespeaks a concerted application of power to bend reality in a way that benefits and empowers the Jews. The hysterical hostility to The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews thus has more to do with what the Jews are doing now as opposed to what dead Jews did hundreds of years ago. Thus, the whole affair is about Jewish power dynamics today—not Jewish historical sins of yesterday.
Although contemporary Jews have succeeded in branding the work as “antisemitic,” the work itself is no screed or cauldron of conspiratorial thinking about the Jews. By refusing to connect the historical dots—that is, to connect why the Jews were so heavily invested in slaving—the authors remain above the socio-political fray of “antisemitic” theorizing. In that sense, the book is scholarly and not polemical. Little did it matter, however; the Jews were successful in deeming it “anti-Semitic” anyway for the mere fact that the authors had pointed out something that the Jews wished to remain obscured. The reality is that the current Jewish ethos and mantle of victimology cannot tolerate the aspersion (even if true) of the systemic Jewish victimizing of another group. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews represented, at least to Jewish groups, an existential threat to the continued assertions of Jewish moral superiority, which itself is axiomatically tied to Jewish suffering and Jewish victimhood. For these reasons, dragging out the Jewish role in African slaving into the light of day had to be quashed with alacrity and heavy-handedness. The judiciously cultivated rapport between Jewish leadership over the African American community was at stake: if a sizable contingent of Blacks understood the vast role that the Jews played in their ancestors’ capture and enslavement, the edifice of Jewish-led control might collapse.
No one can threaten, as it were, the carefully concocted historical narrative of two sojourning peoples (Blacks and Jews) constantly being victimized by Euro-Americans. No, the Jews cannot be lumped in with the victimizers, or, worse still, identified as chief victimizers themselves. The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews then was a double-blow to Jewish “groupthink” sensibilities: it subjected the Jews to collective shame, and it jeopardized their control over African Americans as agents against Euro-American gentiles. Thus, the work had to be smashed and put on the same social plane as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Every time and in every sentence that The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews was mentioned, the phrases, “anti-Semitic” and “pseudo-scholarship” must accompany it so that the work is morally and historically “deemed” discredited. Following the vociferous and manic campaign against The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, no academician would be allowed to use it as if it were serious scholarship. While the Jews could not stop it from being handed out by the Nation of Islam in Harlem or Chicago, they wanted to ensure that it was never assigned to college students studying the African slave trade. If one professor dared to assign it—and remained adamant in continuing to assign it—he would have to be destroyed.
• • •
As I have written much recently about race in the aftermath of “Black Lives Matter” and the lawlessness that followed the death of George Floyd, it was refreshing to read something so different from what I had been reading. “Afrocentrism” is not one of my favored topics, but I enjoyed reading something written from an Afrocentric perspective. I have an admittedly strange relationship with my understanding of Black America. I love it and loathe it all the same. I see Black criminality and dysfunction everywhere, yet I cannot help but love Black America from a distance. I deeply respect those voices in Black America that attempt to reorient Black revival and the Black community through the actions of Blacks alone. As someone who has only recently come to terms with my “Whiteness,” as it were, I now appreciate that what certain Black leaders say about self-reliance and self-determination as an intra-Black affair has equal applicability to Whites and White self-reliance and White self-determination. In the increasingly racially polarized world that we live in in the United States, it was nonetheless energizing to read the perspective of “race” from the mind of a strong Black man after spending so much time reading race from the perspective of strong, White men who are seeking to chart a course for White America. Ironically enough, both types of men are despised.
