You are not logged in.

WAWA CONSPI - The Savoisien

Exegi monumentum aere perennius


#1 16-12-2013 14:08:46

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Black Civil Wrongs


Black Civil Wrongs


The Race War of Black Against White

The Truth About Jesse

Blacks Want A Gold Medal for Jesse

Demoralizing Young Blacks

Jesse Shakedown Jackson Gets Beer Distributorship for Son

Jews and the NAACP

Jews, Communism and Civil Rights

Kwanzaa: A Holiday From the FBI

The Beast As Saint

The Jewish Civil Rights Movement

The King Holiday and its Meaning

The Meaning of Affirmative Action

MLK: The Congressional Record

Nous serons toujours là.


#2 16-12-2013 14:09:45

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995

The Race War of Black Against White

By Paul Sheehan

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year’s congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let’s start suggesting, immediately.

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America.

And the problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.

Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:

    * According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

    * Most victims of race crime — about 90 per cent — are white, according to the survey “Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,” published in 1993.

    * Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

    * Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the violent racial crimes of whites.

    * According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not co- incidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter- racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean War.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard.

Nous serons toujours là.


#3 16-12-2013 14:10:28

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Source: The New York Post | Sunday April 01 05:52 AM EDT

The Truth About Jesse

Jesse Jackson isn’t letting anything like a secret out-of-wedlock daughter and growing questions about his personal and organization funding get him down.

On the contrary: He’s pressing forward with his Wall Street Project, in which some of America’s largest corporations have donated millions to his network of charities and organizations.

Ostensibly, Jackson’s projects are designed to increase minority participation on Wall Street. But many corporations have learned that a hefty donation to Jackson’s causes is simply the best way to change the reverend’s political course and bring him around to their side.

And the best way to ensure Jackson’s support is to make sure that his family and close friends get a large slice of the pie. No wonder Jackson’s most recent book is entitled, “It’s About the Money: How to Build Wealth, Get Access to Capital and Achieve Your Financial Dreams.”

It all began in the early ’80s, when Jackson’s demands moved Coca-Cola to award more distributorships to minorities. Among those who got the lucrative contracts: Jackson’s half-brother, Noah Robinson (now serving a life prison sentence for hiring gang members to kill three business associates).

In 1996, Jackson successfully pressured Texaco to pony up hundreds of millions to settle a discrimination lawsuit – even though no racial discrimination was ever proven. (A “smoking-gun” tape of company execs was later determined to contain no racial slurs.)

But Jackson had learned that companies will pay up in order to avoid bad publicity and accusations of racism – even if totally unfounded. So in 1997 he formed the Wall Street Project – which now rakes in some $10 million a year.

And as investigations by The Post, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Los Angeles Times demonstrate, Jackson’s support was easily bought. Indeed, noted the L.A. Times, “Corporations have paid handsomely to get Jackson off their backs.”

For example:

* In February 1997, Jackson filed a petition with the FCC to block Viacom’s bid to sell 10 radio stations, saying the company had reneged on a promise to sell some of them to minorities.

Viacom agreed to create a $2 million fund to promote minority ownership of broadcast properties. Jackson then ended his opposition, and the sale was approved. The fund is administered by Washington lobbyist Warner Session – who later awarded the Jackson’s Citizenship Education Fund (CEF) $680,000.

* In May 1998, Jackson called President Clinton to block a proposed merger of SBC and Ameritech, calling it “antithetical to basic democratic values.”

In early 1999, the two firms pledged $1 million to CEF; Ameritech agreed to sell its cellular business to a new partnership that included longtime Jackson pal Chester Davenport, who had no previous telecommunications experience.

Davenport later hired Jackson’s son Jonathan – who also happens to be president of CEF – as a consultant. (Jackson’s wife Jacqueline is a member of the CEF board, and their son Yusef is the board attorney.)

In March 1999, Jackson declared the merger to be “in the public interest.

* In 1998, Jackson’s sons Yusef and Jonathan were awarded the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship in Chicago by company head August Busch IV. He’d been introduced to the Jacksons by Beverly Hills billionaire Ron Burkle – who later hired Karin Stanford, mother of Jesse’s child, as a “consultant.”

Back in the ’80s, Jesse Jackson had organized a boycott of Anheuser-Busch, complaining about the company’s hiring and promotion practices. The two Jackson sons today refuse to disclose their own minority-hiring practices.

* In Dec. 1998, Jackson threatened to block the GTE-Bell Atlantic merger unless he got guarantees regarding the minority community. Over the next four months, the companies pledged $1.5 million to CEF and gave Chester Davenport a 7 percent stake – and the chairmanship – of its new cellular business.

In May 1999, Jackson endorsed the merger, now known as Verizon. And five Verizon executives just addressed Jackson’s latest Wall Street Project conference.

* In Dec. 1998, Jackson opposed AT&T’s merger with TCI, charging the latter has “a “questionable record and a poor level of public service.”

The next month, AT&T pledged $425,000 to the CEF and sent its chairman to one of Jackson’s conferences, where he pledged to hire a minority-owned firm to handle its bond offering. The firm that was eventually chosen for the $750,000 contract, Blaylock & Partners, has close ties to Jackson.

* In Feb. 1999, Jackson negotiated a settlement in a racial discrimination lawsuit filed against Boeing by 13,000 employees.

Days later, Boeing donated $50,000 to the CEF and made several subsequent donations. Later, the company arranged for hundreds of millions in company pension funds to be administered by minority-owned investment banks, at least two of which are Jackson financial backers.

* In May 1999, Jackson pressured PepsiCo – on the eve of its initial public offering – to give part of the lucrative deal to Utendahl Capital Partners, which has since donated tens of thousands to CEF; PepsiCo has given substantially more.

* In Sept. 1999, Jackson opposed the merger of CBS and Viacom. Two days later, Jackson – together with Chester Davenport and longtime partner Percy Sutton, a CEF board member (Jackson and his wife hold $1.2 million worth of shares in Sutton’s Inner City Broadcasting) met with CBS Chairman Mel Karmazin and urged him to sell the UPN network to a minority owner.

Viacom and UPN then pledged $730,000 to the CEF. The FCC eventually approved the merger – contingent on Viacom selling UPN within one year.

Jackson also took Sutton along to promote Inner City investments (in which, as a shareholder, he and his wife stand to benefit) during a trade mission to Africa in his role as Clinton’s special envoy to the continent.

One of the few corporate heads to resist Jackson’s shakedown efforts was T. J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, who insisted his industry’s workforce is appropriately diverse. The response from Team Jackson: “We can now officially describe Cypress Semiconductor as a white-supremacist hate group.”

“He declares racism based on dubious statistics,” Rodgers told the Los Angeles Times. “Then he gives you a chance to repent – and the basic way to [repent] is to give Jesse money. The threat is you’ll be labeled a racist if you don’t.”

For years, the news media have taken a hands-off attitude to Jackson – particularly when it comes to his finances and his political hustling. Now, his personal scandal has finally forced him to open up the books and records. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that Jesse Jackson has a great deal of explaining to do.

Nous serons toujours là.


#4 16-12-2013 14:11:09

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Blacks Want a Gold Medal for Jesse

HR 1122 IH


1st Session

H. R. 1122
To authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to the Nation.


March 20, 2001
Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services


To authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to the Nation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Jesse Louis Jackson, Sr. was born on October 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina.

(2) In 1965 Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. joined the civil rights movement full-time, beginning his activism as a student leader in the sit-in movement and continuing as a young organizer for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as an assistant to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

(3) On June 30, 1968, Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. became an ordained minister, having attended the Chicago Theological Seminary.

(4) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. served as the national director for Operation Breadbasket and, in 1971 in Chicago, Illinois, founded People United to Save Humanity, known as PUSH.

(5) In 1984 Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. founded the National Rainbow Coalition, a national social justice organization devoted to political empowerment and to expanding educational and employment opportunities for disadvantaged people and for communities of color.

(6) In 1996 Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. merged the National Rainbow Coalition and PUSH to continue the philosophies of both organizations and to maximize their resources.

(7) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. is, and has been for more than 30 years, one of the foremost political figures in the United States, playing a pivotal role in virtually every movement for human rights, civil rights, peace, gender equality, empowerment, and economic and social justice.

(8) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. has been and continues to be counted on to serve as a champion and spokesman for a segment of the population whose voices all too often are not heard.

(9) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. has been called the `conscience of the Nation’ and the `great unifier’, challenging the United States to establish just and humane priorities.

(10) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. has led a myriad of successful delegations, marches, and missions for justice, peace, and reconciliation.

(11) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. is a highly respected world leader who has acted on many occasions as an international diplomat.

(12) In 1984 Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. secured the release of a captured Navy pilot, Lieutenant Robert Goodman, who was shot down over Lebanon. He also negotiated the release of 22 Americans and 26 Cubans in Cuba during 1984.

(13) In 1990 Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. won the release of hundreds of foreign nationals, including 47 Americans, being held in Iraq and Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.

(14) In October 1997 Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton and by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright as the Special Envoy of the President and the Secretary of State for the Promotion of Democracy in Africa.

(15) On May 2, 1999, Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. obtained the negotiated release of Army Specialist Steven M. Gonzales and Staff Sergeants Christopher J. Stone and Andrew Ramirez, 3 United States soldiers who had spent 32 days in captivity in Yugoslavia as prisoners of war and hostages.

(16) Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. has dedicated his life to the principles of freedom, peace, justice, international good will, and the struggle for civil rights and equality for Americans and for all peoples, at home and abroad.


(a) PRESENTATION AUTHORIZED- The President is authorized to present, on behalf of the Congress, a gold medal of appropriate design to Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions to the Nation.

(b) DESIGN AND STRIKING- For the purpose of the presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION- Effective February 1, 2001, there are authorized to be appropriated $30,000 to carry out this section.


(a) STRIKING AND SALE- The Secretary of the Treasury may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck under section 2 under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

(b) REIMBURSEMENT OF APPROPRIATION- The appropriation used to carry out section 2 shall be reimbursed out of the proceeds of sales under subsection (a).


The medals struck under this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

Nous serons toujours là.


#5 16-12-2013 14:11:48

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Source: | April 4, 2001

Demoralizing Young Blacks

Walter Williams

David Bell, Harvard law professor, counseled, “Black people will never gain full equality in this country.” The late columnist Carl Rowan said, “Racism remains a terrible curse on this society, and … nothing in sight suggests that that curse will end soon.”

New York Rep. Charles Rangel said: “Black men are not the problem. Black men are the victims.” Jesse Jackson said: “We (blacks) are under attack by the courts, legislatures and mass media. We’re despised. Racists attack us for sport to win votes.” New York Supreme Court judge Ivan Warner somberly said, “The entire United States is a racist society.”

These comments, observations and counsel are just a tiny sample of three decades worth of defeatist poison bestowed on the black community by leftist politicians, civil rights leaders, professors and teachers.

Black people are taught that every waking thought of white America is racist; black people are perennial victims of white oppression; we have no control over our lives and destiny. The only way black people can achieve anything is to prey upon white guilt, and seek special privileges like quotas, handouts, and lately reparations and apologies for slavery.

We’re taught that racism is everywhere. If a disproportionate percentage of blacks are on death row, it isn’t because 50 percent of murders committed in America are committed by blacks and almost all the victims are black. No, the disproportionate percentages are caused by racism in the criminal justice system and slavery’s legacy. When large percentages of black high-school graduates can’t muster even 700 or 800 on the SAT, it isn’t because they haven’t studied hard enough and applied themselves. It’s the result of racism and slavery’s legacy.

The strangest feature of this particular claim, and a testament to the power of racists, is that racists are able to wreak the greatest educational havoc in the very cities where the mayor is black, the superintendent of schools is black, and most of the teachers and principals are black.

When it’s noticed that black illegitimacy is 70 percent, and less than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families, and social pathology reigns supreme, it’s not because of personal irresponsibility. Instead, it’s racism and the legacy of slavery. Nobody bothers to notice that a century ago, when blacks were much closer to slavery, had fewer civil rights and far fewer opportunities, black illegitimacy and family breakdown was a tiny fraction of today’s.

The victimization counsel of black and white liberals is debilitating. Think of it this way. Imagine you’re a high-school or college administrator. Your basketball-team coach counsels his players: “You’re going to play a team that’s better than you. No matter how much you practice, no matter how hard you try, you can’t win. The only possible way for you to win is if we can get the scorers and referees to cheat for you.” What would you do to that coach? I’d say that simply firing him would be too kind.

The victimization vision teaches young blacks they have no choice or control over their own lives. Success depends not on their own efforts, but on handouts, concessions and leg-ups given by white people. As a black person born in 1936, who’s witnessed and experienced gross discrimination and seen the personal sacrifices made by both blacks and whites to create today’s opportunities, I find the victimization vision not only offensive and racially demeaning, but a gross betrayal of the monumental bravery and sacrifice of those who came before us.

South Carolina Rep. Robert Smalls (1874-1886) said it best: “My race needs no special defense, for the past history of them in this country proves them to be the equal of any people anywhere. All they need is an equal chance in the battle of life.”

©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Nous serons toujours là.


#6 16-12-2013 14:12:43

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Jesse Shakedown Jackson Gets Beer Distributorship for Son

Jackson contacts cultivated beer deal
Dad indirectly helped 2 sons through a friend

By Sabrina L. Miller
and E.A. Torriero
Tribune staff reporters
April 8, 2001 In 1995, Rev. Jesse Jackson asked his friend Ron Burkle to “look out” for Jackson’s grown children if the billionaire supermarket tycoon saw a financial opportunity for them, Burkle recently recalled.

That chance came a year later at a party in Burkle’s Los Angeles mansion, where Jackson was the evening’s featured speaker. By chance, one of Jackson’s sons sat down beside August Busch IV, scion of the Budweiser empire and Burkle’s best friend.

By 1998, with Burkle’s encouragement, Busch handpicked Yusef Jackson, then 28, to be the majority owner of a lucrative Budweiser distributorship on Chicago’s North and Northwest Sides, making him one of the youngest such owners in the country.

Amid criticism that Rev. Jackson wields his power to leverage benefits for his friends and family, Jackson, who once engineered a lengthy nationwide boycott of Anheuser-Busch, insists he had no role in getting two of his sons, Yusef and Jonathan, the distributorship.

But interviews with Burkle and dozens of people in the liquor industry now reveal a convergence of circumstances that led to the deal—including Jackson’s indirect role by enlisting Burkle’s support, in much the same way other well-connected people help their kids.

About the same time Busch first met Yusef Jackson, the beer giant, still smarting from the memory of Rev. Jackson’s boycott during the 1980s, was troubled by allegations of financial and racial problems at the Chicago distributorship. Some African-American employees in Chicago, complaining that they were being denied promotions and subjected to racial slurs, threatened to call in Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition or the NAACP if their concerns were not addressed. The employees say they never had to follow through on those threats.

For Anheuser-Busch, the Jacksons were part of a solution to a thorny company controversy that threatened to become public. For the Jacksons—two young, educated professionals—the distributorship was a chance to put black ownership on a franchise of America’s flagship beer in an industry where less than 10 percent of the dealerships are minority-owned.

The Jackson sons largely have shunned publicity since they took over River North Sales & Service, and particularly in recent months, as their father faced increased financial scrutiny after the disclosure that he fathered a child out-of-wedlock with a former top employee.

But in his first extensive interview since that disclosure, Yusef Jackson provided some new details, including his portrayal of how the company was obtained, how many minorities work there and descriptions of his day-to-day role.

Left unanswered, though, is whether the Jacksons’ minority hiring practices represent a marked change from earlier owners, how much the pair collect in salary and how much the Jacksons paid for the distributorship.

Yusef Jackson will only say the price was fair. Estimates by outsiders have ranged widely—from less than $10 million to more than $15 million. Four industry analysts estimate the business today is worth $25 million.

Jackson, however, said the business doesn’t generate windfall profits, given Chicago’s especially competitive beer market.

“We have a monumental task here,” said Yusef Jackson, who, now 30, is president of River North.

“Every day we work tirelessly to climb that mountain to reach our goal. We work much harder than a lot of companies, a lot of people do. … That’s why we start early. That’s why we stay late.”

‘Bud’s a Dud’

Their father’s long, sometimes tangled history with Anheuser-Busch Inc. looms over his sons as they sell a product he once ridiculed.

In August 1982, Rev. Jackson began protesting that the company’s hiring and contract policies excluded minorities. His rallying cry—”Bud’s a Dud”—embarrassed the ultra-private Busch family.

While the effect of Jackson’s boycott on beer sales was negligible, Anheuser-Busch pumped $10 million into a minority distributorship ownership program prompted by Jackson’s efforts.

Eventually, company chief August Busch III—father of Busch IV— met privately with Jackson to discuss steps the company planned to take to increase the number of minority employees and contractors, according to Wayman Smith, Busch’s former longtime vice president of corporate affairs.

In later years, Anheuser-Busch sent clear signs of allegiance to the Jacksons.

The beer company donated regularly to Jackson’s organizations, including $10,000 for his Citizenship Education Fund in 1997 and sponsorship—at an undisclosed price—of the evening gala at his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition convention last summer. Anheuser-Busch gave $3,000 to U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.’s 2000 political campaign. In 1996, they made a $1,000 contribution to his campaign, two years before the company gave his brothers the chance to purchase the Chicago distributorship.

Suggestions of a link between Rev. Jackson’s boycott and the sons’ eventual opportunity to buy the distributorship are “ridiculous,” said Smith, who handled minority affairs issues for Busch for two decades.

Yusef Jackson also dismisses such implications.

“I was 12 during the boycott,” Yusef Jackson said. “At that time in my father’s history he had been approaching a lot of companies—Coca-Cola, 7UP, various stores on the South Side of Chicago to be more inclusive in their hiring practices. That’s very much a part of my history, to encourage people to be inclusive.”

Problems in Chicago

Budweiser may be the “King of Beers” in much of America, but Anheuser-Busch products don’t fare as well in Chicago—grabbing roughly 20 percent of the market compared with nearly 50 percent nationally.

Part of it is tradition: Chicago has been a Miller town for much of the century.

Another reason stems from Anheuser-Busch’s union problems through the years that offended working class beer drinkers, according to industry sources in Chicago.

For decades, Anheuser-Busch owned its own Chicago distribution network. In 1989 the company decided to carve metropolitan Chicago into three independent territories.

River North got the exclusive right to sell Budweiser, Bud Light and other Busch products in the bars, stores, sports stadiums and restaurants on the North and Northwest Sides.

For a big city beer business, River North is second-tier in terms of sales, beer industry officials said. It generates roughly $30 million to $40 million annually in gross sales while distributing 2.5 million cases a year, beer industry analysts said.

Still, the revenue is cash—a plus in any business. And River North’s territory covers some of Chicago’s trendiest bars and biggest venues, including Wrigley Field and the United Center.

Before the Jacksons, the company installed at the distributorship helm J.C. Alvarez, a Hispanic company spokeswoman at Busch’s St. Louis headquarters, and Donald Niestrom Sr., a white Chicagoan with decades of experience in the beer business.

Neither Alvarez nor Niestrom responded to requests for comment for this report.

Almost from the start, the pair clashed, former employees said.

Over the next few years, tensions grew as allegations of financial irregularities and racial discrimination surfaced at River North, according to several former and current employees.

At least four black salesmen complained to Anheuser-Busch in St. Louis about what they viewed as specific incidents of racial discrimination by River North’s management, the employees said. The employees said they threatened to boycott, picket, and call Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the NAACP and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission unless blacks were promoted.

“We had threatened to call Jesse Jackson,” said Finnist Lewis, an African-American former salesman.

But James McCoy, another African American who was controller of the distributorship, said he was always treated fairly and the problems at River North revolved around the conflicts between Niestrom and Alvarez.

A team of corporate auditors, officials and Anheuser-Busch attorneys descended on the Chicago distributorship to look into the complaints, according to several former employees. Anheuser-Busch officials did not respond to specific questions posed by the Tribune, including inquiries about the turmoil employees described.

By late 1997, former and current employees said, Anheuser-Busch had severed its relationship with Niestrom and Alvarez and temporarily installed a general manager as it looked for a buyer for River North.

Black employees, meanwhile, continued to complain about a lack of promotions, according to Lewis. After Lewis was promoted to territory manager in early 1998, the complaints were dropped, Lewis said.

By then, August Busch IV and Yusef Jackson were in final negotiations over the future of River North.

The family friend

The Los Angeles dinner at which August Busch IV and Yusef Jackson first met in 1996 was the first step in what would become more than a year of talks about the Jacksons taking over the distributorship, Burkle said.

Burkle, 48, also had a key role in assisting Rev. Jesse Jackson after Jackson’s former employee, Karin Stanford, gave birth to the married civil rights leader’s child. At Jackson’s request, Burkle’s investment company hired Stanford. And Burkle, a board member at a mortgage company’s parent corporation, suggested the company to Stanford when she needed a loan on a new home.

For years, Burkle has thrown salon-style parties at his home, inviting celebrities—including UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter—to speak before 50 or 60 of his friends.

In 1996, Rev. Jesse Jackson was invited to speak at such an event on the need to include minorities in the business world, and Yusef accompanied his father. Among the guests was August Busch IV, the 37-year-old Anheuser-Busch marketing head whom Burkle talks to daily and describes as his best friend.

Yusef Jackson, then a lawyer at Mayer Brown & Platt in Chicago, said he and Busch hit it off, discussing topics from sports to politics to growing up in the shadow of famous fathers. “We had a lot of common themes in our lives together,” Jackson said.

Right after the event, Busch told Burkle that he had enjoyed his conversations with Yusef Jackson, Burkle said. “Is that someone we should work with?” Burkle recalled Busch asking him. Burkle said yes.

About a year earlier, Burkle said, Jesse Jackson had spoken to him about his own finances, saying he had never planned much for his family’s financial future and asked Burkle to watch out for his sons. “I had told Rev. Jackson that I would look out for them,” Burkle said. “I said I would try to help if I saw an opportunity.”

Burkle defends the Anheuser-Busch deal, saying it was a case of networking, not one of favoritism. “People do business with people they know,” he said.

Henry Gray, a former Chicago whiskey wholesaler who is African American said, “Keep in mind, that the Jacksons didn’t choose Augie Busch. Augie Busch chose them. [Busch] got one of the best names there is in Chicago.”

Rev. Jackson declined to comment for this story. In the past, he has vehemently rejected the notion that he had anything to do with his sons’ business deal. He also has expressed irritation at what he considers a suggestion that his sons—a University of Virginia law school graduate and a Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management graduate—were less than qualified for the beer deal.

“If Bush can be president, why can’t Yusef and Jonathan have a distributorship?” Rev. Jackson said in March at a meeting of the Chicago Association of Black Journalists.

August Busch IV did not respond to requests for interviews. Instead, Anheuser-Busch issued a one-paragraph statement praising the Jacksons as “young, aggressive, creative, dynamic” business people.

“Today’s beer drinkers come from many different ethnic backgrounds,” the statement said. “We believe it makes good business sense for our wholesalers, who represent our business locally, to know and understand their local customers and we work to recruit qualified minority owners for our wholesalerships.”

Inside River North

Yusef Jackson said his interest in the “beverage industry” dates back 15 years. “When I was growing up, we’d attend the street festivals,” he said. “What was attractive about the industry to me was that I associated those products and those companies with fun times. Then you saw the drivers and the helpers as they rolled the kegs. It appeared to me from the outside as a kid a very interesting team dynamic that I wanted to be a part of.”

Yusef Jackson, who declined to reveal his salary, owns 67 percent, and Jonathan, who is 35 years old, owns 23 percent and is vice president, public records show. Donald Niestrom Jr., son of the former owner, owns 10 percent. Niestrom Jr., the general manager, has some 20 years’ experience in the beer industry.

The allegations of racial discrimination and fiscal mismanagement that hung over the distributorship in the past appear to be gone, several former and current workers said. Yusef Jackson describes his approximately 100 employees this way: 53 percent white, 27 percent black, 19 percent Hispanic and 1 percent Asian. Half of the company’s sales force, he said, are women.

Yusef Jackson said he is satisfied with that minority representation and views it as a key to increasing beer sales.

Still, despite Yusef Jackson’s efforts to increase sales, several sources in the beer industry and local liquor business say Anheuser-Busch has made no great gains under the Jacksons and continues to lag behind in the city’s competitive beer war.

Tribune staff reporters Ray Gibson and Monica Davey contributed to this story.

Nous serons toujours là.


#7 16-12-2013 14:13:47

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Jews and the NAACP

Why do we have an MLK, Jr. Day? Jews

Want to know why we are celebrating a MLK, Jr. Day today? In one word, Jews.



The NAACP was founded in 1909 by one mulatto Communist named W.E.B. DuBois, and many Jews — Jews by race, not simply by religion.

Here are just some of the Jews who founded/directed/steered the NAACP [1]:

-Joel Spingarn

-Arthur Spingarn (brother)

-Julius Rosenthal

-Henry Malkewitz

-Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch

-Lillian Wald

-Kivie Kaplan

-Nathan Margold

-Jack Greenberg

-Julian Mack

-Henry Moskowitz

-Herbert Hill

-Louis Marshall

-Rabbi David Saperstein

-Rabbi Stephen Wise

-Herbert Lehman

-Arthur Sachs

-Herbert Seligmann

-Martha Gruening

-Felix Frankfurter

-Herman Lehman (brother of Herbert?)

[1] sources include the website featuring mention of Jews in the NAACP in the 1999 documentary film “From Swastika To Jim Crow”: the website and the book “Broken Alliance,” by Kaufman; Jewish author Dr. Joshua Halberstam also notes that the civil-rights movement was heavily-Jewish in his book “Schmoozing,” 1997; David Duke also mentions this in his book “My Awakening,” 1999, w/photo of K. Kaplan.

The NAACP was so Jewish during its first 66 years that that feature is almost unbelievable. Indeed, the NAACP had only Jewish presidents until 1975. Jewish involvement in the Black civil-rights movement had nothing to do with “ending racial discrimination,” or with their love of Black people. It had everything to do with making America less “White,” so that Jews — always the traditional enemy of gentile/non-Jewish countries — would be less noticeable in America, leading, in Jewish theory, to less “anti-Semitism.”



“What do you think this is-a democracy?”

Last edited by DejuificatorII (16-12-2013 14:14:53)

Nous serons toujours là.


#8 16-12-2013 14:23:03

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Jews Communism and Civil Rights


My Awakening: Chapter 18
Jews, Communism and Civil Rights

by David Duke … -Awakening

The following is a Chapter from European American civil rights activist David Duke’s ground breaking autobiography, “My Awakening”. This chapter helps to shed light on many aspect of the so-called “civil rights” movement that have never before been seen


The eccentric woman in the Citizens Council office, who railed about the Jews and Communism, obviously had some of her facts right, even if she seemed to fit the media stereotype of the anti-Semite. The facts were inescapable: Communism and Zionism were born from the same Jewish soul, personified in Moses Hess.

I slowly became aware of a dual morality permeating Jewish-Gentile relations. Jews practiced one morality for themselves and preached another for the non-Jewish world. Their own morality of racial pride taught solidarity, tradition and self-interest. But they preached diversity and liberalism for their perceived competitors. If such dualism did not exist, how could the Jewish-dominated American media:

    Support the nation of Israel, which promotes Judaism in its schools, while opposing even the singing of Christmas carols in American public schools?
    Support the nation of Israel, which has strictly segregated schools, communities, and facilities for Jews and Arabs – while condemning segregated schools and housing in America and South Africa?
    Support the nation of Israel, with its restrictive “Jews only” immigration laws, while subverting American attempts to curtail even illegal immigration?
    Support the nation of Israel, which allows every Jewish citizen to carry a machine gun if desired, while advocating strict gun control for American citizens?
    Support the nation of Israel, which openly states its mission to preserve the Jewish people and heritage, while condemning Whites who would dare to advocate the preservation of the White race and Western culture in America?
    Always paint the historical relations between Jews and Gentiles with the Gentiles as evildoers and the Jews as innocent victims, while condemning White people for even defending themselves from such Jewish depiction?

The moral hypocrisy became obvious. Powerful Jews advocate one morality for Jews; the opposite for Gentiles. If their policies of solidarity are morally good for them, why would they not be morally good for us as well? Why the double standard? If “White racists” are morally reprehensible, why are not Jewish supremacists reprehensible as well?

While Herzl and other Zionists feverishly gathered worldwide Jewish support for the establishment of the exclusively Jewish state, Jewish activists were busy trying to negate the Christian component of American culture and remove even Christmas carols from our schools. While they trumpet their belief that they are a “Chosen People” above all others, and celebrate a unique people defined by heritage from Abraham to the present – they tell White people that race consciousness is evil. While they established a Jewish nation where citizenship is based almost exclusively on the heredity of the “Jewish people,” Jewish anthropologists promote the idea that the White race doesn’t exist. Even though they devotedly support their own exclusively Jewish-run state of Israel, they work feverishly to undermine the White control and character of America through the “civil-rights” movement and massive non-White immigration. While they have laws in Israel prohibiting Gentiles from owning certain media, they boldly move to gain control of the great majority of the mass media in America.

Communist Ideology and Race

Mattie Smith told me that the Jews had the leading role in the efforts to destroy the very underpinnings of our race and our heritage. I had read that Jews were the leaders of the academic movement promoting the idea that races are equal in their physical and mental abilities. In looking into the foundations of racial egalitarianism, I found that adherents of international Communism pioneered the modern notions of racial equality. In America, Marxist organizations quickly gained ascendancy in the remnants of the old abolitionist movements. In South Africa, they led the fight for full “democratic” rights for the Blacks. Across the world, Communism allied itself with non-White peoples and their struggle for “liberation from White imperialism, colonialism, and oppression.” I soon found out that Jews dominated the International Communist movement in modern times just as they had led Bolshevism in Russia early in the 20th century.

Jewish scribe Nathan Glazer stated matter-of-factly that in the 60s and 70s the Jews comprised half of all the active Communists in the United States and four out of five of its leaders. Two Jews, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, led the Marxist-Oriented, Yippie Movement, and they were two of the five Jewish members of the revolutionary “Chicago Seven” group – tried for the violent disruption of the 1968 Democratic Convention. I read a book called Behind Communism, and I was surprised to discover that at least 4 out of 5 of all those caught and convicted of Communist espionage and treason in the United States and Canada were Jews.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg


Probably the most infamous act of treason in American history was the theft of the atomic bomb secrets by Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They were part of the Fuchs-Gold spy ring that operated in and around the Manhattan Project and other branches of the American atomic weapons program. Seven members of the Fuchs-Gold ring pled guilty to charges associated with espionage. They were Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Abraham Brothman, Miriam Moskowitz, Sidney Weinbaum, and Alfred Slack. Another suspect, Morton Sobell, fled to Mexico, but Mexican authorities turned him over to the United States to face trial and subsequent conviction. A jury also convicted the Rosenbergs, and they were executed. Of the ten spies most responsible for the selling of our atomic secrets to the Soviets, only one, Alfred Slack, was a Gentile.

Other major spy cases included the Amerasia Case, the Gerhart Eisler Case, the Judith Coplin Case, and the Alger Hiss Case. Jews figured prominently in these cases and made up a clear majority of the defendants. The only prominent non-Jewish spy was Alger Hiss. In the Hollywood Ten Case, The House of Representatives convicted ten of Hollywood’s leading film writers of contempt of Congress. They appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and refused to testify when asked if they were Communists. Jewish publications alleged the committee ruined the writers for no apparent reason. Recently a number of movies have been made defending the Hollywood Ten as unjustly and unfairly persecuted, yet six of the ten proved to be dues-paying members of the Communist Party. The other four had records of many Communist-front activities and connections. Nine of the ten were of Jewish heritage.

While Jewish Marxists pursued the political part of the “civil-rights” effort, they pushed just as hard in the academic realm. Until the 1930s the biological sciences recognized the different races of mankind as surely as they did the different species and subspecies of the animal kingdom – that is, as commentator Kevin Strom says, “Until the egalitarian political wind blew into American academia, propelled by a clever, connected, and well-heeled minority with an agenda.”

I began to realize that the drive for race-mixing did not find its source in the Black people of America. Most Blacks were content to be separate, although they certainly wanted economic and social advancement. The most popular Black leader in the early part of the 20th century was the Black separatist Marcus Garvey, who sought repatriation for Blacks back to Africa and the foundation of a new Black nation. Against this movement of Black separatism and the effort of European Americans to preserve White America there rose a minority with an entirely different agenda.

The Racial Egalitarian Dogma

Franz Boas is the accepted father of the modern egalitarian school of anthropology. He was a Jewish immigrant from Germany with little formal training in the anthropological field, having done his doctoral thesis on the color of water. Boas introduced what he called “cultural anthropology” to the discipline. Until his arrival, anthropology fell in the realm of physical science. Boas effectively divided anthropology into the separate disciplines of cultural and physical anthropology.

Early physical anthropologists were truly race scientists because they studied man and his evolutionary development through the study of the measurable physical characteristics of the human races, past and present. Any good physical anthropologist could pick up a human skull and, based on its characteristics, quickly identify the race of the specimen. Of course, this physiological knowledge was vital in sorting out the unearthed remnants of early man and piecing together man’s prehistory and evolutionary development. Cultural anthropology dealt more with the different contemporary cultures of mankind and culturally related questions of antiquity and prehistory, making it a far less precise science, and one open to wide interpretation.

Surprisingly, before he became such a prominent anthropologist, Boas expressed his acceptance of racial differences in mental characteristics. In The Mind of Primitive Man, he wrote:

    Differences of Structure must be accompanied by differences of function, physiological as well as psychological; and, as we found clear evidence of differences in structure between races, so we must anticipate that the differences in mental characteristics will be found.

Both of Boas’ parents were radical socialists in the revolutionary movement that swept over Europe in 1870. In his biography of Boas, his student Melville Herskovits wrote that Boas’ political sympathies “leaned towards a variety of socialism.” The United States House of Representatives cited Boas’ involvement with 44 Communist-front organizations. Coinciding with the rise of Nazism in Germany and the increasing influence of racially aware anthropologists in the world scientific community, Boas began to marshal his anthropological influence in service of his political sympathies. He began to advance the quack idea that there are really no such things as individual human races. He argued that although they had variations of skin colors and features, the groups called races possessed little difference genetically and that, whatever their superficial differences, solely their environment created them. By 1938 Boas dropped the above quotation from the new edition of his book.

He gathered many Jewish disciples around him, including Gene Weltfish, Isador Chein, Melville Herskovits, Otto Klineberg, and Ashley Montagu. He also had among his followers the Negro K. B. Clark and two women, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Mead later wrote her famous book on Samoa (Coming of Age in Samoa) suggesting that indiscriminate sexual relations would lessen teenage traumas and problems. (Her opus was later soundly refuted by Derek Freeman, who showed that Mead had falsified her data on Samoa.)

Boas and his entire cadre of disciples had extensive Communist connections. He repeatedly proclaimed that he was in a “holy war against racism” and he died suddenly during a luncheon where once again and for the last time, he stressed the need to fight “racism.” Boas and his comrades gained control over the anthropology departments of most universities by encouraging their egalitarian comrades to always use their positions to support their own in academic appointments. While traditional anthropologists had no ax to grind and no sacred cause to champion, Boas and his followers embarked on a holy mission to extirpate racial knowledge from the academic establishment. They succeeded.

Whenever egalitarians achieved positions of influence or power, they aided their comrades to rise in the teaching departments of the colleges and academic departments they administered. They could count on fellow Jews who held influential university positions to assist their co-religionists, as well as Gentile egalitarians, in getting professorships and research appointments and promotions. Similar collusion took place in the ranks and on the boards of anthropological associations and journals. However, the coup de grâce was the massive support given the egalitarian dogma by the media establishment, which was overwhelmingly in Jewish hands.

Racial equality was (and still is) presented to the public as scientific fact, opposed only by the “bigoted” and the “ignorant.” Egalitarian writers such as Ashley Montagu and others received great praise in magazines, newspapers, and, later on television. Whether one was a Jew or a Gentile, professing a belief in racial equality became essential dogma for anyone who wanted to advance in anthropology or any other part of the academic world. Adherence to the “politically correct” line led to prestige and acclaim, money and success. Racial truth-telling led to personal attack and often economic hardship.

Ashley Montagu became the best-known spokesman for the equality hoax, superseding Boas as the most popular exponent of antiracism. His well-modulated British accent and aristocratic name added instant credibility to his racial pronouncements. I can still, after thirty years, remember his impressive appearances on the Today television program. His book, Race: Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, became the bible of equality, and it profoundly impressed me before I had a chance to read the other side. Montagu’s real name was Israel Ehrenberg. In a brilliant exercise of psychological camouflage, Ehrenberg changed his name a number of times, finally settling on not simply an Anglo-Saxon moniker, but the name Montagu, which is one of Britain’s most aristocratic and oldest medieval-titled families.

By the late 1990s, Jewish writers began to brazenly write about their domination of American anthropology. In a 1997 edition of American Anthropologist, which is published by the American Anthropological Association, Jewish scholar Gelya Frank writes that egalitarian American anthropology was so thoroughly Jewish that it should be classed as “part of Jewish History.” Frank goes on to admit that anthropology is in the service of a social agenda and that her essay focuses on Jewish anthropologists who are “concerned with turning multiculturalist theories into agendas for activism.” The same breed of anthropologists who so fervently declare that “there is no such thing as race” concerning Blacks and Whites are now hypocritically affirming the unique genetic homogeneity of Jews. Moreover, increasing numbers of Jewish anthropologists have come out of the closet in celebration of their special genetic and cultural heritage.

As far as Blacks and Whites are concerned, egalitarianism still dominates. Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould, are its three self-acknowledged Marxist Jews and the leading academic exponents of egalitarianism. In spite of an avalanche of fresh scientific data proving the vital role of genes in producing individual and group differences, racial egalitarianism is still the holy writ of anthropology and human psychology as characterized by the popular media. The writings of Lewontin, Kamin, Gould, Rose, and other egalitarians frequently appear in the pages of magazines such as the Smithsonian, Natural History, Nature, Discover, Time, Newsweek, and other wide-circulation publications. Television programs often interview them as “authorities” on the subject of race – and seldom are their opponents allowed to challenge them. Most of the leading egalitarian spokesmen are self-described Marxists, a slight detail seldom mentioned in the media. Imagine if they were self-proclaimed Nazis; I suspect the reaction to them would be very different.

Despite the well-organized “part of Jewish history” control of anthropology, the scientific affirmation of race is growing so quickly that the popular egalitarians may not be able to hold back the scientific tide much longer. There has never been a greater disparity between scientific and popular understanding.

The Freudian Assault

Psychology fell to the Jewish onslaught just as anthropology had. From the days of Sigmund Freud, psychology became defined as the “Jewish science.” One of his Jewish biographers put it this way:

    History made psychoanalysis a “Jewish science.” It continued to be attacked as such. It was destroyed in Germany, Italy, and Austria and exiled to the four winds, as such. It continues even now to be perceived as such by enemies and friends alike. Of course there are by now distinguished analysts who are not Jews. . . . But the vanguard of the movement over the last fifty years has remained predominantly Jewish as it was from the beginning.

Since the Great Depression, academic psychology discounted the impact of heredity and attributed almost all individual human behavioral patterns and mental ability to environmental conditioning. They claimed that environment rather than heredity is really the source of all mental and behavioral differences among the races. But, not only did the theories of Freud and his disciples attack the principles of race, they made a broadside attack on the spiritual and moral values of European civilization. Freud suggested that our Christian sexual morality was the cause of mental illness on a grand scale. He relentlessly undermined the concepts of sexual fidelity and the foundations of marriage. In 1915 he stated:

    Sexual morality – as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it – seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.

In Moses and Monotheism (1939) Freud repeatedly attacks Christianity while promoting the spiritual supremacy of the Jewish people.

    The people, happy in their conviction of possessing the truth, overcome by the consciousness of being the chosen, came to value highly all intellectual and ethical achievements.

    The Christian religion did not keep to the lofty heights of spirituality to which the Jewish religion had soared – Sigmund Freud


Just as the Communist Jews had a political war with the Czars of Russia, Freudians pursued a cultural war against Western Christian culture. Kevin MacDonald, in his classic study of Jewish ethnocentrism, A People That Shall Dwell Apart, points out that Freud’s Totem and Taboo reveals his role in the cultural war against Gentiles:

    Freud’s speculations clearly had an agenda. Rather than provide speculations which reaffirmed the moral and intellectual basis of the culture of his day, his speculations were an integral part of his war on gentile culture – so much so that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a victory over Rome and the Catholic Church.

Freud reveled in what he saw as his war against Christendom, which he compared with the Roman Empire, and suggested that he was like his idol Hannibal and was meant to sack Rome.

    Hannibal. . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church . . .

Freud makes his Jewish supremacist viewpoint very clear in a letter to a Jewish woman who intended to conceive a child by a Gentile to heal the split in psychoanalysis. His words were:

    I must confess…that your fantasy about the birth of the Savior to a mixed union did not appeal to me at all. The Lord, in that anti-Jewish period, had him born from the superior Jewish race. But I know these are my prejudices.

A year later the same woman gave birth to a child fathered by a Jew. Freud responded

    I am, as you know, cured of the last shred of my predilection for the Aryan cause, and would like to take it that if the child turned out to be a boy he will develop into a stalwart Zionist. He or she must be dark in any case, no more towheads. Let us banish all these will-o’-the-wisps!

    I shall not present my compliments to Jung in Munich, as you know perfectly well….We are and remain Jews. The others will only exploit us and will never understand and appreciate us. (quoted in Yerushalmi 1991, 45).


Not only did Freud consciously launch an attack on our cultural values, he conveniently labeled opponents of that assault as mentally ill. In Moses and Monotheism, Freud portrays anti-Semitism as a mental illness that arises out of jealousy of Jewish ethical supremacy.