The late Anthony Martin (1942–2013) was a professor at Wellesley College from 1973 until 2007. And we know anything of Tony Martin because he became that faculty member who dared to assign The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews to his undergraduate students—his odyssey in the wilderness at the hands of a concerted and vile attempt by the Jews to silence and obliterate him is recounted in vivid detail in his short work, The Jewish Onslaught. Martin was a tenured member of the faculty in the Africana Studies Department at Wellesley, and he was a Marcus Garvey scholar. For the uninitiated, that Professor Martin was a scholar in the work of Marcus Garvey should be taken as a sign that Martin was someone who placed himself on the spectrum of Black nationalism that generally believes that Black liberation must come exclusively from within the Black community and with as little involvement of non-Black people and institutions as possible. Marcus Garvey was, to say the very least, a strong Black leader who had no use for White involvement in Black liberation. From the beginning of Black political engagement in the United States (and elsewhere), two threads within the Black world emerged—a conciliating wing that wishes to engage and incorporate seemingly sympathetic Whites into the fight for broader rights for Blacks (the “integrationist wing”) led by leaders such as Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, and the current leadership of Black civil rights organizations like the NAACP. On the other side, Blacks have more strident leaders who stressed self-reliance and self-empowerment (perhaps we could call them the “separatist” wing) and were led by people like Marcus Garvey, Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan.
The tension between the wings has led to recriminations of “Uncle Tom” (the separatist critique of the integrationist) and Black racism (the integrationist critique of the separatist wing). Indeed, President Trump himself was an acid test for the two wings—I suspect that the separatist wing enjoyed praising him on occasion simply to tweak the integrationist wing who viewed him as the devil incarnate, and that distinction is why Black separatists pay next-to-no homage to the Democratic Party while the Black integrationists spend all their energies being “good” Democrats. Black separatists will never be Republicans, but they are useful to Republicans by pointing out the folly of Democratic policies and aims. It is for this reason that Democrats struggle with how to treat Black separatists—they hate them but cannot be too hard on them lest they alienate Black integrationists. Both wings are realities of the Black experience in the United States, and to understand, at least from afar, the dynamics of Black political engagement is to appreciate this tension.
For my part, ironically perhaps, I have always appreciated the Black separatist wing—one of the books that moved me greatly in my late teens was the autobiography of Malcolm X. While I reject aspects of extreme Black nationalism and the lore that Whites (my people) are somehow congenitally evil, I find something more authentic and genuine regarding the advocacy of Black separatists. In any event, I don’t begrudge them their instinct that Black communities ought to be Black—why would I? I also have always been impressed by good rhetorical skills and no matter what he says, I find Louis Farrakhan, as a speaker and rhetorician, to be incredibly talented. Obviously, I don’t agree with much of what Farrakhan has to say but that disagreement cannot obscure that Farrakhan is one of the most dynamic speakers of his age. If only we had someone like him on our side.
I concur with Black separatists generally on three fronts: first, every community must stand on its own two feet—dependence upon “do-gooders” or worse, a pluralistic state, from the outside only emasculates the necessary work of self-reliance that is necessary for community autonomy. Second, I agree with Black separatists that race is a real and durable concept; ergo, the cult of diversity is not a communitarian strength but a sickness within a broader society. But more to the discrete point, I agree with Black separatists that Blacks—and only Blacks—can fix whatever it is that ails the Black community. And thus, the best way to support Black America is to leave them alone. Coincidentally, I see the same principle at work for White America. Our problems have become magnified and horrendous in the United States. As much as Black separatists argue for autonomous Black communities free from White (or any other) influence, I say three cheers—I’d like the same for my people. Third, Black separatists, unlike their integrationist brethren who are more liberal in policy and outlook, tend to be more noticeably patriarchal in orientation. Not only then does the solution for Blacks come from within, but they see it coming through Black men. As a White man who appreciates that feminism and matriarchy are social cancers, I appreciate the Black separatist insistence on the importance of men as the responsible parties and leaders for their communities. In this, I agree wholeheartedly.
It is important to see Martin within the wing of Black separatist thought because of his very stubborn reaction to the enormous pressure placed upon him demonstrated an intellectual life dedicated to the principle that Blacks should not be told what to do—or think—by non-Black men or institutions. For Martin, equality and respect were things that had deep meaning and purpose. For my part, I don’t think Martin picked The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews for the edification of his students because he was a disciple of Marcus Garvey. Rather, I think it was because he was so obstinate in the face of Jewish pressure to make him capitulate. Stated simply, they picked on the wrong Black man to intimidate.
Martin’s story is simple enough—in 1993, he assigned The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as one of the texts to his class on American slavery. Someone noticed the book in the Wellesley College bookstore and took note. “Observers” were sent from the College Hillel (or Jewish college organization) to Martin’s class and an intervention by the College Hillel was ordered. Eventually, tremendous local and institutional pressure were brought to bear on Martin to recant his use of the book. He refused. The pressure then moved from within to without as the national media—including The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and major television news program personalities such as David Brinkley and Ted Koppel picked up the story to shower abuse and name-calling on Professor Martin. Other Black academics were enlisted (including Henry Louis Gates and a Black colleague from Wellesley) to excoriate Martin. Martin became synonymous with two things: he was an anti-Semite himself and his discipline, Africana Studies, was a worthless academic endeavor. He was likewise amazed at the refusal of the media—the same one tarnishing his name—to entertain fairness in allowing him to tell his side of the story. He was shellshocked by the patent double-standard. The same national papers that afforded his critics ample space to tear him apart refused to allow him to defend himself.
The Jewish Onslaught is three topics in one—first, it is a poignant account of what it means to go from relative anonymity to a national punching bag because one has the temerity to buck the Jews. He titled it correctly when he labeled it an “onslaught”. Tony Martin was a living, breathing human being who was destroyed for the relatively innocuous decision to assign a book to his undergraduate students and then refuse to buckle under when his masters demanded his recantation. The entirety of the book drips with the personal hurt that this human being endured at seeing his name and reputation sullied by very powerful forces. But again, this individual, for whatever reason, refused to “play ball” and apologize for his meager part in rehabilitating The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as a piece of scholarship.
Second, the book is a very concise look at the power dynamics of the people and organizations that were seeking to destroy him in real-time as a critique of Jewish power politics. In that sense, it reads like a book that is quite critical of outsized Jewish power. In short, I sense that if Tony Martin was an anti-Semite, the Jews have only themselves to blame for his views. I am certain that Martin never set out to tangle with the Jews—his academic interests were African-related, and his interest in the Jews was tertiary at best. Only after being set upon like a pack of wild dogs did he connect the dots of Jewish viciousness—and only thereafter did he attempt, in a modest way, to describe it. Third, it is a history of the attack itself—Martin reproduces the correspondence he received (both favorable and negative) as well as the various news accounts, contemporaneous writings, and reporting. In this, his training as a lawyer comes through (he was a U.K. barrister before becoming an academic).
The Jewish Onslaught is a book that Martin never intended to—and did not want to—write. He would have contented himself writing about his areas of academic interest for the rest of his quiet career but for an inconvenient student assignment and the backlash it generated. He, therefore, became an unlikely warrior in the exposition of Jewish power politics and control. But I am glad that he did. His essay on Jewish control, manipulation, and skullduggery reads with sincerity and authenticity partly because he was a reluctant expositor of the problem. As for the writing, he is a first-class writer and logician—and he comes back, incredulously at times, to the simple question that no one should be surprised that Jews took part in the African Atlantic slave trade so why am I being professionally and personally crucified for teaching it? His answer to that question opened his eyes to the reality that the relationship between the Jews and Blacks has never been one of reciprocity and respect—it has been qualified support for Blacks to do the things that the Jews want—and any deviation from that program requires a public and professional flogging.