On the deck of a ship steaming toward the United States, Freud commented to his friends that the people of America thought he was bringing them a panacea, but instead he said, “We are bringing them the plague.”

The Civil-Rights Movement

Just as Jewish academics lead the scholastic fight for egalitarianism in science and sociology, and Jewish media moguls lead the propaganda fight, the “civil-rights” movement itself found most of its leadership and financial support in the Jewish community.

Almost from the first day of its inception in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was the premier organization working for a racially mixed American society. Interestingly enough, the founding board of directors had only one prominent Black, W. E. B. Dubois (who was actually a Mulatto). Most of the board consisted of Jewish Marxist ideologues. The U.S. House of Representatives and many state investigative bodies thoroughly documented the fact that all of the NAACP’s founders were activists in the Communist cause. Dubois even chose Communist Ghana as his burial site.

NAACP leader Kivie Kaplan


The NAACP’s first president was Arthur Spingarn, and only Jews served as NAACP presidents from its founding until the 1970s. Noel Spingarn succeeded his brother, Arthur, and following him, Kivie Kaplan reigned over the organization. The Jewish leadership of the NAACP was little known by the public at large. When I came of age, the only name I heard associated with the NAACP was Roy Wilkins, who was its Black national secretary. Because he was so much in the press and public eye, like most Americans, I thought Wilkins was the NAACP leader. But Kaplan was the actual NAACP president during that time. Benjamin Hooks became the first Black president finally in the 1970s. Once a Black finally made it to the presidency of the organization, no longer did the public hear much about the NAACP “national secretary.” From then on the public spokesman was the NAACP president.

In the recent Black-Jewish split, liberal Jews are quick to cry foul at Black resentment against them by reciting the fact that the lion’s share of the financing of the Black cause has come from Jews. They also boast that at least 90 percent of the civil-rights legal effort has come from Jewish attorneys and has long been supported by Jewish money.

Practically every step of the civil-rights movement’s progress came through the courts. They decreed forced racial integration of the schools, enabled illiterate Blacks to vote, and ultimately forced upon America the massive anti-White discrimination program with the Orwellian name “affirmative action.” Here, too, Jews took the predominant roles.

The organization that fought many of these battles was the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an organization separate from the NAACP itself. At this writing, Jews still lead it. Jake Greenberg has been active in the legal fund for years and was the chief attorney for Brown in the famous Supreme Court case Brown v Board of Education. In that nefarious decision, the Supreme Court – in one devastating stroke of the pen – initiated the transformation of the American public educational system from one of the best in the world to one of the worst in the First World.

Even in the areas where Jews were not the actual leaders, they provided much of the behind-the-scenes influence. Martin Luther King Jr. fell under the guidance of Stanley Levinson, who wrote many of King’s speeches, including, some say, the “I Have a Dream” speech delivered at the March on Washington. John and Robert Kennedy warned King to disassociate himself from Levinson because of Levinson’s Communist record. King, however, found Levinson invaluable and refused. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) also had key Jewish involvement in their formative periods, and most of the nominally White “Freedom Riders” that went South were Jews. The famous case of the three Freedom Riders killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi, involved Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney – two Jews and one Black.

The public image of the man who called himself “Martin Luther King” (his legal name was Michael King) is a textbook illustration of the power of the media to influence America. Most people still do not know of the extent of King’s involvement in Communism, in part because the media continues to ignore King’s long record of Communist associations. King privately declared himself to be a Marxist, and told his inner circle that his efforts were a part of the “class struggle.” His personal secretary, Bayard Rustin, was a Communist. When King had to replace Rustin in 1961, he chose another Communist, Jack O’Dell. His main advisor (“handler” would probably be a more apt term), as I’ve mentioned, was Jewish Communist Stanley Levinson, who edited and probably wrote a good deal of King’s book Stride Toward Freedom. Levinson prepared King’s income tax returns, controlled King’s fundraising activities, and was also in charge of funneling Soviet money to the Communist Party, USA.

Only recently has it been revealed that King plagiarized large sections of his doctoral thesis. Boston University formed a committee to determine the extent of King’s plagiarism. It determined that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part were taken from other authors. Schools regularly revoke degrees on discovery of far less cheating, but the importance of King to the civil-rights movement prevented the revocation of his divinity degree.

The media have always carefully portrayed King as a good Christian family man – the epitome of a man of God. But King had dozens of liaisons with prostitutes, White and Black, used church money to pay them and commonly beat them – all documented by the FBI and admitted by King associates.

King even spent the night before his assassination copulating with and beating White prostitutes. On the FBI surveillance tapes the “Reverend King” can be heard during intercourse to say, ” I’m f—ing for God!” and “I’m not a Negro tonight!” The King records are so damning that the tapes and other FBI documents were sealed for 50 years. Despite these facts, King’s Jewish handlers and their allies in the media were steadfast in their laudatory portrayal of King.

Jewish and Black relations have become strained in recent years as Black political sympathies have become more nationalistic in their own right. Jewish association with Black civil-rights causes originated from the days when many Communists saw the Blacks as potential revolutionaries for Communist uprising. The Communists in their creation of the Soviet State temporarily won the Jewish fraternal struggle between Zionism and Communism that Winston Churchill described in 1920. Radical American Jews envisioned the Blacks as an American proletariat, a transatlantic version of the oppressed serfs of Russia that could be utilized as allies helping to usher in a Communist revolution. Of course, even non-Communist Jews tended to support a non-racial definition of “American,” since they more than anyone are aware of their status as outsiders in White society. This led almost all organized Jewish factions to support the dismantling of the laws and traditions that supported the continued existence of our race.

Zionism over Marxism

After the Second World War, two major factors began to pull the Jews away from Communism: the Russification of the Soviet State and the establishment of the state of Israel.

To fight the Germans, Stalin and the Soviet regime motivated the Russian people by calling on their deep patriotic feelings. Stalin himself, one of the most paranoid and ruthless leaders of all time, skillfully played one Jewish faction against the other until he emerged as the unquestioned authority in Russia. Leon Trotsky (Lev Bronstein), Stalin’s chief rival, was forced into exile and later murdered by the Russian NKVD. Although individual Jews remained pivotal in his regime, Stalin saw all Jewish alliances as a threat to his own power. He brutally repressed any potential threat he could find, and he turned the Soviet Union to a more nationalistic course. The anthem of Soviet Communism, the egalitarian and anti-nationalist “Internationale,” was replaced by a traditional Russian hymn.

Affirmative action for Jewish Communists in the early days of the revolution was replaced by a merit system in universities and the military. A lot of Stalin’s maneuvers against the Jews did not become clear until long after the Second World War, and many Jews had reluctance to believe that they had lost control of the Soviet regime. Even into the late 1960s, in most countries other than Russia, Jews still constituted the majority of Marxist leadership around the world – including the United States. Many of these Jewish Communists, though, had become somewhat anti-Russian and now called themselves Trotskyites. Only a few Jewish radicals held onto the Communist vision as expressed in Russia; most others reached for a new Marxist ideology rooted in egalitarianism and, while holding onto the social tenants of Communism, began a migration to capitalist economics.

While these factors occurred in the Soviet Union, the state of Israel was created, and it seemed that the old, ethnocentric, and orthodox prophecies were finally coming about. For 2,000 years Jews had uttered the prayer “Next year in Jerusalem.” Suddenly, any Jew could go to a Jerusalem once more under their direct political control. During these years, America witnessed the transformation of many New Left Jewish radicals. Norman Podhoretz and Commentary magazine, for example, shifted from Communist apologist to capitalist advocate – from an anti-Vietnam War dove to an unmitigated Israeli hawk. In the 1970s, a flood of these New Right Jews flooded into the “conservative movement,” adapting to the tenants of economic conservatism but adding the elements of social liberalism, egalitarianism, the New World Order, and, of course, super-Zionism. Jews filtered into organizations of every conceivable political stripe, espousing different viewpoints but always keeping a keen eye for the interests of the Jews and the Israeli State.


Simultaneous with the sacrifice of our nation upon the alter of an impossible Black “equality,” came the promotion for the equally fictitious idea of sexual “equality.” Women were told that they were psychologically the same as men but were just socially conditioned by their environment to be wives and mothers instead of research scientists and captains of industry. Not only did the “women’s liberationists” try to convince women that nurturing and inculturating the next generation was less important than sweating on an assembly line or sweating the “bottom line” in an executive suite, they went much further by decrying the role of wife and mother altogether.

Freud also contributed to the destruction of the family in his endorsement of the supposed sexual liberation of sexual promiscuity. One of the strengths of the West has always been high-investment parenting as compared to the Third World. Freud and his Jewish purveyors of psychoanalysis conflated sex and love and justified the destruction of the family unit on issues such as unsatisfactory sexual gratification.

Women’s liberation has completely restructured the American family, as most wives and mothers have been forced into the job market by the new economic standards, resulting in fewer role choices for women. Many researchers say the creation of millions of “working” mothers has had a deleterious effect on family stability and child development. As a result many women are now struggling as the sole provider for themselves and their children, and the ones in stable families often find themselves stressed and debilitated by having to do both the traditional women’s roles in the home and working eight hours a day outside of it.

The most prominent of the modern feminists were Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug. Interestingly, all three came from one of the most sexually repressive religions on Earth: Judaism. A Hole in the Sheet by Evelyn Kaye, who grew up in an Orthodox home, illustrates the demeaning and often disrespectful position of women in the Jewish faith and the hatred expressed toward Gentiles outside of it. She discusses the Bar Mitzvah and the completely ascendant role of the male and writes the following:

    During the prayers which a Jewish man recites every morning are a series of blessings, which include: “Thank you, Lord, for not making me a non-Jew, for not making me a slave, for not making me a woman.”

    In Susan Weidman Schneider’s book Jewish and Female, Rabbi Laura Geller comments: “Menstrual taboos are responsible for real damage to Jewish women’s views of themselves and their bodies. I have met many women who learned nothing about the Torah except that they could not touch the Torah because they menstruate. . . . Their sense of themselves as ‘inferior’ Jews has already permeated their relationship to tradition and their own bodies.


Kaye also bravely comments on the anti-Gentile nature of Jewish Orthodoxy.

    The final turning point for me was anti-Goyism.

    The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews. This is the foundation of the ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic philosophy. It’s as tenacious, unreasoned and impossible as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism. And as intractable.

    What it says is that all non-Jews, or Goyim as the word is in Yiddish since it’s the plural of “Goy,” are wicked, evil and untrustworthy.

    There is a complete litany of all the terrible things about non-Jews which apply to every single one and which are believed implicitly by the Orthodox. These include:

    - All Goyim drink alcohol and are always drunk;

    - All Goyim are on drugs;

    - All Goyim hate Jews even when they seem to be friendly;

    - All Goyim are anti-Semites, no matter what they say or do;

    - All Goyim have a terrible family life and mistreat their wives and children;

    - All Goyim eat pork all the time;

    - Goyim are never as clever, as kind, as wise or as honest as Jews;

    - You can never trust the Goyim.

    There’s much more. But the essence of anti-Goyism is passed to Jewish children with their mother’s milk, and then nurtured, fed and watered carefully into full-blown phobias throughout their lives.


The Talmud often characterizes women as unclean, whores, and as deceitful, lower beings. It even has long passages that justify adult males having sexual relations with little girls. Women are segregated in the Orthodox synagogue. Women are almost as reviled as Gentiles. Note the following talmudic references, starting with the prayer to which Kaye refers:

    Blessed be thou. . .who has not made me a goy. . . who has not made me a woman, and who has made me an Israelite. . .who has not made me a slave. Judah Ben Ilai

    When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye, tears come to the eye,… [footnote] (7) again and again but eyesight returns, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. (Kethuboth 11b)

    A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition. (Sanhedrin 55b and 69a-69b) and (Yebamoth 57b 58a, 60b)


Yet, the Jewish high priestesses of women’s liberation have made few inroads in reforming those inequities. Only the Reform part of Judaism puts women on somewhat of an equal footing. But Israel is an Orthodox-run Jewish nation, and nearly all the Reform and Conservative organizations around the world support Israel wholeheartedly. The question of ethnic heritage far overshadows any doctrinal debate. It is ironic that women from the religious culture having the most demeaning attitude toward women, should focus their efforts on promoting a sexual revolution among those of European descent. It seems to me that their time could be better spent addressing the rank inequities in their own backyard.

No Third World society on Earth venerates women, womanhood and motherhood as much as Western Christian civilization. No dark races accord women as much freedom and respect. In most Third World nations, women are treated much like chattel property. Millions are sexually mutilated with female circumcision and infibulation. Physical abuse is commonplace. Women routinely provide almost all their own and their children’s sustenance in Africa, where the normal behavior of the male is to sexually play – but seldom stay.

The purposely-induced antagonism between the sexes divides White Americans when it is more important than ever that we are united. The wedge driven between White men and women often divides our vote and helps minority and pro-minority candidates to win elections. Women are deceived into voting for minority candidates and liberal causes in higher percentages than men do. In spite of the wide difference between the White and Black race in the status and well-being of women, the feminist movement has aligned itself with Black “civil-rights” objectives. They’ve been told that the “White male patriarchy” is the enemy, causing resentments and conflicts between the sexes that could prove fatal for our people unless repaired. Many women’s groups openly campaign for Jewish and Black causes, blessed by accolades of the Jewish high priestesses of feminism. But when White women form organizations exclusively for the advancement of our European heritage, they face condemnation.

White men and women who have become aware of the racial apocalypse looming ahead must make a supreme effort to reach the alienated Western woman and bring her back into unity with her own people. Her most vital interests, as well as that of Western man, lay with the preservation of her racial heritage and the Western culture in which she thrives. White nations have always afforded women the greatest degree of personal safety and physical health, the best education and economic opportunity, the most prestige, and the most stable family life.

A perfect example of the ardent minority racism dominating women’s liberation groups was the halting of a demonstration against the acquittal of wife-beater turned-wife killer O. J. Simpson. A National Organization of Women spokeswoman planned a demonstration protesting the acquittal until the national office made her call off the demonstration because it would offend Blacks. Black sensibilities obviously became far more paramount to NOW than the very lives and safety of women – at least White women.

Women’s rights are virtually nonexistent in Third World nations, where women are ruled by male tyranny and brutality. Sentiments of male chauvinism find mild verbal and cultural expression in Western nations. In the dark nations, male chauvinism is not represented by mere office chatter or humor; it is realized in a day-to-day living in which millions of women are subject to brutality, suppression, sexual mutilation, and subjugation. When women realize that their real liberation can come only in a fully Western society, the liberation of Western man will come as well. There may be debate among our people of the respective roles of men and women, but that debate can be heard only in a Western society. If our nation is remade in the image of the dark world, there will be no respect of women’s rights and no possibility of debate. Even from a purely selfish, feminist point-of-view, the transformation of our society to a genetically and culturally Third World state would mean the end of any aspirations of “women’s rights.”

Egalitarianism and Civil-Rights as Weapons

As I uncovered more information of the Jewish domination of the anti-White, and anti-family revolution, it struck me that many powerful Jews might see White America in the same way they once viewed the Czar and the White Russians. I began to wonder whether we were destined to become a people deposed, a nation conquered not with armies and cannon but by the power of the purse and the power of the press.

If they did not view us as Theodor Herzl did – as aliens – why did so many of them attack American traditions and customs, from the structure of the family to the singing of Christmas carols in our schools? Although not all Jews participate in the crusade against our heritage, a vast majority support chauvinist Jewish organizations and back the candidates for public office who most sublimate themselves to Jewish concerns. Jewish support means far more than their voting bloc; it means full campaign coffers and the support of powerful media.

Jewish activists have been relentless in their support for pluralism of American politics and culture. The high-sounding Jewish promises of the so-called civil-rights movement – love, peace, and brotherhood – have been replaced with the violent obscenities of a rap song. For Blacks, once rhythmic and peaceful urban communities now echo with the sound of gunfire, a third of young Black men are in jail, probation, or parole, and millions are chained, hand, foot, and soul, to alcohol and drugs.

Whites who have fled from the cities their fathers built find themselves burdened with high taxes that disproportionately go to unproductive minorities in Welfare and in the criminal justice system flooded with minority criminals. Those unable to flee find themselves in deteriorating conditions. Their children endure the primitivism and try to adjust to the fear permeating the mostly black schools of our major cities, while their parents barricade themselves behind their locked doors and barred windows. There they often lose themselves in the make-believe world of television, where they supinely watch their history, their soul, and their spirit under an unrelenting attack as spiritually damaging as the crime on the streets is physically destructive.

What did Jews have to gain from the empowerment of minorities in America? Obviously, the Marxists saw Blacks and other minorities as staunch allies vital for the advancement of their agenda and political success. Over the past decades, the Black bloc vote has been vital to liberal politics. Perhaps more important, a Babylon-like, multiracial America suits Jewish interests. In a divided land, the most unified group exercises the greatest power. In a jumbled, kaleidoscope society, the exercise of that alien power is less apparent to the majority elements, for if a tiny minority has an agenda hostile to the majority, that minority needs to be as unobtrusive as possible. Multiracialism muddies the waters. Jews will always thrive in such a Babylon. Every blow that has broken the solidarity and furthered the dispossession of the founding and once-ruling American majority, is an opening for the new contenders to the throne.

A great deal of the degeneracy has no design at all. The alien nature described by Theodor Herzl finds its expression in thousands of jabs and body blows to the traditions and values of the Anglo-America of old. Whether it is a Nativity scene outlawed from a public square, or an all-male military academy turned coed, or morning radio programs filled with crude talk of human excretory activity, or the glamorization of drugs in films and novels, the beat goes on, drummed by people almost proud of their alien nature. The tune is the funeral march for America and the whole Western world.

They eat away at our nation’s European roots, always gaining influence and power and yet always considering themselves outsiders, and that is precisely what they are: spiritual, cultural, and genetic outsiders who are now on the inside of the American power structure. Consider the following statement from a Jewish pundit who has both success and fame:

    Decades later, prowling along the river with Texas Rangers to see them catch crossing Mexicans, I stopped and sat on the ground. I said that’s enough – I am one of them, the wetbacks, and not of them, the hunters.

A. M. Rosenthal wrote those words, a man who has been head of the Editorial pages of The New York Times, America’s most powerful newspaper. With all his money, power, and prestige – sitting in the dirt along the muddy banks of the Rio Grande – Rosenthal still identifies himself as an “outsider.” His loyalties are not with other Americans who want to preserve our way of life. His allegiance is with the aliens who will change it.

The minority racism – the “civil rights” and the egalitarianism – that has flourished in America, had its origins in an alien ethnocentrism. Our nation, once distinctively European in nature, is fading fast. It was not brewed in the fleshpots of Babylon. But unless great change comes, it will succumb there.

Most Americans who fought against the civil-rights movement, believing correctly that it would lead to the destruction of the fabric of society, never recognized the source of its power. In the South some blamed the “Yankees,” some the politicians, and some the media. Few understood that the civil-rights movement was an outgrowth of the same power that propelled the Russian Revolution, that influenced the participation of America in the First World War, that helped bring about the Second World War, and that finally created the nation of Israel.

How ironic that the civil-rights movement had its roots in racism, that it was simply a weapon wielded by the most ethnocentric people on Earth against their ancient enemies. Blacks were simply pawns in a much larger political game. Most of the non-Jewish Whites who were enlisted in the cause never realized that the struggle was not really about civil rights. These participants, like the Blacks themselves, were being manipulated in the much bigger contest of the Jewish struggle for power.

The same establishment that preaches the holy writ of racial equality and amalgamation, never lets Americans forget the right of Jews – in fact, the holy obligation of Jews – to maintain their heritage both here and in their Jewish state. It reminds us constantly, from the pulpit of television, of their unmatched godliness, their eternal innocence and victimhood. Their pundits and scriptwriters unabashedly proclaim Jewish mental, cultural, and moral supremacy. They are canonized daily by their media, while those who dare utter a contrary word are muzzled or demonized. A tabernacle of the new religion of the Holocaust stands squarely in the midst of the American Acropolis of Washington, D.C. In that shrine the American people can worship the Chosen People and feel guilt for their sins against them. There they can learn of the worst transgression of all: questioning the only true “civil right” – the Jewish right to rule us culturally, spiritually, and politically.

The alien oppression would be bad enough by itself, but our masters clearly planned the extermination of our kind. Once I understood that, I could no longer remain silent about the realities of Jewish power in the West. Their continued dominance would sweep away our folk in a rising tide of immigration, miscegenation, non-White fecundity, and White self-sterilization.

The alien-dominated media keep most White Americans completely unaware of the ongoing dispossession of our people – and another segment cheering it on. I began to see that the media was the most powerful weapon they used against us, so I focused my next inquiries on Jewish infiltration and domination of the American mass-communication media.

Copyright 1999, 1998 by David Duke. All Rights Reserved.

Last edited by DejuificatorII (16-12-2013 14:45:13)

Nous serons toujours là.


#9 16-12-2013 14:46:17

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Source: | December 27, 2002

Kwanzaa: A Holiday From the FBI

By Ann Coulter

Trent Lott, call your office: Apparently some parts of American history can be sanitized and forgotten. Earlier this week, President George Bush issued a formal White House proclamation celebrating Kwanzaa.

Sounding like a “Saturday Night Live” send-up, Bush praised the “seven principles” of Kwanzaa, “known as Nguzo Saba,” and discussed the “early harvest gatherings called ‘matunda ya kwanza,’ or first fruits.” He included the usual claptrap about how Kwanzaa celebrates “traditional African values” and “uniting people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs.”

It is a fact that Kwanzaa was invented in 1966 by a black radical FBI stooge, Ron Karenga, aka Dr. Maulana Karenga. Karenga was a founder of United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers and a dupe of the FBI.

In what was probably ultimately a foolish gamble, during the madness of the ’60s, the FBI encouraged the most extreme black nationalist organizations in order to discredit and split the left. The more preposterous the organization, the better. Karenga’s United Slaves was perfect. In the annals of the American ’60s, Karenga was the Father Gapon, stooge of the czarist police.

Despite modern perceptions that blend all the black activists of the ’60s, the Black Panthers did not hate whites. They did not seek armed revolution. Those were the precepts of Karenga’s United Slaves. United Slaves were proto-fascists, walking around in dashikis, blowing away Black Panthers and adopting invented “African” names. (That was a big help to the black community: How many boys named “Jamal” currently sit on death row?)

Whether Karenga was a willing dupe, or just a dupe, remains unclear. Curiously, in a 1995 interview with Ethnic NewsWatch, Karenga matter-of-factly explained that the forces out to get O.J. Simpson for the “framed” murder of two whites included: “the FBI, the CIA, the State Department, Interpol, the Chicago Police Department” and so on. (He further noted that “the evidence was not strong enough to prohibit or eliminate unreasonable doubt” ? an interesting standard of proof.) Karenga should know about FBI infiltration.

In the category of the-gentleman-doth-protest-too-much, back in the ’70s, Karenga was quick to criticize rumors that black radicals were government-supported. When Nigerian newspapers claimed that some American black radicals were CIA operatives, Karenga leapt in to denounce the idea publicly, saying, “Africans must stop generalizing about the loyalties and motives of Afro-Americans, including the widespread suspicion of black Americans being CIA agents.”

By now, there is no question that the FBI fueled the bloody rivalry between the Panthers and United Slaves. In one barbarous outburst, Karenga’s United Slaves shot Black Panther Al “Bunchy” Carter on the UCLA campus. Karenga himself served time, a useful stepping-stone for his current position as a black studies professor at California State University at Long Beach.

Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy ’60s rhetoric, black racism and Marxism. Indeed, the seven “principles” of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life — economics, work, personality, even litter removal. (“Kuumba: Everyone should strive to improve the community and make it more beautiful.”) It takes a village to raise a police snitch.

When Karenga was asked to distinguish Kawaida, the philosophy underlying Kwanzaa, from “classical Marxism,” he essentially explained that under Kawaida, we also hate whites. While taking the “best of” — I’m not making this up — “early Chinese and Cuban socialism,” Kawaida practitioners believe one’s racial identity “determines life conditions, life chances and self-understanding.” There’s an inclusive philosophy for you.

Coincidentally, the seven principles of Kwanzaa are the very same seven principles of the Symbionese Liberation Army, another charming invention of the Least-Great Generation. In 1974, Patricia Hearst, kidnap victim-cum-SLA revolutionary, posed next to the banner of her alleged captors, a seven-headed cobra. Each snake head stood for one of the SLA’s revolutionary principles: Umojo, Kujichagulia, Ujima, Ujamaa, Nia, Kuumba and Imani ? precisely the seven “principles” of Kwanzaa.

With his Kwanzaa greetings, President Bush is saluting the intellectual sibling of the Symbionese Liberation Army, killer of housewives and police. He is saluting the founder of United Slaves, who were such lunatics that they shot Panthers for not being sufficiently insane — all with the FBI as their covert ally. It’s as if David Duke invented a holiday called “Anglica,” and the president of the United States issued a presidential proclamation honoring the synthetic holiday. People might well stand up and take notice if that happened.

Kwanzaa was the result of a ’60s psychosis grafted onto black community. Liberals have become so mesmerized by multicultural nonsense that they have forgotten the real history of Kwanzaa and United Slaves — the violence, the Marxism, the insanity. Most absurdly, for leftists anyway, is that they have forgotten the FBI’s tacit encouragement of this murderous black nationalist cult founded by the father of Kwanzaa.

Now the “holiday” concocted by an FBI dupe is honored in a presidential proclamation calling it a “holiday that promotes mutual understanding.” A movement that started approximately 2,000 years before Kwanzaa leaps well beyond merely “promot(ing) mutual understanding” to say we are all equal before God. It is so inclusive, people get mad at it. That movement is also celebrated this week. But the Christian leaders at the forefront of the abolitionist and civil rights movements have been washed down the memory hole.

Nous serons toujours là.


#10 16-12-2013 14:54:59

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

The Beast As Saint

The Truth About “Martin Luther King, Jr.”

by Kevin Alfred Strom

Strom Kevin Alfred - The Beast as Saint.pdf … t-as-Saint … t-as-saint

(a speech given by Mr. Strom on the nationwide radio program, AMERICAN DISSIDENT VOICES, January 15th, 1994)

WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people’s weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist “historians” rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist killers and criminals were converted into official “saints.” Holidays were declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations.

Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?

Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so-called “Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.” King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays — they share the generic-sounding “President’s Day.”) A liberal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let’s take a look at this modern-day plastic god.


Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as “Daddy King.” “Daddy King” named his son Michael. In 1935, “Daddy King” had an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as “Martin Luther King” and to his son as “Martin Luther King, Jr.” None of this name changing was ever legalized in court. “Daddy” King’s son’s real name is to this day Michael King.


King’s Brazen Cheating

We read in Michael Hoffman’s “Holiday for a Cheater”:

The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled “Life is What You Make It,” according to the testimony of King’s best friend of that time, Reverend Larry H. Williams. The first book that King wrote, “Stride Toward Freedom, – -was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow. And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of “The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- – (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff includes King’s widow Coretta), stated of King’s writings at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism…. Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology.” King’s essay, “The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God,” written at Crozer, pirated passages from the work of theologian Edgar S. Brightman, author of “The Finding of God- -. Another of King’s theses, “Contemporary Continental Theology,” written shortly after he entered Boston University, was largely stolen from a book by Walter Marshall Horton. King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman,” for which he was awarded a PhD in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God.” According to “The Martin Luther King Papers”, in King’s dissertation “only 49 per cent of sentences in the section on Tillich contain five or more words that were King’s own….”! In “The Journal of American History”, June 1991, page 87, David J. Garrow, a leftist academic who is sympathetic to King, says that King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, who also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in his repeated cheating. Reading Garrow’s article, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that King cheated because he had chosen for himself a political role in which a PhD would be useful, and, lacking the intellectual ability to obtain the title fairly, went after it by any means necessary. Why, then, one might ask, did the professors at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University grant him passing grades and a PhD? Garrow states on page 89: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions… and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more….” The editors of “The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers” state that “…the failure of King’s teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is somewhat remarkable….”

But researcher Michael Hoffman tells us “…actually the malfeasance of the professors is not at all remarkable. King was politically correct, he was Black, and he had ambitions. The leftist [professors were] happy to award a doctorate to such a candidate no matter how much fraud was involved. Nor is it any wonder that it has taken forty years for the truth about King’s record of nearly constant intellectual piracy to be made public.”

Supposed scholars, who in reality shared King’s vision of a racially mixed and Marxist America, purposely covered up his cheating for decades. The cover-up still continues. From the “New York Times” of October 11, 1991, page 15, we learn that on October 10th of that year, a committee of researchers at Boston University admitted that, “There is no question but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation.” However, despite its finding, the committee said that “No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree,” an action the panel said “would serve no purpose.”

No purpose, indeed! Justice demands that, in light of his willful fraud as a student, the “reverend” and the “doctor” should be removed from King’s name.

Communist Beliefs and Connections

Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD, and his name isn’t really “Martin Luther King, Jr.” What’s left? Just a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people.

On Labor Day, 1957, a special meeting was attended by Martin Luther King and four others at a strange institution called the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. The Highlander Folk School was a Communist front, having been founded by Myles Horton (Communist Party organizer for Tennessee) and Don West (Communist Party organizer for North Carolina). The leaders of this meeting with King were the aforementioned Horton and West, along with Abner Berry and James Dumbrowski, all open and acknowledged members of the Communist Party, USA. The agenda of the meeting was a plan to tour the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots.


From 1955 to 1960, Martin Luther King’s associate, advisor, and personal secretary was one Bayard Rustin. In 1936 Rustin joined the Young Communist League at New York City College. Convicted of draft-dodging, he went to prison for two years in 1944. On January 23, 1953 the “Los Angeles Times” reported his conviction and sentencing to jail for 60 days for lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion. Rustin attended the 16th Convention of the Communist Party, USA in February, 1957. One month later, he and King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or SCLC for short. The president of the SCLC was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The vice-president of the SCLC was the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who was also the president of an identified Communist front known as the Southern Conference Educational Fund, an organization whose field director, a Mr. Carl Braden, was simultaneously a national sponsor of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which you may have heard. The program director of the SCLC was the Reverend Andrew Young, in more recent years Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to the UN and mayor of Atlanta. Young, by the way, was trained at the Highlander Folk School, previously mentioned.


Soon after returning from a trip to Moscow in 1958, Rustin organized the first of King’s famous marches on Washington. The official organ of the Communist Party, “The Worker,- – openly declared the march to be a Communist project. Although he left King’s employ as secretary in 1961, Rustin was called upon by King to be second in command of the much larger march on Washington which took place on August 28, 1963.

Bayard Rustin’s replacement in 1961 as secretary and advisor to King was Jack O’Dell, also known as Hunter Pitts O’Dell. According to official records, in 1962 Jack O’Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, USA. He had been listed as a Communist Party member as early as 1956. O’Dell was also given the job of acting executive director for SCLC activities for the entire Southeast, according to the St. Louis “Globe-Democrat – -of October 26, 1962. At that time, there were still some patriots in the press corps, and word of O’Dell’s party membership became known.

What did King do? Shortly after the negative news reports, King fired O’Dell with much fanfare. And he then, without the fanfare, “immediately hired him again- – as director of the New York office of the SCLC, as confirmed by the “Richmond News-Leader – -of September 27, 1963. In 1963 a Black man from Monroe, North Carolina named Robert Williams made a trip to Peking, China. Exactly 20 days before King’s 1963 march on Washington, Williams successfully urged Mao Tse-Tung to speak out on behalf of King’s movement. Mr. Williams was also around this time maintaining his primary residence in Cuba, from which he made regular broadcasts to the southern US, three times a week, from high-power AM transmitters in Havana under the title “Radio Free Dixie.” In these broadcasts, he urged violent attacks by Blacks against White Americans.


During this period, Williams wrote a book entitled “Negroes With Guns.” The writer of the foreword for this book? None other than Martin Luther King, Jr. It is also interesting to note that the editors and publishers of this book were to a man all supporters of the infamous Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

According to King’s biographer and sympathizer David J. Garrow, “King privately described himself as a Marxist.” In his 1981 book, “The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.”, Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, “…we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution…. The whole structure of American life must be changed…. We are engaged in the class struggle.”

Jewish Communist Stanley Levison can best be described as King’s behind-the-scenes “handler.” Levison, who had for years been in charge of the secret funnelling of Soviet funds to the Communist Party, USA, was King’s mentor and was actually the brains behind many of King’s more successful ploys. It was Levison who edited King’s book, “Stride Toward Freedom.” It was Levison who arranged for a publisher. Levison even prepared King’s income tax returns! It was Levison who really controlled the fund-raising and agitation activities of the SCLC. Levison wrote many of King’s speeches. King described Levison as one of his “closest friends.”

FBI: King Bought Sex With SCLC Money

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had for many years been aware of Stanley Levison’s Communist activities. It was Levison’s close association with King that brought about the initial FBI interest in King.

Lest you be tempted to believe the controlled media’s lie about “racists” in the FBI being out to “get” King, you should be aware that the man most responsible for the FBI’s probe of King was Assistant Director William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially “I was one hundred per cent for King…because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights.” The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King’s Communist beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable hypocrite, an immoral degenerate, and a worthless charlatan.


According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the “civil rights” movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King’s speaking and organizing tours.

In fact, an outfit called The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict in any way the “occupants – -of those rooms. That”according to exhibit designer Gerard Eisterhold”would be “close to blasphemy.” The reason? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent his last night on Earth having sex with two women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.

Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau hadáseen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate.

Noting the violence that almost invariably attended King’s supposedly “non-violent” marches, Sullivan’s probe revealed a very different King from the carefully crafted public image. King welcomed members of many different Black groups as members of his SCLC, many of them advocates and practitioners of violence. King’s only admonition on the subject was that they should embrace “tactical nonviolence.”

Sullivan also relates an incident in which King met in a financial conference with Communist Party representatives, not knowing that one of the participants was an infiltrator actually working for the FBI.

J. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King’s Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King’s real nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in”the controlled media and the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on, and it is even reported that a serious proposal has been made to add some of King’s writings as a new book in the Bible.


Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King. I want you to start to think for yourselves. I want you to consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media’s active promotion of King? What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero? What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal? What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie? You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up.


(For a current schedule of this radio program, and for our catalog of over 300 books, tapes, and videos that the controlled media don’t want you to see, send $1 to National Vanguard Books, Department R, PO Box 90, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.)

Last edited by DejuificatorII (16-12-2013 14:56:41)

Nous serons toujours là.


#11 16-12-2013 14:58:36

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

The Jewish Civil Rights Movement

Source: The Boston Book Review | August 7, 2001

A Review of the Book :

Jews Against Prejudice:

American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties
by Stuart Svonkin

Reviewed by Noah J. Efron

Most of what I know about Martin Luther King, Jr., I learned in yeshiva. A poster hanging in my third-grade classroom showed him sermonizing a sea of people surrounding the reflecting pool. Alongside the picture were the words of the “I have a dream” speech; I read them over and over until I knew them by heart. Next to that was a photo of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel striding alongside King in Selma. When King was shot, class was canceled and a man came to tell us about civil rights. He said that King’s greatest allies had been Jews. Together they fought to make sure that everyone–Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, everyone–had a chance to better themselves, and to be treated with dignity. The man described how Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner had been shot dead, fighting for blacks. Jews helped blacks because they need us, he said, even though nobody had helped us when we needed them in Germany.

The message was complicated for a seven-year old who’d never met a black, but I grasped much of it. In that annus mirabilis from the Six-Day War to the Chicago Seven, I learned that Jews had to look out for their own welfare, and also for that of other persecuted people. That summer, my twelve-year-old sister found in a shop on the Lower East Side a poster of a Chasid in a phone booth, pulling off his heavy coat to expose a bright blue and red costume, with the letter “shin” stitched on his chest. For me, that Superjew was Moshe Dayan capturing Jerusalem, Heschel marching on Selma, and Abbie Hoffman demanding an end to the Vietnam war, all rolled into one: wherever injustice is found, Superjew will be there.

I later learned that this image of Jews as defenders of the rights of all downtrodden had been carefully cultivated. The MLK poster, for example, was distributed to schools by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of Bnai Brith, together with handbooks about teaching tolerance. The prominent billing given the ADL made it clear that the poster had two points: one, racism must end and, two, Jews are leading the fight to end it. The ADL was not alone. Since the end of World War II, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and American Jewish Congress (AJCongress), as well as the ADL, had each set aside cash and hired bureaucrats and experts to devise ways to “eliminate prejudice and discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious minorities.” Svonkin calls this “collaborative battle against bigotry” the “intergroup relations movement.” Each group came up with its own strategies, which were then coordinated with the other groups, Christian groups like the National Council of Churches of Christ and secular groups like the ACLU. These strategies changed over time, but they had two basic thrusts. One was education. The other was legal action. The educational activities included highbrow initiatives like commissioning Theodor Adorno to write The Authoritarian Personality, and lowbrow efforts like radio and television commercials, and distributing posters like the one that hung in my third grade. They also printed teaching guides for teachers, sensitivity guides for police officers, and so on. The legal initiatives included challenging restrictions against African-Americans in housing projects that received government assistance and unfair hiring and university admissions practices, as well as helping draft and lobby for more potent civil rights legislation, and so forth.

In Jews Against Prejudice, Stuart Svonkin describes these efforts. This story has been told many times before, but never in such detail. Svonkin has painstakingly examined the archives of the three organizations he chronicles, as well as the massive published literature, and stitched together a measured account of how they devised strategies, implemented them, and revised them as circumstances changed. In so doing, Svonkin demonstrates how the campaigns waged by these organizations “helped to shape the way in which American liberals thought about fundamental questions of race, ethnicity, liberty, and equality.”

Jewish devotion to fighting discrimination in the years after the war was extraordinary, as Svonkin makes abundantly clear. Aside from the efforts of the Jewish organizations Svonkin chronicles, many individual Jews also joined in. Just under two-thirds of the whites who participated in the perilous 1964 Freedom Rides into the Deep South were Jews. Over half the money donated to secular civil rights organizations in the early 1960s came from Jews. What accounts for this extraordinary devotion? Why did yeshiva buchers like me learn that civil rights was a Jewish production? Why did American Jews, immediately after the Holocaust, complain less and less about anti-semitism, and more and more about the one-level-more-abstract bigotry and toleration? Why did they stop clamoring for a fair shake for Jews and start clamoring for a fair shake for everyone?

Svonkin does not have much of an answer to these questions, and what little he does write is circumspect. “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies after 1945,” he writes, “was to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States.” They believed that they could achieve this goal through the intergroup relations movement, according to Svonkin, because they believed that their parochial interests–making Jews safer, wealthier, more socially mobile–were in perfect accord with universalist principles that guided the civil rights movement. “For these communal leaders and their constituents Jewishness and Americanism truly were equal and complimentary commitments,” Svonkin writes, “…what it meant to be ‘Jewish’ sometimes seemed virtually indistinguishable from what it meant, for most postwar liberals, to be American.”

But the idea that Jewish and liberal American values and interests are perfectly harmonious is a vast and self-serving oversimplification. It is almost an article of faith among liberal Jews that some combination of Jewish “prophetic” heritage and the empathy borne of pogroms and the Holocaust left Jews preternaturally sensitive to the suffering of others, and that this combination explains why Jews naturally embrace liberal values, and why they were so disproportionately involved in the mid-century struggles against bigotry and racism. Paul Berman put it like this, “Slavery is Nazism; lynchings are pogroms; Jim Crow is czarist anti-Semitism, American style; Mississippi is Poland; bigotry is bigotry. I am with you! I understand your plight.” For many Jews, such sentiments were genuine. But these sentiments alone do not explain why Jewish individuals and organizations devoted themselves to fighting discrimination and racism. The notion that it was just high-minded empathy and altruism that motivated Jews is, as Julius Lester once complained, “a little self-righteous.” If Jews were acting out of empathy and altruism, why did they energetically fight some sorts of discrimination and racism (discriminatory housing practices, discrimination in hiring or discriminatory voting policies, for example) while tolerating some other forms of discrimination and racism (such as red-lining, discriminatory pricing in black neighborhoods, or rampant, racially-motivated police brutality)? The answer is that something other than empathy and altruism also motivated Jews to fight discrimination, and something other than empathy and altruism helped determine which fights Jews got involved in, and how they got involved. Jewish interests often diverged from those of blacks and other minorities, and from those of other liberals. Not surprisingly, Jewish organizations usually got involved in those fights against discrimination and racism from which they too benefited.

There were, in fact, many different sorts of benefits. Some were “internal,” affecting the standing of these groups within the Jewish community itself. The post-war era was a transitional period for organized American Jewry, with leadership passing from patrician German Jews to children of erstwhile Ostjuden. What better way to solidify the social standing and political viability of such Jews within the Jewish community, than to become involved in a cause that would allow them to traffic with august Protestant and Catholic leaders, with governors, congressmen, and senators? The new Jewish leadership was also overwhelmingly secular. Engaging in a cause that transcended Jews and Judaism, a cause grounded in “Judeo-Christian” ethics, was a way for lay leadership to establish its primacy over rabbinic leadership. Rabbis were incensed when the House Committee on Un-American Activities decided to meet with the “leaders of all three religious faiths,” and invited the secular AJC to represent the Jews. Embracing the struggles for civil rights and civil liberties allowed an emerging cadre of new leaders to sweep aside generations of leaders whose legitimacy rested on the twin pillars of fighting anti-semitism and purveying old-time religion. Also, at a moment when actual anti-semitism was clearly on the wane, the new focus on civil rights and libertie–which effectively bundled anti-semitism with more blatant and heinous bigotries against African-Americans–made “intolerance” seem like more of a threat to Jews than it otherwise might, thereby increasing the motivations (and contributions) of their constituents. For all these reasons, fighting for civil rights and liberties–instead of challenging anti-semitism and discrimination against Jews–enhanced the stature of the ADL, AJC and AJCongress within the American Jewish community.