What is more, once Martin dug a bit deeper into the Jewish-Black relationship, he discovered much more than merely the outsized Jewish role in African chattel slavery. He discovered that the Hamitic myth (that Africans are associated particularly with the Curse of Noah) was a creation of Talmudic sages more than a thousand years ago. He attributes that myth with softening the ground for later Christian views of African inferiority that itself was used in justifying the slave trade. And the Hamitic myth is overlaid by what he calls the myth of Jewish supremacy. His hate mail, mostly from Jews, demonstrated an almost unhinged and secret hatred by Jews for the “schvartze.” But be that as it may, hate mail comes from the most unhinged members of a community so there is no proof that it represented Jewish attitudes in general. That said, Martin, if he is to be believed, was surprised by the vitriol of anti-Blackness he received for his part in the affair.
• • •
There are six themes of The Jewish Onslaught that are worthy of highlighting. Again, I assume that if “they” had left Professor Anthony Martin alone, he never would have been inclined to research and make these claims. First, he observes that “the very least that can be said in the present case is that Jewish ability to influence the major media is very impressive indeed.” Martin witnessed it first-hand, and, because of it, he researched that which should be known to those who have undertaken only a cursory glance at who runs the media in this country. Yes, the Jews have an overwhelming stranglehold over the information in the United States, and this control necessarily has implications on what constitutes “news” and what does not. That, for example, the American public is barraged with information regarding the Iranian nuclear program while not one American presidential candidate has ever been asked their opinion of Israel’s clandestine nuclear program—even though Israel, as the pariah nation that it is, is a recalcitrant non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Or more to the point, why are the American people continuously fed the lie that Israel is our “greatest ally.” Who says? Especially as it pertains to Israel, the American media carries water like a lackey for Israeli misdeeds. But for the Jewish stranglehold on media and information, the American public would undoubtedly have a very different take on our “greatest ally.” Martin simply caught a glimpse of the power of the Jewish media machine to grind down the opposition—even if the opposition itself is of little value or importance. Martin never connected that control to other Jewish initiatives and agendas but the mere fact that he observed it—in a chapter entitled “Major Media”—is enough.
Second, Martin makes the more pained point that some of his Black brethren fomented the attack on him. He uses that reality as a springboard for describing how Jews have co-opted and infiltrated Black leadership and organization for their ends. He recounts how the Jews have insisted, for example, that Louis Farrakhan be excluded from major Black summits or events, or their support (and money) would be withdrawn. As it relates to Farrakhan and his views, the question isn’t whether we agree with him (and, more to the point, as Whites, what business is it of ours to tell the Black community who can or cannot have a voice within their community), the point rather is that Farrakhan is no more beyond the pale in terms of other Black voices save for his lifelong critique of Jewish involvement in what he considers to be “intra-Black” debates. For that reason, and not his vitriol generally, Farrakhan must not only be purged from general American audiences, but he must also, if possible, be purged from Black audiences as well.
The gist of Martin’s critique is that the Jews, wholly supportive of the integrationist wing of Black America, do everything that they can to squelch the normalization and voice of Black separatists. Martin sees, correctly I might add, that Jews have a thumb on the scale of what should be an intra-Black dispute about leadership and direction. Integration serves the needs of the Jews—it makes Blacks vote in a way that mirrors the Jews and in support of politicians chosen by the Jews. It is no small thing that control over Black leadership is of enormous consequence to the Jews—they multiply their power electorally in the United States by adding ten percent of the population to their side. Black intellectuals that would question that relationship—or the Jews generally—must be crushed. Sometimes, one cannot resist the query: who do these people think that they are to manipulate anyone and everything?
Third, Martin offers a chapter entitled “Jewish Racism.” In it, he connects the dots that Jews are generally racist towards Blacks—questioning their abilities and their African Studies Departments. Martin observed first-hand, in the mail he received and the professional criticism he endured, that Jewish toleration of him (as a Black professional) and his discipline (African Studies) was contingent on his ability to leave well enough alone. He was on the receiving end of critics who called him a fraud—that his teaching was a fraud—and probably an affirmative action fraud as well. In addition to the Hamitic myth, discussed above, Martin appeared generally shocked by the bilious language used by his detractors to describe him and the debate.