Fighting for civil rights and liberties also advanced the interests of the Jewish community as a whole in American society. Bundling anti-semitism with racism allowed Jewish leaders to bring the moral gravitas of African-American suffering to bear on issues of particular relevance to Jews. Though Jews were excluded from some neighborhoods and denied some jobs, the discrimination against Jews was–at least by the mid-1950s–subtle and intermittent enough as to make it difficult to rally politicians to legislate against it and district attorneys to prosecute it. Fighting the far more blatant discrimination against African-Americans was a way to fight Jewish battles by proxy and in extremis. It was thus a way to remove social and economic barriers faced by Jews, without appearing merely self-serving. This accounts for why Jewish civil liberties organization hewed close to issues that were in principle relevant to Jews–free access of “minorities” to jobs, housing, social clubs and organizations–while they steered away from the sorts of economic restructuring that might greatly benefit African-Americans but offer no gains for Jews.

Paradoxically, taking a commanding role in the civil rights movement may also have increased the already growing perception of Jews as whites. While Jews seem obviously white today, at the end of the war many (some polls reported most) Americans viewed Jews as a race apart. By embracing the implicit ontology of the civil rights movement–society splits into white and black–Jews became for the first time clearly and unassailably white. That Jews went after the war from being a persecuted minority to being part of the majority was reflected in the increasing discomfort of African-American leaders with the Black-Jewish alliance. Jews were increasingly seen as paternalistic because they were increasingly seen as white. This change too proved beneficial to Jews, who found themselves ever more accepted in white, Christian society.

The fact that there were self-serving reasons for Jewish organizations to fight racism does not diminish the fact that sincere idealism was also a motivation. American Jews after the war had good reason to be sensitive to bigotry, and to regret their quietist response to Nazi anti-semitism and bigotry not many years earlier. Many Jews did feel real empathy for persecuted blacks. Also, the fact that Jewish efforts helped Jews is not damnable. Idealism and self-interest are not always at odds, and even if Jews benefited by fighting racism this does not mean that their commitments were not heartfelt or that their efforts were not valuable. It is often the case, as it was here, that real sensitivity and altruism are enmeshed seamlessly in a ravel of parochial interests and concerns.

Untangling this knot is important, in part because the history of the Jewish “struggle against prejudice” has become encrusted with piety in a way that makes it almost impossible to understand what has happened within the Jewish community since the early 1960s. Dozens of recent books chronicle and lament what one called the “Broken Alliance” between Jews and African-Americans. Many Jews oppose affirmative action, a position emblemized by the Bakke case. Jews are also increasingly opposing welfare and entitlements, separation of church and state (as in the Kiryas Joel controversy) and other liberal-left positions that were once assured of Jewish support so solid that it approached consensus. Many American Jews also support Israel’s steadfast repression of Palestinian civil rights and liberties without regret or ambivalence, perhaps suggesting that their commitment to these rights and liberties is not as sweeping or steadfast as it once was. Among Jewish leftists, these trends are decried as the evaporation of “Jewish values,” whatever those might be. Some mainstream Jewish leaders often claim that these trends show that Jews have been alienated by ungrateful and anti-semitic black leaders like Louis Farrakhan. Some African-Americans see these trends as an abandonment and as a sign of growing Jewish racism. But the Jewish Neoconservatives writing for Commentary (which is published by the AJC) may have a point when they argue that some liberal-left causes–like affirmative action–never had much support among Jews and that most of the changes in Jewish positions simply reflect changes in Jewish interests. In the post-postwar generation, Jews have gotten progressively richer and whiter. Many (though not all) of the reasons why it made sense for Jews fight racism and discrimination simply do not apply anymore.

One might expect a book about organized Jewish efforts to fight discrimination and bigotry to address some of these issues, and it is disappointing that Jews Against Prejudice does not. Svonkin has instead provided an extravagantly-researched, tightly-focused survey of the internal development of three important Jewish organizations fighting discrimination and racism at a crucial time. He chose not to describe the knot of interests and concerns that motivated them, or to explain how these efforts helped the American Jewish community to reconstitute itself in a new image, or how they speeded the absorption of the “Hebrew” race into white America. There is a fascinating and important story behind the bureaucratic history Svonkin has recounted. Regrettably, that story remains to be told.

Noah J. Efron is a Research Scholar of the Department of History of Science of Harvard University and a Visiting Fellow of Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Nous serons toujours là.


#12 16-12-2013 14:59:29

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

The King Holiday and Its Meaning

by Samuel Francis

This article is reprinted from the 2/98 issue of American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA 22124; $24/yr.

On August 2, 1983, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill creating a legal public holiday in honor of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Although there had been little discussion of the bill in the House itself and little awareness among the American public that Congress was even considering such a bill, it was immediately clear that the U.S. Senate sould take up the legislation soon after the Labor Day recess.

The House had passed the King Holiday Bill by an overwhelming vote of 338-90, with significant bipartisan support (both Reps. Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich voted for it), and the Reagan administration was indicating that the president would not veto it if it came before him. In these circumstances, most political observers seemed to think that Senate enactment and presidential signature of the bill would take place virtually unopposed; few anticipated that the battle over the King holiday in the next few weeks would be one of the most bitter congressional and public controversies of the decade.

From 1981 to 1986 I worked on the staff of North Carolina Republican Sen. John P. East, a close associate and political ally of the senior senator from North Carolina, Jesse Helms. While the legislation was being considered I wrote a paper entitled “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Political Activities and Associations.” It was simply documentation of the affiliations with various individuals and organizations of communist background that King had maintained since the days when he first became a nationally prominent figure.

In September, the paper was distributed to several Senate offices for the purpose of informing them of these facts about King, facts in which the national news media showed no interest. It was not originally my intention that the paper be read on the floor of the Senate, but the Helms office itself expressed an interest in using it as a speech, and it was read in the Congressional Record on October 3, 1983. During ensuing debate over the King holiday, I acted as a consultant to Sen. Helms and his regular staff.

Sen. Helms, like Sen. East and many other conservatives in the Senate and the country, was strongly opposed to establishing a national holiday for King. The country already observed no fewer than nine legal public holidays — New Years Day, “Presidents Day” as it is officially known or “Washington’s Birthday” as an unreconstructed American public continues to insisting on calling it, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

With the exception of Washington’s Birthday and Christmas, not a one of these holidays celebrates a single individual. As Sen. East argued, to establish a special holiday just for King was to “elevate him to the same level as the father of our country and above the many other Americans whose achievements approach Washington’s.” Whatever King’s own accomplishments, few would go so far as to claim that they equaled or exceeded those of many other statesmen, soldiers, and creative minds of American history.

That argument alone should have provided a compelling reason to reject the King holiday, but for some years a well-organized and powerful lobby had pressured Congress for its enactment, and anyone who questioned the need for the holiday was likely to be accused or “racism” or “insensitivity.” Congressional Democrats, always eager to court the black voting bloc that has become their party’s principal mainstay, were solidly in favor of it (the major exception being Georgia Democrat Larry McDonald, who led the opposition to the measure in the House and who died before the month was over when a Soviet warplane shot down the civilian airliner on which he and nearly three hundred other civilians were traveling).

Republicans, always timid about accusations of racial insensitivity and eager to court the black vote themselves, were almost as supportive of the proposal as the Democrats. Few lawmakers stopped to consider the deeper cultural and political impact a King holiday would have, and few journalists and opinion-makers encouraged them to consider it. Instead, almost all of them — lawmakers and opinion-makers — devoted their energies to vilifying the only public leader who displayed the courage to question the very premise of the proposal — whether Martin Luther King was himself worthy of the immense and unprecedented honor being placed upon him.

It soon became clear that whatever objections might be raised against the holiday, no one in politics or the media wanted to hear about them and that even the Republican leadership of the Senate was sympathetic to passage of the legislation. When the Senate Majority Leader, Howard Baker, scheduled action to consider the bill soon after Congress returned from the Labor Day recess, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, called Sen. Baker and urged him to postpone action in order to gain time to gather more support for the bill. The senator readily agreed, telling the press, “She felt chances for passage would be enhanced and improved if it were postponed. The postponement of this is not for the purpose of delay.” Nevertheless, despite the support for the bill from the Republican leadership itself, the vote was delayed again, mainly because of the efforts of Sen. Helms.

Sen. Helms delivered his speech on King on October 3 and later supplemented it with a document of some 300 pages consisting mainly of declassified FBI and other government reports about King’s connections with communists and communist-influenced groups that the speech recounted. That document, distributed on the desks of all senators, was promptly characterized as “a packet of filth” by New York’s Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who threw it to the floor of the Senate and stomped on it (he later repeated his stomping off the Senate floor for the benefit of the evening news), while Sen. Edward Kennedy denounced the Helms speech as “Red smear tactics” that should be “shunned by the American people.”

A few days later, columnist Edwin M. Yoder, Jr. in the Washington Post sneered that Jesse Helms “is a stopped clock if ever American politics had one” who could be depended on to “contaminate a serious argument with debating points from the gutter,” while he described Kings as “a prophet, a man of good works, a thoroughly wholesome influence in American life.” Writing in the Washington Times, conservative Aram Bakshian held that Sen. Helms was simply politically motivated: “He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by heaping scorn on the memory of Martin Luther King and thereby titillating the great white trash.” Leftist Richard Cohen wrote of Helms in the Post, “His sincerity is not in question. Only his decency.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Helms, with legal assistance from the Conservative Caucus, filed suit in federal court to obtain the release of FBI surveillance tapes on King that had been sealed by court order until the year 2027. Their argument was that senators could not fairly evaluate King’s character and beliefs anc ast an informed vote on the holiday measure until they had gained access to this sealed material and had an opportunity to examine it. The Reagan Justice Department opposed this action, and on October 18, U.S. District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr. refused to release the King files, which remain selaed to this day.

Efforts to send the bill to committee also failed. Although it is a routine practice for the Senate to refer all legislation to committee, where hearings can consider the merits of the proposed law, this was not done in the case of the King holiday bill. Sen. Kennedy, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that hearings on a similiar proposal had been held in a previous Congress and there was no need to hold new hearings. He was correct that hearings had been held, but there had been considerable turnover in the Senate since then and copies of those hearings were not generally available. Nevertheless, it soon became clear that Republicans and Democrats, liberals and many conservatives, the White House, the courts, and the media all wanted the King holiday bill passed as soon as possible, with as little serious discussion of King’s character, beliefs, and associations as possible.

Why this was so was becoming increasingly clear to me as an observer of the process. Our office soon began to receive phone calls and letters from all over the country expressing strong popular opposition to the bill. Aides from other Senate offices — I specifically remember one from Washington state and one from Pennsylvania — told me their mail from constituents was running overwhelmingly against the bill, and I recall overhearing Sen. Robert Dole telling a colleague that he had to go back to Kansas and prove he was still a Republican despite his support for the King holiday bill. The political leaders of both parties were beginning to grasp that they were sitting on top of a potential political earthquake, which they wanted to stifle before it swallowed them all.

On October 19, then, the vote was held, 78 in favor of the holiday and 22 against (37 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted for the bill; 18 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against it); several substitute amendments intended to replace the King holiday measure were defeated without significant debate.

President Reagan signed the bill into law on November 2nd. I distinctly remember standing with Sen. Helms in the Republican cloakroom just off the floor of the Senate during the debate, listening to one senator after another approaching him to apologize for the insulting language they had just used about Sen. Helms on the floor. Not a few of the senators assured him they knew he was right about King but what else could they do but denounce Helms and vote for the holiday? Most of them claimed political expediency as their excuse, and I recall one Senate aide chortling that “what old Jesse needs to do is get back to North Carolina and try to save his own neck” from the coming disaster he had prepared for himself in opposing the King holiday.

Indeed, it was conventional wisdom in Washington at the time that Jesse Helms had committed political suicide by his opposition to the King holiday and that he was certain to lose re-election the following year against a challenge by Democratic Governor James B. Hunt. In fact, Sen. Helms was trailing in the pools prior to the controversy over the holiday. The Washington Post carried a story shortly after the vote on the holiday bill with the headline, “Battle to Block King Holiday May Have Hurt Helms at Home,” and a former political reporter from North Carolina confidently gloated in the Post on October 23 that Helms was “Destined to Lose in ’84.”

In the event, of course, Sen. Helms was re-elected by a healthy margin, and the Post itself acknowledged the role of his opposition to the King holiday as a major factor in his political revival. As Post reporter Bill Peterson wrote in news stories after Helms’ re-election on November 6, 1984, his “standing among whites . . . shot up in polls after he led a filibuster against a bill establishing a national holiday on the birthday of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.,” and on November 18, “A poll before the filibuster showed Helms trailing Hunt by 20 percentage points. By October, Hunt’s lead was sliced in half. White voters who had been feeling doubts about Helms began returning to the fold.” If Sen. Helms’ speech against the King holiday had any enduring effect, then, it was to help re-elect him to the Senate.

So, was Jesse Helms right about Martin Luther King? That King had close connections with individuals and groups that were openly communist is clear today, as it was clear during King’s own lifetime and during the debate on the holiday bill. Indeed, only two weeks after the Senate vote, on November 1, 1983, the New York Times published a letter written by Michael Parenti, an associate fellow of the far-left Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and a frequent contributor to Political Affairs, an official organ of the Communist Party that styles itself the “Theoretical Journal of the Communist Party USA.”

The letter demanded “What if communists had links to Dr. King?” Mr. Parenti pointed out that “The three areas in which King was most active — civil rights, peace and the labor struggle (the latter two toward the end of his life) — are also areas in which U.S. Communists have worked long and devotedly,” and he criticized “liberals” who “once again accept the McCarthyite premise that U.S. Communists are purveyors of evil and that any association with them taints one forever. Dr. King himself would not have accepted such a premise.” Those of Mr. Parenti’s persuasion may see nothing scandalous in associations with known communists, but the “liberals” whom he criticized knew better than to make that argument in public.

Of course, to say that King maintained close affiliations with persons whom he knew to be communists is not to say that King himself was ever a communist or that the movement he led was controlled by communists; but his continuing associations with communists, and his repeated dishonesty about those connections, do raise serious questions about his own character, about the nature of his own political views and goals, and about whether we as a nation should have awarded him (and should continue to award him) the honor the holiday confers. Moreover, the embarrassing political connections that were known at the time seem today to be merely the tip of the ethical and political iceberg with which King’s reputation continues to collide.

While researching King’s background in 1983, I deliberately chose to dwell on his communist affiliations rather than on other issues involving his sexual morality. I did so because at that time the facts about King’s subversive connections were well-documented, while the details of his sex life were not. In the course of writing the paper, however, I spoke to several former agents of the FBI who had been personally engaged in the FBI surveillance of King and who knew from first-hand observation that the rumors about his undisciplined sex life were substantially true.

A few years later, with the publication in 1989 of Ralph Abernathy’s autobiography, “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down,” those rumors were substantiated by one of King’s closest friends and political allies. It is quite true that a person’s sex life is largely his own business, but in the case of an internationally prominent figure such as King, they become publicly relevant, and they are especially relevant given the high moral stature King’s admirers habitually ascribe to him, the issue of his integrity as a Christian clergyman, and the proposal to elevate him to the status of a national moral icon.

In the course of the Senate debate on the King holiday, the East office received a letter from a retired FBI official, Charles D. Brennan. Mr. Brennan, who had served as Assistant Director of the FBI, stated that he had personally been involved in the FBI surveillance of King and knew from first-hand observation the truth about King’s sexual conduct — conduct that Mr. Brennan characterized as “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

He also stated that “King frequently drank to excess and at times exhibited extreme emotional instability as when he once threatened to jump from his hotel room window.” In a study that he prepared, Mr. Brennan described King’s “sexual activities and his excessive drinking” that FBI surveillance discovered. It was this kind of conduct, he wrote, that led FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to describe King as “a tomcat with obsessive degenerate sexual urges” and President Lyndon Johnson to call King a “hypocrite preacher.” Mr. Brennan also acknowledged:

“It was much the FBI collected. It was not the FBI’s most shining hour. There would be no point in wallowing in it again. The point is that it is there. It is there in the form of transcripts, recordings, photos and logs. It is there in great quantity. There are volumes of material labeled ‘obscene.’ Future historians just will not be able to avoid it.”

It is precisely this material that is sealed under court order until the year 2027 and to which the Senate was denied access prior to the vote on the King holiday.

One instance from King’s life that perhpas illuminates his character was provided by historian David Garrow in his study of the FBI’s surveillance of King. Garrow recounts what the FBI gathered during a 48-hour surveillance of King between February 22 and 24, 1964 in the Hyatt House Motel in Los Angeles: “In that forty-eight hours the Bureau acquired what in retrospect would be its most prized recordings of Dr. King. The treasured highlight was a long and extremely funny story-telling session during which King (a) bestowed supposedly honorific titles or appointments of an explicitly sexual nature on some of his friends, (b) engaged in an extended dialogue of double-entendre phrases that had sexual as well as religious connotations, and (c) told an explicit joke about the rumored sexual practices of recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy, with reference to both Mrs. Kennedy, and the President’ funeral.”

Garrow’s characterization of the episode as “extremely funny” is one way of describing the incident; another is that during the session in Los Angeles, King, a Christian minister, made obscene jokes with his own followers (several of them also ministers), made sexual and sacreligious jokes, and made obscene and insulting remarks intended to be funny about the late President Kennedy and his sex life with Mrs. Kennedy.

It should be recalled that these jokes were made by King about a man who had supported his controversial cause, had lost political support because of his support for King and the civil rights movement, and had been dead for less than three months at the time King engaged in obscene humor about him and his wife. In February, 1964, the nation was still in a state of shock over Kennedy’s death, but King apparently found his death a suitable occasion for dirty jokes.

More recently still, in addition to disclosures about King’s bizarre sex life and his close connections with communists, it has come to light that King’s record of deliberate deception in his own personal interests reaches as far back as his years in college and graduate school, when he plagiarized significant portions of his research papers and even his doctoral dissertation, an act that would cause the immediate ruin of any academic figure. Evidence of King’s plagiarism, which was almost certainly known to his academic sponsors at Boston University and was indisputably known to other academics at the King Papers Project at Stanford University, was deliberately suppressed and denied. It finally came to light in reports published by The Wall Street Journal in 1990 and was later exhaustively documented in articles and a monograph by Theodore Pappas of the Rockford Institute.

Yet, incredibly — even after thorough documentation of King’s affiliations with communists, after the relevations about his personal moral flaws, and after proof of his brazen dishonesty in plagiarizing his dissertation and several other published writings — incredibly there is no proposal to rescind the holiday that honors him. Indeed, states like Arizona and New Hampshire that did not rush to adopt their own holidays in honor of King have themselves been vilified and threatened with systematic boycotts.

The continuing indulgence of King is in part due to simple political cowardice — fear of being denounced as a “racist” — but also to the political utility of the King holiday for those who seek to advance their own political agenda. Almost immediately upon the enactment of the holiday bill, the King holiday came to serve as a kind of charter for the radical regime of “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” that now prevails at many of the nation’s major universities and in many areas of public and private life.

This is so because the argument generally offered for the King holiday by King’s own radical collaborators and disciples is considerably different from the argument for it offered by most Republicans and Democrats. The latter argue that they simply want to celebrate what they take to be King’s personal courage and commitment to racial tolerance; the holiday, in their view, is simply celebratory and commemorative, and they do not intend that the holiday should advance any other agenda. But this is not the argument in favor of the King holiday that we hear from partisans like Mrs. King and those who harbor similar views. A few days after Senate passage of the holiday measure, Mrs. King wrote in the Washington Post (10/23/83) about how the holiday should be observed.

“The holiday,” she wrote, “must be substantive as well as symbolic. It must be more than a day of celebration . . . Let this holiday be a day of reflection, a day of teaching nonviolent philosophy and strategy, a day of getting involved in nonviolent action for social and economic progress.”

Mrs. King noted that for years the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta “has conducted activities around his birthday in many cities. The week-long observance has included a series of educational programs, policy seminars or conferences, action-oriented workshops, strategy sessions and planning meetings dealing with a wide variety of current issues, from voter registration to full employment to citizen action for nuclear disarmament.”

A few months later, Robert Weisbrot, a fellow of the DuBois Institute at Harvard, was writing in The New Republic (1/30/84) that “in all, the nation’s first commemoration of King’s life invites not only celebration, but also cerebration over his — and the country’s — unfinished tasks.” Those “unfinished tasks,” according to Mr. Weisbrot, included “curbing disparities of wealth and opportunity in a society still ridden by caste distinctions,” a task toward the accomplishment of which “the reforms of the early ’60s” were “only a first step.” Among those contemporary leaders “seeking to extend Martin Luther King’s legacy,” Mr. Weisbrot wrote, “by far the most influential and best known is his former aide, Jesse Jackson.”

The exploitation of the King holiday for radical political purposes was even further enhanced by Vincent Harding, “Professor of Religion and Social Transformation at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver,” writing in The New York Times (1/18/88). Professor Harding rejected the notion that the King holiday commemorates merely “a kind, gentle and easily managed religious leader of a friendly crusade for racial integration.” Such an understanding would “demean and trivialize Dr. King’s meaning.” Professor Harding wrote:

“The Martin Luther King of 1968 was calling for and leading civil disobedience campaigns against the unjust war in Vietnam. Courageously describing our nation as ‘the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,’ he was urging us away from a dependence on military solutions. He was encouraging young men to refuse to serve in the military, challenging them not to support America’s anti-Communist crusades, which were really destroying the hopes of poor nonwhite peoples everywhere. This Martin Luther King was calling for a radical redistribution of wealth and political power in American society as a way to provide food, clothing, shelter, medical care, jobs, education and hope for all of our country’s people.”

To those of King’s own political views, then, the true meaning of the holiday is that it serves to legitimize the radical social and political agenda that King himself favored and to delegitimize traditional American social and cultural institutions — not simply those that supported racial segregation but also those that support a free market economy, an anti-communist foreign policy, and a constitutional system that restrains the power of the state rather than one that centralizes and expands power for the reconstruction of society and the redistribution of wealth.

In this sense, the campaign to enact the legal public holiday in honor of Martin Luther King was a small first step on the long march to revolution, a charter by which that revolution is justified as the true and ultimate meaning of the American identity. In this sense, and also in King’s own sense, as he defined it in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, the Declaration of Independence becomes a “promissory note” by which the state is authorized to pursue social and economic egalitarianism as its mission, and all institutions and values that fail to reflect the dominance of equality — racial, cultural, national, economic, political and social — must be overcome and discarded.

By placing King — and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction — into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining — perhaps the defining — icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda.

It is hardly an accident, then, that in the years since the enactment of the holiday and the elevation of King as a national icon, systematic attacks on the Confederacy and its symbolism were initiated, movements to ban the teaching of “Western civilization” came to fruition on major American universities, Thomas Jefferson was denounced as a “racist” and “slaveowner,” and George Washington’s name was removed from a public school in New Orleans on the grounds that he too owned slaves.

In the new nation and the new creed of which the King holiday serves as symbol, all institutions, values, heroes, and symbols that violate the dogma of equality are dethroned and must be eradicated. Those associated with the South and the Confederacy are merely the most obvious violations of the egalitarian dogma and thereform must be the first to go, but they will by no means be the last.

The political affiliations of Martin Luther King that Sen. Jesse Helms so courageously exposed are thus only pointers to the real danger that the King holiday represents. The logical meaning of the holiday is the ultimate destruction of the American Republic as it has been conceived and defined throughout our history, and until the charter for revolution that it represents is repealed, we can expect only further installations of the destruction and dispossession it promises.

(Samuel Francis is a nationally syndicated columnist.)

Nous serons toujours là.


#13 16-12-2013 15:01:20

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

Source: Free Speech - September 1997 - Volume III, Number 9

The Meaning of Affirmative Action

by Dr. William Pierce

It has been interesting watching the television commentators and other minions of Political Correctness wring their hands and moan about the falling enrollment of Blacks in some of America’s universities and professional schools recently. Black undergraduate enrollment has fallen by one-half in some branches of the University of California. The number of Blacks in the law schools of the University of California and the University of Texas has fallen even more drastically. Until recently these schools had been very proud of themselves for having a higher percentage of Blacks among their students than in the general population, and now they have lost nearly all of their Blacks. The media spokesmen and the Clintonistas are wailing about the loss of “diversity.”

And they all know who is to blame for this dreadful turn of events: it is those hateful people who have forced the scuttling of affirmative action programs in some areas. It is “White racism” which is keeping Blacks out of the schools.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that it was affirmative action programs which were keeping Blacks in the schools, and when those programs were ended the Black enrollment plummeted. What the diversity-mongers really are alarmed about is that what has happened where affirmative action programs have been dropped exposes their lie of racial “equality.” What we see in California and Texas now is that when the prop of affirmative action is taken away the artificial “equality” it had been supporting collapses. This is something the media bosses and the Clintonistas really don’t want us to see, because it exposes the artificiality and the lack of viability of the multiracial society they have been trying to ram down our throats for so long.

We were told many years ago, when affirmative action programs first were imposed on us, that they were necessary to compensate for “White racism” — that Blacks were being kept out of universities and professional schools by “racist” officials, that Blacks were being denied employment, promotions, and other opportunities by “racist” employers, and so on. We were told that we needed to end this so-called “racial discrimination” and extend a helping hand to Blacks, so that they would have an “equal opportunity” to become lawyers, doctors, and business executives. The tacit assumption was that Blacks are “equal” in ability to Whites, and that if they were given an equal chance they would succeed equally. We were told that affirmative action programs would provide this equal opportunity.

Of course, equal opportunity was never the intention of the media bosses and the other promoters of affirmative action. Their aim was to give Blacks more opportunity than Whites. Their aim was to ensure that Blacks would succeed equally, regardless of what had to be done, regardless of how much extra opportunity had to be given to them in order to achieve this.

There was very little if any “White racism” holding down Black enrollment in American universities even before the government began enforcing affirmative action programs. University officials already were very liberal and were happy to have more Blacks. They didn’t get many Blacks because, in the first place, not many Blacks applied, and in the second place, most of those who did apply could not compete effectively with the White students. There is a very substantial average difference in IQ, in problem-solving ability, in intelligence, between Whites and Blacks, and it shows up very significantly on examinations and in success rates.

Affirmative action programs require school officials and employers to ignore these differences in ability between Whites and Blacks and to recruit Blacks at all costs. Affirmative action requires school officials to boost Blacks ahead of Whites, to give them economic rewards not available to Whites, to give Blacks preferential treatment in order to get them into school and to keep them in school.

Affirmative action requires employers to behave similarly by offering Blacks more than they offer Whites, and by hiring and promoting Blacks who are less qualified than Whites. The government wants schools to graduate a certain percentage of Blacks, and it doesn’t care how they achieve this result. The government wants employers to have certain percentages of Black employees and Black executives, regardless of how many Whites have to be trampled on in order to achieve this. And so for many years school administrators and business executives have been almost pulling Blacks out of trees and graduating them or putting them in the boardroom in order to keep the government happy.

There’s been a great deal of deceit involved in these affirmative action programs from the beginning. The government and the media tell us that they don’t involve quotas or racial preferences, when they clearly do. The government and the media tell us that affirmative action does not hurt Whites at all; it merely helps Blacks — it gives Blacks a little boost without taking anything away from Whites. That is simply a lie, although many Whites have been willing to swallow it rather than seem to be “racist.” The media have deliberately insinuated that any White person opposed to affirmative action is a “racist.”

Now a few White people in California and Texas have rebelled and have managed to get themselves out from under the yoke of affirmative action. In fact, a few Blacks have rebelled too, because they are unhappy about the resentment against them which is being caused by affirmative action. And the media and the government are screaming about how this very small rebellion is destroying “diversity,” about how this is taking us back to the bad, old days of segregation, and so on.

The thing for us to understand is that affirmative action is only one part of a much larger scheme which has been imposed on us. The aim of the media bosses and their hangers-on in the government is a multiracial society: a society in which Black teachers and Black professors teach White students; a society in which Black athletes become heroes and role models for young Whites; a society in which Black brain surgeons, Black rocket scientists, Black astronauts, Black Army generals, and Black political leaders are prominent; a society in which Black drill instructors lord it over White recruits; a society in which Blacks and Whites mix intimately and intermarry with each other at every social level.

The media bosses have been very successful at creating the illusion that we have such a society. The news, entertainment, and advertising we see on television are all designed — very carefully and skillfully designed — to support this illusion. The TV world is an artificial world. On television we see Blacks behaving like Whites, speaking like Whites, and showing themselves equal or superior to Whites in every way, including intelligence, creativity, industry, morality, civility, and sense of responsibility. The agencies on Madison Avenue which design advertisements for television carefully cultivate this illusion. Blacks are just like Whites, except for being a little darker — and perhaps a little smarter, a little more civilized, and a little better dressed. Black families are just like White families, except for being a little warmer and more loving and taking a little better care of their yards.

The scriptwriters in New York and Hollywood who give us our entertainment are engaged in exactly the same sort of deception. If there’s a White male Southerner in a film, for example, the chances are about nine out of ten that he’ll either be a despicable bigot or he’ll be a credit to his race by standing up against the despicable White bigots all around him. If there’s a Black in a major role in the film the chances are good that he’ll be brighter, more resourceful, braver, and more moral than the Whites around him. The first commandment of casting in Hollywood is, “Thou shalt not portray a person of color in a negative light.”

The same racial slant is found in the treatment of the news. Any White-on-Black crime gets star billing and is repeated endlessly, while Black-on-White crime, even of the most atrocious sort, is ignored if the media bosses think they can get away with it and buried as soon as possible if they feel obliged to mention it. The shooting of a convicted Black drug dealer and his girlfriend by a boozed-up White soldier at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, a little over a year ago was hyped and kept in the headlines for months in order to create the impression that murderous White racists were taking a terrible toll among innocent Blacks. I’m sure you’ve heard about it — many times. But just three months after the Fort Bragg shooting — in March of last year — a non-White sergeant at Camp Pendleton, the big Marine base in southern California, shot his White executive officer to death and tried to kill his White commanding officer while shouting anti-White gibberish, and hardly anyone outside the San Diego area heard of it, because the media bosses decided it wouldn’t be good for their racial program to report it.

The unfortunate fact is that today the artificial world of television shapes most people’s ideas and attitudes even more than the real world around them does. Nevertheless, the real world won’t go away, and so reality has a nasty way of contradicting the fantasy world of television and deflating the multiracial pipe dream constructed by Hollywood’s scriptwriters and Washington’s spin doctors. The way to make the real world conform to the fantasy is affirmative action. If real-world Blacks aren’t quite up to the standard of the television world, then have the government give them a boost with a little affirmative action. Make sure that White university students see plenty of Black students around them. Make sure that the Black students get grades at least as good as those of the White students. Then have an appropriate quota of Blacks in caps and gowns at graduation, even if it means trashing academic standards.

But now a few rebels in California and Texas have forced the schools in their states to deal honestly with students for a change, and reality has reared its ugly head, spoiling the carefully constructed illusion of racial equality. As soon as the prop of affirmative action was removed, the illusion simply collapsed. Black enrollment plummeted. And now there is a real danger that Whites in California and Texas may realize that when Blacks must compete on an equal basis with Whites they lose consistently, except in those areas of physical activity — basketball, boxing, ear-biting, sprinting, and jumping — to which they are especially suited. This is the reason that the Clintonistas are so desperate to keep the affirmative action props in place everywhere. This is why Mr. Clinton was so upset about the dropping of affirmative action at the University of California that he made a special trip to California in an effort to keep the illusion propped up.

I’ll recapitulate what I’ve said so far, because it’s quite important for us to understand what’s happening and to keep it in mind. There are people who desperately want all of us to believe that everyone is born with equal ability, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc., and that the only reason some people are less successful than others is because they aren’t treated fairly: in other words, because of racism, sexism, homophobia, or whatever.

Some of the people who are desperate to have us believe this actually believe it themselves. They have watched so much television that they have fallen under its spell, and they feel guilty for being White. The only way they can escape their guilt is to strive for a world in which there is no inequality, and in which, therefore, no one can be guilty for being more successful, more intelligent, more civilized, or more beautiful than anyone else.

But the people who control television and who want us to believe in equality certainly do not believe in it themselves. They believe that they are a Chosen People, ordained by their tribal god to rule over all the nations of the earth. Their strategy for ruling is to destroy the sense of identity and nationhood of other nations by mixing them all together and convincing them that they are all the same. They use television and the other media they control to create the illusion of equality. They present us with an image of a world in which Blacks are at least as capable as Whites in all the arts of civilization and also at least as foresighted, self-disciplined, and moral as Whites. In fact, they generally overdo it, and present us with a fantasy world in which Blacks are morally superior to Whites if not intellectually superior.

But because what they present us with is a fantasy and is contradicted by reality, they use their influence over the politicians to promote government programs, such as affirmative action, which obscure reality, which conceal it from White Americans. Since most Blacks simply are not capable of succeeding in a White society, the equality-mongers give them an artificial sort of success through affirmative action.

And when the affirmative action is suddenly taken away, reality reasserts itself, and the illusion of equality is shattered. The fakery is exposed. The phony world of successful, affluent, attractive, creative Blacks collapses. That’s what has happened at the University of California and at the University of Texas law school. That’s why Mr. Clinton is running around the country giving speeches in favor of more affirmative action, while the Hollywood and Madison Avenue Jews crank out more fantasy.

The reason why all of this is so important, the reason why I’m so concerned about it, is not because affirmative action takes away from Whites and gives to Blacks. And it does do that, regardless of the lies of its promoters to the contrary. But if that’s all it did I’d be in favor of it, because the resentment it generates among Whites will be very useful in bringing about the restoration of our society some day. But unfortunately that’s not all affirmative action does. One of the other things it does is bring about a lowering of the average proficiency in the skills needed to sustain our civilization. The more that we force an artificial equalization of Blacks and Whites in our society, the closer we approach to the sort of skills and standards we can see in Tanzania, Zaire, or Rwanda. Actually, I guess that Zaire is no longer called Zaire, since the latest Black dictator and generalissimo-for-life took over a while back.

The advances in technology we have made in this century tend to obscure the effects of this lowering of standards, because a few very bright people now can carry the problem-solving load for a much larger number of people than in the past, but the effects of affirmative action are still visible and still increasing. They are especially noticeable in such things as growing bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. In some areas of the United States local government operates on the level of a banana republic. Washington, DC, with its exceptionally high degree of affirmative action, is an outstanding example.

Another effect of affirmative action — and in the long run it is the most catastrophic effect — is the social and economic equalizing of Blacks and Whites. In the past the lower success rate of Blacks tended to keep them socially and economically separated from Whites, even without any legal barriers between the races. This social and economic separation resulted in a relatively low rate of miscegenation, of sexual mixing between the races. A few Black athletes — O.J. Simpson, for example — became wealthy enough to acquire White wives, but the overall genetic mixing was relatively minor. By artificially boosting Blacks economically and socially, affirmative action has greatly increased the rate of miscegenation. It was planned that way from the beginning by the equality mongers.

This is why we must regard every advocate of affirmative action as an advocate of genocide against our people and why we must hold these advocates accountable for their actions.

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Nous serons toujours là.


#14 16-12-2013 15:05:27

Dejuificator II
Maîtres Ascensionnés V.I.P
Registered: 03-03-2011
Posts: 552

Re: Black Civil Wrongs

The Congressional Record :

(On the Subject of “Martin Luther” King Jr., Jews, Communism, and the Black “Civil Rights” Movement)

Remarks of Senator Jesse Helms, October 3rd, 1983

Vol. 129, No. 130, pages S 13452 through S 13461.

Mr. President, in light of the comments by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), it is important that there be such an examination of the political activities and associations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., principally from the beginning of his work in the civil rights movement in the mid 1950s until his death in 1968. Throughout this period, but especially toward the beginning and end of his career, King associated with identified members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA),with persons who were former members of or close to the CPUSA, and with CPUSA front organizations. In some important respects King’s civil rights activities and later his opposition to theVietnam war were strongly influenced by and dependent on these associations. There is no evidence that King himself was a member of the CPUSA or that he was a rigorous adherent of Marxist ideology or of the Communist Party line. Nevertheless, King was repeatedly warned about his associations with known Communists by friendly elements in the Kennedy Administration and the Department of Justice (DOJ) (including a strong and explicit warning from President Kennedy himself). King took perfunctory and deceptive measures to separate himself from the Communists against whom he was warned. He continued to have close and secret contacts with at least some of them after being informed and warned of their background, and he violated a commitment to sever his relationships with identified Communists.

Throughout his career King, unlike many other civil rights leaders of his time, associated with the most extreme political elements in theUnited States. He addressed their organizations, signed their petitions, and invited them into his own organizational activities. Extremist elements played a significant role in promoting and influencing King’s opposition to the Vietnam war – an opposition that was not predicated on what King believed to be in the best interests of the United States but on his sympathy for the North Vietnamese Communist regime and on an essentially Marxist and anti-American ideological view of U.S. foreign policy.

King’s patterns of associations and activities described in this report show that, at the least, he had no strong objection to Communism, that he appears to have welcomed collaboration with Communists, and that he and his principal vehicle, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), were subject to influence and manipulation by Communists. The conclusion must be that Martin Luther King, Jr. was either an irresponsible individual, careless of his own reputation and that of the civil rights movement for integrity and loyalty, or that he knowingly cooperated and sympathized with subversive and totalitarian elements under the control of a hostile foreign power.

Biographical Data:

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the son of Alberta Williams and Martin Luther King, Sr., a Baptist minister. He was graduated from Morehouse College, Atlanta, in 1948, receiving the degree of B.A. He attended the Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, receiving the degree of B.D. in 1951, and he received the degree of Ph.D. from Boston University in 1955. In 1953 he married Coretta Scott of Alabama, by whom he was the father of four children. On April 4, 1968 King was murdered by a rifle assault in Memphis, Tennessee. On March 10, 1969, James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, pled guilty to the murder of King and was sentenced to 99 years in prison, a term he is now serving.

Operation “Solo” and Stanley D. Levison:

In the early 1950s the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertook a long-term and highly classified counter-intelligence operation, against the CPUSA. The FBI persuaded a former member of the National Committee of the CPUSA and former editor of the Daily Worker, the Party newspaper, to become active again within the Party leadership and to report on Party activities to the FBI. This man’s name was Morris Childs, and his brother, Jack Childs, also a Communist, 18 agreed to act as an informant as well. The FBI operation was known as SOLO, and for nearly 30 years it provided reliable and highly sensitive information about the CPUSA, its activities within the United States, and its relations with the Soviet Union to the highest authorities in the U.S. government. At least three U.S. Presidents were aware of SOLO, and Morris Childs may have briefed President Nixon prior to his trip to Moscow in 1972. In 1980 SOLO was brought to an end. Jack Childs died on August 12, 1980, and the operation was publicly disclosed and thus terminated by historian David J. Garrow in a book published the following year. Among the most important facts learned from SOLO was that the CPUSA was dependent on a direct financial subsidy paid by the Soviet Union.

About one million dollars a year in Soviet funds was paid to a member of the CPUSA, usually Jack Childs himself, in New York City. Although this subsidy was illegal, the FBI allowed it to continue for a number of reasons – prosecution would have exposed SOLO and necessarily brought it to an end, and the operation was of continuing value; and the dependence of the Party on Soviet funds meant that it did not seek to increase its membership and importance within the United States.

In 1953 Jack Childs reported to the FBI that an individual named Stanley David Levison (1912-1979), a New York lawyer and businessman, was deeply involved in acquiring and disposing of the funds of the Soviet subsidy to the CPUSA. Levison may have been involved as a financial benefactor to the Party as early as1945 and may have established legitimate business enterprises in the United States and Latin America in order to launder Soviet funds to the Party. In this connection Levison was said to have worked with Isidore G. Needleman, the representative of the Soviet trading corporation AMTORG. Childs also reported to the FBI that Levison assisted CPUSA leaders to acquire and manage the Party’s secret funds and that he directed about $50,000 a year into the Party’s treasury. After the death of Party treasurer William Weiner in 1954, Levison’s financial role became increasingly important, and Levison, according to Childs, became “the interim chief administrator of the party’s most secret funds.”

The FBI maintained close surveillance of Levison, but in mid to late 1955, Levison’s financial role began to decline. The FBI decreased its surveillance, although Levison was believed to have occasional contacts with CPUSA leaders. The Bureau eventually terminated surveillance of Levison, probably some time in 1957. Some indications that CPUSA leaders were disgruntled with Levison led the FBI to interview him on February 9 and March 4, 1960. It is not clear what Levison told the FBI at these interviews, but he definitely rejected the request of the FBI that he become an informant within the Communist Party. In the summer of 1956 Bayard Rustin, himself a former member of the Young Communist League, the youth arm of the CPUSA, introduced Levison to Martin Luther King, Jr. in New York City. Levison and King soon became close friends, and Levison provided important financial, organizational, and public relations services for King and the SCLC. The FBI was not aware of their relationship until very late 1961 or early 1962, and it was the discovery of their relationship that led to the protracted and intensive FBI-DOJ surveillance of King for the remainder of his life.

The FBI believed that Levison was still a Communist and that King’s relationship with him represented an opportunity for the Communist Party to infiltrate and manipulate King and the civil rights movement. Of King’s dependence on Levison there can be no doubt. A DOJ Task Force investigating the FBI surveillance of King discussed this dependence in its report of 1977: The advisor’s [Levison's] relationship to King and the SCLC is amply evidenced in the files and the task force concludes that he was a most trusted advisor. The files are replete with instances of his counseling King and his organization on matters pertaining to organization, finances, political strategy and speech writing.