Fourth, Martin makes an interesting point about the logic of “some Jews.” When Jews are forced to admit some collective failing, they insist that blame cannot be assigned to “the Jews,” but only that “some Jews” did this or that. He also writes how this “some Jews” mantra is shared by, ironically enough, all Jews. He observes:
The campus ultra-Zionist who is usually in a state of war with the campus Jewish power elite, the power elite themselves, the liberals (like the one who for years had regaled me with stories of her civil rights involvement), the former infantile left-wing communist now turned pseudo-liberal Jewish nationalist—all spoke as with one voice on this issue. “It’s a lie,” they sang in choral unison. “Jews were not an important part of the slave trade. ‘Some Jews,’ maybe, but that’s all. The book is anti-Semitic, and you are hateful for using it.”
To which he replies, cleverly enough, “and I am yet to meet the Jewish historian who will tell you that ‘some Englishmen’ established an empire on which the sun never set.” What the Jews have established, at least in terms of acceptable historiography of the Jews themselves, is that when we speak of laudable characteristics, we may speak of “the Jews”; yet when we speak of not-so-laudable characteristics or activities that are deplorable, we must speak only of “some Jews.” Only the good sticks to all, the bad is relegated to a few bad apples. Ask yourself a question, what other people demands such historiography? Martin’s insight here is alone worth the price of admission.
In a chapter entitled “Black Solidarity,” Martin recounts the overwhelming support he received from the Black community minus a few public Black detractors. But what Martin spends his time deconstructing is the infiltration of Black (and other ethnic groups) by Jewish organizations. He recounts information that was not familiar to me—the Anti-Defamation League ran illegal spying operations across the country in the 1990s—some “12,000 or more individuals and 950 organizations were said to have been the objects of the ADL’s unwelcome attention.” This was a matter of public record and reported, if briefly, in the mainstream news. From this, Martin observes that “ethnic associations” seem to fascinate the ADL, and the ADL sidestepped the controversy of its spying by sanctimoniously claiming it had an obligation to “expose extremist, racist and anti-Semitic organizations and groups.” Martin was therefore lumped into the same category as the Klan for purposes of the ADL’s watchful eye. To which Martin replies, “who will spy on the real bigots while they spy on the alleged bigots?”
The last theme that Martin touches upon is “Afrocentrism,” which he defines as, “assert[ing] that African people must interpret their own reality and see the world from their own perspective. [It] rejects both the claims of the racist and the efforts of friendly but paternalistic representatives of other races to speak for the African.” Again, this language hearkens back to the discussion above about the Black separatist wing of thought that, even if it does not call for political separation, casts a wary eye towards the liberal non-Blacks lining up to “do good” for the Black community. Martin believes that “Afrocentrism,” so defined, is considered by Jews to be their natural enemy. He views this to be so because Jews are now well-ensconced in the upper echelons of White society and wish to protect their privileged position. In this, he notes that the Jews have become “White,” and now serve to protect “Whiteness.” One area of this debate, which is something I knew only a little about, is the question of Greece, Egypt, and the role of Africa. He says that Jews are the academic leaders of the “whitenizing” or “de-Africanizing” of Egypt. He sees that the Jews have been vocal advocates for the ideas that ancient Egyptians—the civilization-builders anyway—were not “Africans” but dark-skinned Greeks or hybrid Greeks. He makes the further point that the Greeks were much closer in culture and geography to the Ethiopians than they were to the peoples of Northern Europe who now claim the ancient Greeks as their own. He offers, in a few pages, why he believes that Greece is indebted to Egypt for its culture, and why Egypt, in turn, must be considered an African power.