Some examples follow: The advisor organized, in King’s name, a fund raising society …. This organization and the SCLC were in large measure financed by concerts arranged by this person …. He also lent counsel to King and the SCLC on the tax consequences of charitable gifts. On political strategy, he suggested King make a public statement calling for the appointment of a black to theSupreme Court …. This person advised against accepting a movie offer from a movie director and against approaching Attorney General Kennedy on behalf of a labor leader…..In each instance his advice was accepted. King’s speech before the AFL-CIO National Convention was written by this advisor …. He also prepared King’s May 1962 speech before the United Packing House Workers Convention …. In 1965 he prepared responses to press questions directed to Dr. King from a Los Angeles radio station regarding the Los Angeles racial riots and from the “New York Times” regarding the Vietnam War.

After King’s death, Coretta Scott King described Levison’s role: “Always working in the background, his contribution has been indispensable,” and she wrote of an obituary of King written by Levison and Harry Belafonte, “two of his most devoted and trusted friends,” as “the one which best describes the meaning of my husband’s life and death.”

It may be noted that this obituary began with a description of America as “a nation tenaciously racist …. sick with violence …. [and] corrosive with alienation.”

According to Garrow, Levison also assisted King in the writing and publication of Stride Toward Freedom, the administration of contributions to SCLC, and the recruitment of employees of SCLC. King offered to pay Levison for all this help, but Levison consistently refused, writing that “the liberation struggle [i.e., the civil rights movement] is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience.”

There seem to have been few if any agents and administrators in the FBI who knew of Levison’s background of involvement in handling the secret and illegal Soviet funds of the CPUSA who doubted that Levison remained a Communist or under Party control at the time he was working with King, and some FBI personnel have suggested that Levison may actually have held rank in the Soviet intelligence service. Garrow himself does not seriously question the accuracy of Childs’s reports of Levison’s earlier role in the Party, but he appears to be skeptical that Levison continued to be a Communist at the time he worked with King and that he was motivated in this work by any factor other than friendship for King and belief in the civil rights movement. Garrow’s conclusion in this respect is open to question. He is decidedly favorable to King, as opposed to J. Edgar Hoover and other anti-Communists of the time. It is not clear why Garrow came to this conclusion, since he does not appear to have had access to all FBI materials on Levison or derived from SOLO and since he appears to be largely ignorant of the nature of CPUSA activities in racial relations through front groups and surrogates and of the discipline of the Party over its members. A number of factors support the belief that Levison continued to be a Communist or to act under CPUSA control during his association with King:

(1) There is no evidence that Levison broke with the CPUSA; the termination of his financial activities on behalf of the Party prior to his work with King means nothing as far as his affiliation with or loyalty to the Party or the Communist movement is concerned.

(2) Levison had been involved not as a rank-and-file member but as an operative involved with clandestine and illegal funding of the CPUSA by a hostile foreign power. He had had access to the highest leaders of the Party and to the inner most secrets of the Party. It is not likely that such tasks would be given to one who was not fully trusted by both the CPUSA leadership and by the Soviets themselves. Even if Levison had changed his mind about Communism, his activities would have constituted grounds for blackmail by the Party.

(3) Several years after the apparent end of his financial activities for the CPUSA, Levison rejected an opportunity to act as an FBI informant against the Party. Details of his discussions with the FBI are not available, but apparently they were not friendly.

(4) Levison testified under subpoena at an executive session of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security on April 30, 1962. This testimony is still classified. His attorney at this time was William Kunstler, who became notorious for his far left activities in the 1960s and 1970s; Kunstler had been recommended to Levison by the latter’s friend, Arthur Kinoy, also a far left activist. Although Levison in his opening statement before the Subcommittee denied that he was or ever had been a member
of the Communist Party, he refused to answer any questions during this hearing dealing with his relations with the Party or his alleged financial role in it; he pled the Fifth Amendment throughout the hearing.

(5) Levison’s known policy and personnel recommendations to King exhibit a leftist orientation. He was instrumental in persuading and influencing King to oppose the Vietnam war and in hiring at least one other individual with known Communist affiliations to work in SCLC.

(6) Prior to his work in a New York-based civil rights group called “In Friendship” in 1955, Levison had never displayed any interest in civil rights activities. The sudden development of his interest in civil rights and his extensive, time-consuming, and costly assistance to King may have been motivated by a spontaneous and enduring dedication to this cause, but there is little reason to think so. His own description of the civil rights movement as a “liberation struggle” suggests a Marxist perspective.

(7) After King was urged by DOJ to disassociate himself from Levison and was subject to surveillance and distrust by the FBI and the Kennedy Administration, there was no effort on Levison’s part to try to explain his past or to persuade appropriate authorities (in the FBI, DOJ, or the White House) that he had been innocent of Communist connections or that his relationship with King was not connected to his Communist affiliation. Had he been able to do so, King and the civil rights movement would have been much more favorably received by the Kennedy Administration and King himself would probably have been spared several years of surveillance and harassment by the FBI. Instead, Levison and King entered into a secret and deceptive relationship by which Levison continued to influence King through an intermediary, himself of far left orientation and background.

In short, Levison consistently behaved in a manner that lent itself to a sinister interpretation, and his behavior lends further credence to the firm belief of FBI agents involved that Levison remained a Communist or under Communist control. That Levison remained under Communist control was and remains a reasonable explanation of his activities in lieu of any evidence to the contrary or any known behavior on his part that would contradict this explanation. The FBI informed Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy of the close relationship between Levison and King and of Levison’s Communist background on January 8, 1962. The Attorney General decided to warn King of Levison’s background and to urge him to disassociate himself from Levison in order to spare himself, the civil rights movement, and the Kennedy Administration any future embarrassment.

Both Burke Marshall, Assistant Attorney General, acting through Harris Wofford, White House civil rights advisor, and John Seigenthaler, Administrative Assistant to the Attorney General, informed King that persons close to him were Communists or had Communist backgrounds. King expressed skepticism and made no commitment to inquire further or to take any action.

Marshall brought the matter to King’s attention again in subsequent meetings. On June 22, 1963, King met separately in Washington with Marshall, Robert Kennedy, and President Kennedy. All three men again warned King about the Communist affiliations of Levison and Jack O’Dell, an official of SCLC who had been promoted by Levison and who had been (and may still have been) a member of the National Committee of the CPUSA. President Kennedy, in a private conversation with King in the White House Rose Garden, compared the situation with the Profumo Scandal in Great Britain and specifically stated, with reference to Levison and O’Dell, “They’re Communists. You’ve got to get rid of them.”

Even after this conversation, King “made no move to sever ties with either O’Dell or Levison.”

It was not until the FBI leaked information to the press about O’Dell and the publication of this information that King “accepted” O’Dell’s resignation from SCLC in a letter of July 3, 1963. King had still done nothing to sever ties with Levison, and not until after a meeting of Burke Marshall with Andrew Young of SCLC did a change in their relationship occur. In this meeting Marshall told Young, “I can’t give you any proof, but, if you know Colonel Rudolph Abel of the Soviet secret intelligence, then you know Stanley Levison?” This characterization suggests that the FBI may have had other facts about Levison showing a direct link with the Soviet Union.

Levison himself reportedly suggested to King that they curtail their association, and King reluctantly agreed. However, they now entered into a means of communication deliberately designed to deceive the FBI and the Kennedy Administration. Levison and King were to communicate only through an intermediary (or “cut-out” in intelligence parlance) and to avoid direct contact with each other. In this way Levison could continue to influence King. Whether Levison or King instigated this clandestine and deceptive relationship, is not clear.

The intermediary between King and Levison, from July, 1963 until 1965, when the overt contact between them was resumed, was Clarence B. Jones, a black lawyer whose “left political views and firm resistance to any symptoms of racial discrimination had placed him in hot water a number of times” while serving in the U.S. Army in the 1950s?

Jack O’Dell continued to maintain an office at SCLC offices in New York City even after his “resignation” of July 3, and King
and SCLC issued contradictory explanations of this continuing relationship. King himself made commitments to federal officials that he would sever his ties to Levison and O’Dell, but telephonic surveillance of King, Levison, and Jones showed that he had not done so in regard to either individual.

As Burke Marshall stated in an interview in 1970:

…if you accept the concept of national security, if you accept the concept that there is a Soviet Communist apparatus and it is trying to interfere with things here – which you have to accept – and that that’s a national security issue and that taps are justified in that area, I don’t know what could be more important than having the kind of Communist that this man was claimed to be by the Bureau directly influencing Dr. King?

Hunter Pitts O’Dell

Hunter Pitts O’Dell (also known as “Jack O’Dell” and “J.H.O’Dell”), known to have been extensively involved in CPUSA affairs at a high level of leadership, worked for the SCLC at least as early as 1961. O’Dell met Martin Luther King in 1959 and had communicated with him by mail in 1959 and 1960. In June,1962, Stanley Levison recommended to King that he hire O’Dell as his executive assistant, and O’Dell subsequently was increasingly active in SCLC and was listed as a “ranking employee of the organization.”

O’Dell testified under subpoena in hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security (SISS) in New Orleans on April 12, 1956; he took the Fifth Amendment when asked about his organizational activities in New Orleans on behalf of the
CPUSA. Materials discovered in O’Dell’s apartment at the time the subpoena was served were described in the Annual Report of the Subcommittee as “Communist literature from Communist parties in various parts of the world.”

He also took the Fifth Amendment when asked if he was a member of the CPUSA in a hearing before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) on July 30, 1958. O’Dell, according to an FBI report of 1962, was elected a member of the National Committee of the CPUSA in December, 1959, and, according to information submitted to HCUA in 1961, was a member of the National Committee as of that year.

As Garrow states, “no one, including O’Dell, denied his work with the Communist Party from the late 1940s to at least the late 1950′s.”

O’Dell is an associate editor of Freedomways, a magazine described in 1964 by J. Edgar Hoover as an organ which the CPUSA “continues to use as a vehicle of propaganda.” One of the editors of Freedomways is Esther Jackson, a member of the CPUSA and wife of James Jackson, a leader of the CPUSA. O’Dell, as well as James Jackson, are included in a “List of Members” of the World Peace Council for 1980-1983. The World Peace Council, long known as a Soviet-controlled front organization, was described by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1982 as “the major Soviet-controlled international front organization.”

In October, 1962, various newspapers in the United States, using information provided them by the FBI, exposed O’Dell’s Communist affiliations and his current ties to King and the SCLC. King issued an inaccurate statement that sought to minimize O’Dell’s work with the SCLC and accepted O’Dell’s resignation. As Garrow states, “The resignation … was more fiction than fact, as King’s own message and appointment books for late 1962 and the first half of 1963 reflect.”

Further news stories of June,1963, which exposed O’Dell’s continuing relationship with King and his presence in the New York office of SCLC, coupled with warnings from the Kennedy Administration led King again to accept the resignation of O’Dell on July 3, 1963. Even after this date, however, FBI surveillance showed a continuing relationship between O’Dell and SCLC.

There is no doubt about O’Dell’s extensive and high level activities in and for the Communist Party, and his affiliations
since 1961 strongly suggest continued adherence to and sympathy for the CPUSA and the Soviet Union to the present day. Despite these ties and King’s knowledge of them, King promoted O’Dell within the SCLC at the behest of Levison and retained his help after twice publicly claiming to have disassociated himself from O’Dell following strong and explicit warnings from the Kennedy Administration about O’Dell’s Communist background and affiliations.

Southern Conference Educational Fund

Stanley Levison and Hunter Pitts O’Dell were not the only individuals of Communist background with whom Martin Luther King was in contact and from whom he received advice, although they were in a better position than most to exert influence on him. From the mid 1950s through at least the early 1960s, King and the SCLC were closely involved with an organization known as the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), essentially a Communist front organization. SCEF was itself dominated by the Communist Party through the Party members who ran it, and some of these individuals provided assistance to King and exerted influence on him and the SCLC.

A. Background of SCEF

SCEF was originally founded as part of an organization known as the Southern Conference on Human Welfare (SCHW), founded in Birmingham, Alabama, on September 6, 1938. SCHW was originally located in Nashville, Tennessee, but later moved to New Orleans, Louisiana. In 1947, the House Committee on Un-American Activities issued a report on SCHW, which found:

Decisive and key posts [of SCHW] are in most instances controlled by persons whose record is faithful to the line of the Communist Party and the Soviet Union ….

The Southern Conference for Human Welfare is perhaps the most deviously camouflaged Communist-front organization. When put to the following acid test it reveals its true character:

1. It shows unswerving loyalty to the basic principles of Soviet foreign policy.

2. It has consistently refused to take sharp issue with the activities and policies of either the Communist Party, USA, or the Soviet Union.

3. It has maintained in decisive posts persons who have the confidence of the Communist press.

4. It has displayed consistent anti-American bias and pro-Soviet bias, despite professions, in generalities, of love for America.

In 1944 the Special Committee on Un-American Activities (SCUA) of the House of Representatives also cited SCHW as a Communist-front. Soon after its identification as a CPUSA front in 1947, SCHW was dissolved, but the Southern Conference Educational Fund continued. SCEF maintained the same address as SCHW (808 Perdido Street, New Orleans, Louisiana) and published the same periodical (The Southern Patriot). In 1954 the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security (SISS) held hearings in New Orleans on SCEF and found that at least 11 former officials of SCHW were or had been also officials of SCEF. Among these were the President and Executive Director of SCEF, both of whom were identified in testimony taken under oath as having been members of the CPUSA and as having been under the discipline of the CPUSA. Both individuals in their own testimony denied these allegations. The Subcommittee concluded in its report that an objective study of the entire record compels the conclusion that the Southern Conference Educational Fund, Inc., is operating with substantially the same leadership and purposes as its predecessor organization, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.

The subcommittee accordingly recommends that the Attorney General take the necessary steps to present this matter before the Subversive Activities Control Board in order that a determination can be made as to the status of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, Inc.

B. Backgrounds of Individual Leaders of SCEF

At least two key associates of Martin Luther King were formally associated with SCEF as well as with the SCLC itself. The
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King’s principal vehicle for civil rights activism, was officially founded in Montgomery, Alabama on August 7-8, 1957. Among the guests at the organizational meeting in Montgomery was Ella J. Baker of New York City, of the “In Friendship” organization? Baker was also formally associated with SCEF as of October, 1963, as a “Special Consultant.” In 1958 Baker established SCLC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and was a longstanding friend of Martin Luther King. She later played a key role in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), an
organization that became notorious in the 1960s for its advocacy and instigation of racial discord and violence. John Lewis, a founder of SNCC, described Ella Baker as “the spiritual mother, I guess you would call her, of S.N.C.C.”

Little appears to be known of the “In Friendship” organization of which Ella Baker was the representative at the SCLC organizational meeting in 1957. However, Stanley Levison also was closely involved with this organization in New York.
According to Garrow, Levison … had first become involved in the southern civil rights struggle as one of the most active sponsors of a New York group named In Friendship. Organized in 1955 and 1956, In Friendship provided financial assistance to southern blacks who had suffered white retaliation because of their political activity. In Friendship had sponsored a large May, 1956, rally at Madison Square Garden to salute such southern activists, and a good percentage of the funds raised went to King’s Montgomery Improvement Association.

It was Levison who, with Bayard Rustin, sent Ella Baker to Atlanta to oversee the SCLC office in that city, just as he had
brought O’Dell into the SCLC office in New York.

Fred L. Shuttlesworth, corresponding secretary of SCLC in 1957, was in 1963 the President and a former Vice-President of SCEF. Shuttlesworth was responsible for the formation of the Montgomery Improvement Association, through which King and other civil rights activists became involved in civil rights work. Several other individuals affiliated with SCEF as organizational leaders were alleged under oath to have been members of the Communist Party and to have accepted C-Party discipline or can be shown to have had ties to known Communist Party front organizations. Internal documents of SCEF reveal that Martin Luther King was in close contact with some of these leaders of SCEF.

(1) Aubrey Williams: President-Emeritus of SCEF in 1963, Williams had been identified as a member of the CPUSA and as
having accepted the discipline of the Communist Party in the testimony of two former members of the Party, Paul Crouch and
Joseph Butler, before SISS in 1954. Williams denied these allegations.

(2) Dr. James A. Dombrowski: Executive Director of SCEF, Dombrowski had also been identified as a member of the Communist Party and as having accepted Party discipline by witnesses Crouch and Butler before SISS in 1954. Dombrowski denied these allegations.

(3) Carl Braden: Field Organizer for SCEF, Braden was identified as a member of the CPUSA in the testimony of Alberta Aheam, an FBI informant in the Party, before SISS on October 28, 1957. Braden later served as Executive Director of SCEF (1966-1970) and, until 1973, Information Director of SCEF. Braden was indicted and convicted of advocacy of criminal sedition in the state of Kentucky in 1954 and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment; the conviction was reversed by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956), which struck down state sedition laws. In 1959 Braden was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions before HCUA. Braden served a year in a federal penitentiary for this offense, and his conviction was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Braden’s wife, Anne McCarty Braden, was also identified by Alberta Aheam as a member of the Communist Party in testimony before SISS in 1957. Anne Braden also was active within the leadership of SCEF.

(4) William Howard Melish: “Eastern Representative” of SCEF (in New York City) in 1963, Melish was identified as a member of the communist Party in testimony before the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) in 1956 in connection with SACB hearings on the National Council of American Soviet Friendship, described by HCUA as “the Communist Party’s principal front for all things Russian” and included in the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations pursuant to Executive Order 10450. William Howard Melish is the father of Howard Jeffrey Melish (also known as “Jeff Melish”), a member of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and of the violent “Weatherman faction” of SDS. Jeff Melish was arrested in Chicago during the violent “Days of Rage” rioting organized by the Weatherman faction in 1969; he attended the 9th World Youth Festival in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1968 and traveled to Cuba in 1970.

(5) Benjamin E. Smith: Formerly counsel to and in 1963 treasurer of SCEF, Smith was a member of the executive board of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), repeatedly cited as a Communist front organization, in 1956 and in 1962 was listed as “Co-Secretary” of the NLG Committee to Assist Southern Lawyers. In the 1950s Smith was active in the legal defense of persons charged with violating the Smith Act, and in at least one instance he was reported to have received funds from the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, an organization also identified as a Communist front organization.

C. Internal Documents of SCEF

On October 4, 1963, state and local police raided the headquarters of SCEF in New Orleans and seized a number of internal documents, memoranda, and letters. Much of this material shows extensive involvement on the part of SCEF and its staff in the activities of other CPUSA front organizations. Several of the documents reveal a close relationship between SCEF and Martin Luther King, Jr. These documents include the following:

(1) An appeal to sign a petition to President Kennedy for executive clemency for Carl Braden, recently convicted of contempt of Congress for his refusal to answer questions before HCUA. Among the signatures on the appeal found in SCEF offices are those of “(The Rev.) Martin Luther King, Jr., Atlanta, Ga.” and of two former Presidents of SCEF (Aubrey Williams and Edgar A. Love) and of a future President of SCEF, Fred Shuttlesworth. In addition to King and Shuttlesworth, other officers of the SCLC also signed the appeal: Rev. C.K. Steele, first Vice-President of SCLC, and Rev Ralph Abernathy treasurer, SCLC.

(2) A memorandum, dated January 18, 1963, from Carl Braden to Howard Melish (both of whom had been identified as members of the Communist Party), “IN RE MARTIN KING.” Complaining that “Martin King has a bad habit of arriving late at meetings and sundry affairs such as the one we are planning in NYC on Feb.8,” Braden suggested, as a means to correct King’s habit, that either you or Jim Dombrowski should write him at his home, asking him to come to a dinner with you or Mogulescu or some of the key people …. The dinner invitation to his home will serve to remind him of the engagement that night and will also pin down whether he will be there.

The significance of this memorandum is that it shows identified Communists (Braden, Melish, and Dombrowski) planning the influencing and manipulation of King for their own purposes. The assumption of the memorandum is that Melish and Dombrowski at least were close enough to King to invite him to dinner and to expect to be able to exert influence on him.

(3) A photograph of Martin Luther King, Jr., Carl Braden, Anne Braden, and James A. Dombrowski, with the legend on the back of the photograph in the handwriting of Dombrowski, “The 6th Annual Conference of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Birmingham, Alabama, September 25 to 28, 1962.”

(4) A check dated March 7, 1963 for $167.74, issued by SCEF to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., with the notation “N.Y. exp.” (New York expenses), and signed by Benjamin E. Smith and James A. Dombrowski, treasurer and executive director of SCEF respectively. The Southern Patriot of March, 1963′ reported that King “paid high tribute” to SCEF in his remarks at the reception of the New York Friends of SCEF, and the UE News, official organ of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, reported on October 21, 1963, that King protested the seizure of the records of SCEF in Louisiana and the arrest of two of its leaders and an attorney during the course of his remarks.