This is an interesting side question—it is undoubtedly true that Northern and Western Europeans see themselves in continuity with the Hellenistic world—and that Western Civilization, with ancient Greece being its anchor, is unique. Homer, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are “our” people, and their ideas on philosophy, governance and ethics are “our” collective civilizational idea. Indeed, we see those Greeks as “White” and one needs only a cursory review of ancient Greek art and statuary shows to realize that while Ethiopia may be closer to Helles than Norway, the people of Greece were more racially similar to the people of Norway than they were the people of Ethiopia. For my part, I do take ownership of a meta-culture and people best embodied by “Western Civilization” that includes the Greeks and that is, racially anyway, White. Martin would like to do one of two things: cut ancient Greece down to size as something like a cultural interloper concerning Africa; or cut loose ancient Greece from Europe and “Western Civilization” and reorient it into a North African orbit. From what I have read of ancient Greece and the Hellenistic world, it formed a semi-circumference around the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and stretched from Sparta along the coast to Alexandria and even more Western points. Ethiopia, while not directly a part of the Hellenistic world (not unlike Persia), was an impressive culture and civilization, which cannot be denied; but it was not a progenitor of the West.
It seems to me that the reason that Martin and his fellow Afro-centrists are so desperate to untether or delegitimize ancient Greece and tie it, in one way or another, to “Africa” is because the reality of sub-Saharan Africa has been so abysmal and backward. He is right on one point—as a crow flies, the ancient Greeks that I count as “fathers” were further from my people on the West Coast of Ireland than they were from the dark-skinned Ethiopians. But geography and cartography are what they are: Greece is in Europe, so defined, and the peoples of Europe claim her as their own and recent genetic evidence confirms the relationship of Europe with ancient Greece. The reality is that in language, culture, mannerisms, and opinions, Northern and Western Europeans (whether we lived in caves during Homer’s time or not) are the chief inheritors and children of ancient Greece.
• • •
To prove that a controversy involving Professor Martin, now dead for ten years, is far from history—consider the following that involves the Biden Administration’s nomination of one Kristin Clark:
Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee to head the civil rights division at the Justice Department, said it was a mistake to have invited the author of an anti-Semitic screed to speak at Harvard when she headed a black student group there. In 1994, Clarke as the leader of a Black Student Association invited Tony Martin, author of a book called “The Jewish Onslaught,” to speak and defended him afterward. Jews on campus at the time were appalled by the invitation.
“Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” she told the Forward on Thursday. Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has worked closely in recent years with Jewish groups in combatting white supremacists. Biden announced his choice of Clarke on Monday, which earned praise from the Anti-Defamation League. The following day Tucker Carlson, a Fox News Channel host, uncovered 1994 stories in the Harvard Crimson about the Martin controversy. Subsequently, statements from liberal Jewish groups backing Clarke were more pointed in rejecting the bid to stigmatize her with actions she took as a student.
“This week, Kristen Clarke acknowledged she made a mistake when, as a student at Harvard, she gave a professor who promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories a platform,” Bend the Arc: Jewish Action said Thursday on Twitter. “She unequivocally denounces anti-Semitism — and acts upon that commitment in fighting religious discrimination.” Also praising Clarke on Thursday for her work combatting anti-Semitism were the National Council of Jewish Women, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Joel Rubin, the American Jewish Congress executive director.
Rabbi Jill Jacobs, who directs T’ruah, a rabbinical human rights group, said in an interview that Clarke’s statement this week was a “model of teshuvah,” or repentance, and derided those on the right who would stigmatize someone for something they said as a teenager. Some of Carlson’s attacks on Clarke include remarks by Clarke, ripped from context, about white supremacy during her Harvard years, when she contrasted it with black supremacy. “It’s not accidental that people on the right are specifically going after women of color and trying to dig up anything from their past even if it’s something that happened when they’re 19,” Jacobs said.
How pathetic indeed is the need for teshnuvahfrom these people? I suppose that selling Professor Anthony Martin out posthumously—and sacrificing her convictions—was a small price to pay for Ms. Clarke’s sinecure at the Justice Department.
Well, at least the Jews are happy. Aggressive, manic, paranoid, and neurotic; but happy.
(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