(5) A letter on the stationery of SCEF apparently from Dombrowski to Dr. Lee Lorch, dated August 2, 1963. Lee Lorch was identified as a member of the Communist Party in testimony under oath by John J. Edmiston, a former member of the Party, in a hearing before HCUA on July 12, 1950. The letter from Dombrowski to Lorch discusses activities supportive of civil rights legislation then being considered in the Congress, and proposes the following:

As part of a massive letter writing campaign, we propose to place a full-page ad in at least one newspaper in each of these 15 states.We enclose a layout and text for the ad to be signed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Dr. Martin Luther King, president; the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and SCEF. SCEF will raise the money. It will take about $10,000 to place the ad in one newspaper in each of the 15 states, $20,000 in two papers per state, etc…

(6) A memorandum from Dombrowski to members of the executive committee of SCEF, dated June 20, 1962, “RE: ATLANTA CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.’, The memorandum states in part:

For almost a year the staff has been discussing with various leaders in Atlanta the possibility of a Southwide conference in that city on civil rights and civil liberties. There has been a most encouraging response. Most gratifying is the interest shown by a number of organizations which in the past have not publicly associated themselves with projects in which the SCEF was involved.

…. the Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker of SCEF has promised his cooperation, including the personal participation of the SCLC president, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

(7) A letter, dated July 27, 1963, from Carl Braden to James Dombrowski, which states in part:

The pressure that has been put on Martin [Luther King, Jr.] about [Hunter Pitts] O’Dell helps to explain why he has been ducking us. I suspected there was something of this sort in the wind.

The UPI has carried a story quoting Martin as saying they have dumped O’Dell for the second time because of fear that the segreationists [sic] would use it against them. He expressed no distaste for Communists or their beliefs, merely puts it on the pragmatic basis that SCLC can’t handle the charges of Communism. This is a quite interesting development.

So I think it is best to let Martin and SCLC alone until they feel like coming around to us. They’ll be back when the Kennedys and other assorted other [deleted] opportunists with whom they are now consorting have wrung all usefulness out of them-or rather when they have become a liability rather than an asset. Right now the Red-baiters in New York are holding Martin and SCLC as prisoners through offers of large sums of money. We shall see if they get the money and, if they do, how much of a yoke it puts upon them.

It will be recalled that in the summer of 1963, President Kennedy had urged King to sever relations with O’Dell and that King had appeared to do so by accepting O’Dell’s resignation from SCLC. FBI surveillance showed, however, that O’Dell continued to frequent the New York office of SCLC.

The documents cited above show clearly (a) that individuals in the leadership of SCEF, identified in testimony under oath as members of the Communist Party or generally well known for their activities on behalf of Communism, considered themselves to be on close terms with Martin Luther King and in a position to exert influence on him, and (b) that King himself had no objection to working with identified Communists except on the “pragmatic basis” that Communist affiliation might lend his activities a negative public image and be counter-productive. Indeed, King appears to have worked closely with individuals generally identified as Communists.

King’s Activities on Behalf of Other Communist or Communist Front Groups:

In addition to his association and cooperation with SCEF and its leaders, Martin Luther King also associated and cooperated with a number of groups known to be CPUSA front organizations or to be heavily penetrated and influenced by members of the Communist Party. On October 4, 1967, Congressman John M. Ashbrook of Ohio, at that time the ranking minority member of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and an authoritative spokesman on internal security matters, inserted in the Congressional Record extensive documentation of King’s activities in this regard:

(1) Martin Luther King, Jr. was listed as a sponsor of the National Appeal for Freedom, held in Washington, D.C., November 19-21, 1960, of the Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell, a group identified as a Communist front organization by HCUA and SISS in 1956.

(2) King sent a congratulatory telegram to the 27th annual convention of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) in 1962. UE was expelled from the Congress of Industrial Organizations (C.I.O.) in 1949 on grounds that it was dominated by Communists, and in 1944 the SCUA, in a report on the C.I.O. Political Action Committee, found that the 600,000 members of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (employed in many of the most vital American defense industries) are submitting to an entrenched Communist leadership….

(3) In May, 1962, King addressed the convention of the United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA). Stanley Levison wrote this speech. Charles Hayes of Chicago of UPWA was a guest at the founding meeting of the SCLC in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1957 (with Ella J. Baker of”In Friendship”). The Annual Report of HCUA for 1959 states that Charles A. Hayes of Chicago had been identified as a member of the Communist Party by two witnesses:

by John Hackney, a former member of the Communist Party who had served as a Communist in several Party units within the meat-packing industry, and by Carl Nelson, “who stated that he had attended many Communist Party meetings with Mr. Hayes.” In 1952, in testimony before HCUA, witness Roy Thompson, a former member of the Communist Party and a former official of UPWA in Chicago, stated that he had attended Communist training meetings in which instructions in Communism were given by “a Mr. Charley Hayes.” In 1959, witness Carl Nelson, a former Communist and worker in the meatpacking industry, testified before HCUA that “the Communist Party deliberately sought to infiltrate its members into the meatpacking industry” because “they would be in an excellent position to cut off food for the Armed Forces” in the event of war. Mr. Nelson also identified as having been Communists the editor of the official organ of the UPWA, two field representatives of the union, a departmental director of the union, a district secretary-treaurer of the union, a secretary in the international office of the union, and a former president of a local of the UPWA, in addition to Mr. Hayes, who was a district director of the UPWA, and his secretary.

(4) Martin Luther King was a luncheon speaker at a conference in Atlanta, Georgia, of the National Lawyers Guild Committee to Assist Southern Lawyers, held on November 30 and December 1, 1962. The National Lawyers Guild was cited several times as a Communist front, and in 1962 the Committee stationery listed Benjamin E. Smith, co-secretary of the Committee and treasurer of SCEF and Arthur Kinoy, as affiliated with it. Kinoy is reported by Garrow to have been a friend of Stanley Levison and to have recommended William Kunstler as an attorney to Levison for the latter’s appearance before SISS in April, 1962.

(5) King also lent his support to the National Committee to Abolish the Committee on Un-American Activities, identified as a Communist Party front by HCUA in 1961. Seven of the thirteen founders of this organization were identified as having been members of the CPUSA, including William Howard Melish. Carl Braden was also active in the Committee, as was Anne Braden.

(6) King also assisted in the initiation of appeals for executive clemency for Carl Braden and, in 1962, for Junius Scales, former chairman of the North Carolina-South Carolina district of the Communist Party and sentenced to a six-year prison term for violation of the Smith Act.

(7) Highlander Folk School: One of the most controversial aspects of King’s career concerns his association with the Highlander Folk School of Monteagle, Tennessee, and the nature of the school. In the 1960s groups in opposition to King frequently publicized a photograph showing King at the school, which was described as a “Communist training school,” sitting in the company of persons alleged to be Communists or pro-Communists.

This photograph is an authentic one, taken on September 2, 1957, when King addressed the 25th anniversary celebration of the Highlander Folk School. Shown in the photograph sitting adjacent to King are Abner Berry, a correspondent for the Communist Party newspaper, the Daily Worker; Aubrey Williams, identified as a member of the CPUSA and President of SCEF; and Myles Horton, a founder and director of the Highlander Folk School. Although Myles Horton was not identified as a member of the Communist Party, a witness before SISS in 1954 and a former member for seventeen years and a former official and organizer for the Party, Paul Crouch, testified that he had solicited Horton to join the Party:

At that meeting after we discussed the [Highlander Folk] school I asked Mr. Horton to become a formal member of the Communist Party and his reply was, as near as I can recall his words, “I’m doing you just as much good now as I would if I were a member of the Communist Party. I am often asked if I am a Communist Party member and I always say no. I feel much safer in having no fear that evidence might be uncovered to link me with the Communist Party, and therefore I prefer not to become a member of the Communist Party.” Crouch also testified that Horton had been affiliated with the Southern Conference Educational Fund and with its predecessor organization, the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.

The Highlander Folk School (HFS) was founded in 1932 by Myles Horton and became well known for its involvement in a number of leftist causes. Both Aubrey Williams and James Dombrowski, each of whom was identified as a member of the Communist Party, were affiliated with HFS. Paul Crouch, who had been district organizer for the state of Tennessee for the Communist Party, described in his testimony the uses of the HFS for the Party as they were developed in a conference that included himself, Horton, and Dombrowski:

The purpose of the conference was to work out a plan by which the Daily Worker would be purchased by the school. They would be made accessible to the students, that everywhere possible the instructors should refer to the Daily Worker, to news that had come in it, to encourage the students to read it, and it was agreed that the Communist Party should have a student, a leader, sent there as a student whose job it would be to look around for prospective recruits and Mildred White, now in Washington, D.C., was selected to attend the Highlander Folk School for the purpose of recruiting for the Communist Party and carrying the Communist Party line among the student body there.

MR. ARENS [Special Counsel to the Subcommittee]: You said it was agreed? Who agreed?

MR. CROUCH: Mr. Horton and Mr. Dombrowski.

Based on this information and considerable evidence of a similar nature collected by the Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities of the state of Louisiana in 1963 and by other investigative bodies, it is not inaccurate to describe the Highlander Folk School as a Communist, or at least a pro-Communist, training school.

Although Martin Luther King, Jr. was present only briefly at HFS on September 2, 1957, when the photograph was taken, his relations with HFS appear to have been prolonged and positive. On February 23, 1961, the New York Times reported that The Southern Christian Leadership Conference … and the Highlander Folk School have joined forces to train Negro leaders for the civil rights struggle.

In 1962 the Highlander Center opened in Knoxville, Tennessee, with Myles Horton on the board of directors. In December, 1962, Martin Luther king, Jr. Was listed as a sponsor of the highlander center on its letterhead.

Martin Luther King and the Vietnam War

As the Vietnam war escalated in the mid 1960s, Martin Luther King became one of the most outspoken critics of U.S. policy and involvement in Vietnam. It is probable that Stanley Levison in particular encouraged King’s criticism, since Levison himself was also critical of the war and wrote President Johnson to urge American withdrawal from Vietnam, describing American policy in Vietnam as “completely irrational, illegal and immoral” and as supportive of “a succession of undemocratic regimes which are opposed by a majority of the people of South Vietnam.”

FBI surveillance of King showed that Levison “was urging King to speak out publicly against American military involvement in Vietnam.

On December 28-30, 1966, a conference was held at the University of Chicago to discuss and make plans for a nationwide student strike against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. This conference, which led to a week of demonstrations against the war known as “Vietnam Week,” April 8-15, 1967, was initiated by Bettina Aptheker, daughter of Communist Party theoretician and member of the National Committee of the CPUSA Herbert Aptheker, and herself a member of the CPUSA. The Chicago conference, as a report of the HCUA found, “was instigated and dominated by the Communist Party, U.S.A., and the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America,” described by Attorney General Katzenbach in 1966 as “substantially directed, dominated and controlled by the Communist Party.

The scheduled after-dinner speaker at the Chicago conference was Rev. James L. Bevel, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who had been released from his duties with SCLC by Martin Luther King in order to serve as national director of the Spring Mobilization Committee To End the War in Vietnam, an organization found by the HCUA to be heavily influenced, supported, and penetrated by Communists and in which “Communists are playing a dominant role.” Bevel joined the DuBois Clubs as a co-plaintiff in a suit to prevent the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) from holding hearings on the DuBois Clubs as petitioned by Attorney General Katzenbach, and Bevel was a sponsor of Vietnam Week and of the Chicago conference that initiated it? The report of the HCUA concluded that the proposal for a nationwide student strike was
completely Communist in origin ….

Communists are playing dominant roles in both the Student Mobilization Committee and the Spring Mobilization Committee. Further, these two organizations have unified their efforts and are cooperating completely in their purpose of staging on April 15 [1967] the largest demonstrations against the war in Vietnam ever to take place in this country….Dr. Martin Luther King’s agreement to play a leading role in the April 15 demonstrations in New York City, and his freeing Rev. James Bevel from his key position in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to head up the Spring Mobilization Committee, are evidence that the Communists have succeeded, at least partially, in implementing their strategy of fusing the Vietnam and civil rights issues in order to strengthen their chances of bringing about a reversal of U.S. policy in Vietnam.

The major statement of Martin Luther King on the Vietnam war is contained in a speech he delivered at the Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, a few days prior to the beginning of “Vietnam Week.” Analysis of this speech shows that King’s criticism of U.S. policy in Vietnam was not based on a consideration of American national interests and security nor on a belief in pacifism and non-violence but on an ideological view of the Vietnam conflict that is indistinguishable from the Marxist and New Left perspective.

King portrayed U.S. troops in Vietnam as foreign conquerors and oppressors, and he specifically compared the United States to Nazi Germany:

They [the South Vietnamese people] move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met …. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops ….So far we may have killed a million of them-mostly children. What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe.

King described the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and President Ngo Dinh Diem as “one of the most vicious modern dictators,” but he spoke of Ho Chi Minh, the Communist dictator of North Vietnam, as a national leader and the innocent victim of American aggression:

Perhaps only his [Ho Chi Minh's] sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores.

The Communists, in King’s view, were the true victims in Vietnam:

in Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French …. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would surely have brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again.

In King’s view, the National Liberation Front (NLF), the political arm of the Viet Cong terrorists controlled by North Vietnam, was “that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists,” which consisted of a membership that “is less than 25 per cent communist.”

King might have been interested to learn of the television interview given in France on February 16, 1983 by North Vietnamese generals Vo Nguyen Giap and Vo Bam. As reported by The Economist (London) in its issue of 26 February, 1983:

General Bam admitted the decision to unleash an armed revolt against the Saigon government was taken by a North Vietnamese communist party plenum in 1959. This was a year before the National Liberation Front was set up in South Vietnam. The aim, General Bam added, was ‘to reunite the country.’ So much for that myth that the Vietcong was an autonomous southern force which spontaneously decided to rise against the oppression of the Diem regime. And General Bam should know. As a result of the decision, he was given the job of opening an infiltration trail in the south. The year was still 1959. That was two years before President Kennedy stepped up American support for Diem by sending 685 advisers to South Vietnam. So much for the story that the Ho Chi Minh trail was established only to counteract the American military build-up. ….General Barn got his orders on May 19, 1959. ‘Absolute secrecy, absolute security were our watchwords,’ he recalled.

King included himself as one of those who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation’s self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Apart from the arrogance and ingratitude displayed by these remarks, it is a logical implication of this self-proclaimed universal humanism that King should have denounced Communist atrocities and tyranny at least as strongly as those he attributed to his own country. Yet throughout King’s speech there is not a single word of criticism, let alone of condemnation, for North Vietnam or for Ho Chi Minh, for Ho’s internal and external policies by which a totalitarian state was created and its institutions were imposed on adjacent states, for the use of terrorism by the Viet Cong or for the terrorism and systematic repression perpetrated by the Communists in North Vietnam.

King portrayed American policy in Vietnam and U.S. foreign policy in general as motivated by a “need to maintain social stability for our investments” and formulated by men who refuse “to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.” He saw “individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.”

King, in other words, did not dissent from U.S. policy in Vietnam because he was concerned for the best interests of the United States or because of moral and humanitarian beliefs. His opposition to the war was drawn from an ideological (and false) view of American foreign policy as motivated by capitalist and imperialist forces that sought only their own material satisfaction and which were responsible for “the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism.”

This view of American foreign policy is fundamentally Marxist, and it parallels the theory of Lenin in his Imperialism:

The Highest Stage of Capitalism. It was a doctrine that became increasingly fashionable in New Left circles of the late 1960s and 1970s, although it has been subjected to devastating scholarly criticism.

Public reaction to King’s speech on Vietnam was largely negative. The Washington Post, in an editorial of April 6, 1967, said that the speech “was filled with bitter and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not document.” He has no doubts that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam and thinks it will become clear that our “minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony.”… It is one thing to reproach a government for what it has done and said; it is quite another to attribute to it policies it has never avowed and purposes it has never entertained and then to rebuke it for these sheer inventions of unsupported fantasy.

Life magazine, in its issue of April 21, 1967, described King’s speech as “a demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.” Carl Rowan wrote that King “has alienated many of the Negro’s friends and armed the Negro’s foes … by creating the impression that the Negro is disloyal.” John P. Roche, a former director of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), in a memorandum to President Johnson, wrote that King’s speech “indicates that King-in desperate search of a constituency-has thrown in with the commies.”

Conclusion: Was Martin Luther King a Communist?

As stated earlier in this report, there is no evidence that Martin Luther King was a member of the Communist Party, but the pattern of his activities and associations in the 1950s and 1960s show clearly that he had no strong objection to working with and even relying on Communists or persons and groups whose relationships with the Communist Party were, at the least, ambiguous. It should be recalled that in this period of time (far more than today) many liberal and even radical groups on the left shared a strong awareness of and antipathy for the anti-democratic and brutal nature of Communism and its characteristically deceptive and subversive tactics. It is doubtful that many American liberals would have associated or worked with many of the persons and groups with whom King not only was close but on whom he was in several respects dependent. These associations and, even more, King’s refusal to break with them, even at the expense of public criticism and the alienation of the Kennedy Administration, strongly suggest that King harbored a strong sympathy for the Communist Party and its goals.

This conclusion is reinforced by King’s own political comments and views-not only by the speech on Vietnam discussed above but also by a series of other remarks made toward the end of his life. King apparently harbored sympathy for Marxism, at least in its economic doctrines, from the time of his education in divinity school. The Rev. J. Plus Barbour, described by Garrow as “perhaps King’s closest friend” while at Crozer Theological Seminary from 1948 to 1951, believed that King “was economically a Marxist …. He thought the capitalistic system was predicated on exploitation and prejudice, poverty, and that we wouldn’t solve these problems until we got a new social order.” King was critical of capitalism in sermons of 1956 and 1957, and in 1967 he told the staff of the SCLC, “We must recognize that we can’t solve our problems now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power.” In 1968 he told an interviewer that America is deeply racist and its democracy is flawed both economically and socially …. the black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws-racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.

In 1967, in his remarks to the SCLC staff, he argued that for the last twelve years we have been in a reform movement …. “But after Selma and the voting rights bill we moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution. I think we must see the great distinction here between a reform movement and a revolutionary movement [which would] raise certain basic questions about the whole society ….this means a revolution of values and of other things.”

In 1968 he publicly stated, “We are engaged in the class struggle.” King’s view of American society was thus not fundamentally different from that of the CPUSA or of other Marxists. While he is generally remembered today as the pioneer for civil rights for blacks and as the architect of non-violent techniques of dissent and political agitation, his hostility to and hatred for America should be made clear. While there is no evidence that King was a member of the Communist Party, his associations with persons close to the Party, his cooperation with and assistance for groups controlled or influenced by the Party, his efforts to disguise these relationships from public view and from his political allies in the Kennedy Administration, and his views of American society and foreign policy all suggest that King may have had an explicit but clandestine relationship with the Communist Party or its agents to promote through his own stature, not the civil rights of blacks or social justice and progress, but the totalitarian goals and ideology of Communism. While there is no evidence to demonstrate this speculation, it is not improbable that such a relationship existed.

In any case, given the activities and associations of Martin Luther King described in this report, there is no reason to disagree with the characterization of King made by Congressman John M. Ashbrook on the floor of the House of Representatives on October 4, 1967: “King has consistently worked with Communists and has helped give them a respectability they do not deserve” and “I believe he has done more for the Communist Party than any other person of this decade.”


On January 31, 1977, in the cases of Bernard S. Lee v. Clarence M. Kelley, et al. (U.S.D.C., D.C.) and Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Clarence M. Kelley, et al. (U.S.D.C., D.C.), United States District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation purge its files of: all known copies of the recorded tapes, and transcripts thereof, resulting from the FBI’s microphonic surveillance, between 1963 and 1968, of the plaintiffs’ former president, Martin Luther King, Jr.; and all known copies of the tapes, transcripts and logs resulting from the FBI’s telephone wiretapping, between 1963 and 1968, of the plaintiffs’ offices in Atlanta, Georgia and New York, New York, the home of Martin Luther King, Jr., and places of accommodation occupied by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Judge Smith also ordered that at the expiration of the said ninety (90) day period, the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall deliver to this Court under seal an inventory of said tapes and documents and shall deliver said tapes and documents to the custody of the National Archives and Records Service, to be maintained by the Archivist of the United States under seal for a period of fifty (50) years; and it is further ORDERED that the Archivist of the United States shall take such actions as are necessary to the preservation of said tapes and documents but shall not disclose the tapes or documents, or their contents, except pursuant to a specific Order from a court of competent jurisdiction requiring disclosure.

This material was delivered to the custody of the National Archives and Record Service to be maintained by the Archivist of the United States under a seal for a period of fifty years.

Nous serons toujours là.


Board footer

Minds - VK - GAB - RSS

Balder Ex-libris - Histoire Ebook - Free PDF - Aryana Libris - PDF Archive

Aldebaran Video - Viva Europa - Le Gentil - Un grain de Sable

The Savoisien
The Savoisien - Lenculus
Exegi monumentum aere perennius