Farrakhan Spoke the Truth about the Talmud

On February 25, 2018, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, spoke to a worldwide audience from Chicago, Illinois. In his now controversial lecture, Minister Farrakhan discussed one of the viciously anti-Christian passages in the Babylonian Talmud, a central text in the Jewish religion. The passage (Gittin 57a) condemns Jesus Christ to an eternal punishment of being “boiled in excrement.” The video clip below is being presented by Fox News and the National Review as a violation of Twitter’s “hate” policy. They are using it to have The Minister’s Twitter account closed down:

The Nation of Islam Research Group asked Talmudic expert Michael Hoffman to view the clip and give his opinion on the veracity of The Minister’s statement about the Talmud. His response is below:

 


Farrakhan Spoke the Truth about the Talmud

By Michael Hoffman

©2018 RevisionistHistory.org

The Babylonian Talmud tractate Gittin, which Minister Louis Farrakhan quoted truthfully and accurately in his Saviours’ Day speech last February, is concerned in part with the fulfillment of Jesus Christ’s prophecy concerning the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans, due to the transgressions of the Jews:

“Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down…Therefore when you see the Abomination Of Desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24: 1-2; 15-16).

The “Abomination Of Desolation” was the Roman Army. Jesus was warning that in less than forty years it would advance to besiege Jerusalem, and that His followers were to flee to safety, which is what they did, leaving the unbelieving Jews to suffer the consequences.

Because the creed of Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is one of unrelenting revenge, the Roman General Titus, who personally directed the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., is forever an object of hatred, second only to Jesus himself. The rabbis of Orthodox Judaism have never forgiven Titus for commanding the legions who fulfilled Christ’s prophecy and destroyed the Temple at Jerusalem, along with the Jews who maintained that corrupt and doomed system. The revenge of the rabbis upon Titus is to tell nonsensical lies about him in the Talmud.

Few Christians or Muslims are aware that in the Babylonian Talmud Jesus shares his place in hell with the Roman Titus, who is depicted as being chastised for the destruction of the Temple by being burned to ashes in hell, reassembled, burned, reassembled and burned again—for eternity (Gittin 56b). In another depraved lie, Jesus is portrayed as being punished for “leading Israel astray” by forever remaining seated in a cauldron of boiling excrement in hell (Gittin 57a). According to the law (halahca) of Talmudic Judaism, “Anyone who mocks the words of the sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement (צוֹאָה רוֹתֵחַת).”

The typical rabbinic and Zionist response to the truthful description by Minister Farrakhan and others of what the Talmud teaches about Jesus, is to lie and say that in this passage the Talmud is referring to “another Jesus,” rather than Jesus of Nazareth: “Many commentaries suggest that some or all talmudic references to Jesus refer to another person” (Koren Talmud Bavli [Jerusalem: 2015], vol. 21, footnote to p. 319).

According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “To agitate Christian readers, anti-Talmud writers often attempt to portray the Talmud as demeaning the figure of Jesus.”

By the ADL’s reasoning, “anti-Talmud writers” are never scholars who are dispassionately committed to the discovery of the truth about what the Talmud teaches, but rather, they are only agitators who, from impure motives, seek to “portray” the Talmud as “demeaning” Jesus.

How the ADL arrived at this conspiracy theory is not revealed, but the undercurrent of intimidation is clear: those who speak or write candidly and accurately concerning how Jesus is defamed in the Talmud are seeking to “agitate Christians.” No reputable person would want a career-killing stigma like that attached to his statements and most Christians and Muslims are thereby intimidated from pursuing the truth about the Talmudic depiction of Jesus. Moreover, according to the ADL, “the Talmud only refers to Jesus in a handful of places, and though these references may not reflect the courteous ecumenicism of the modern world, neither are they particularly inflammatory.” (Anti-Defamation League, The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics [New York: 2003], p. 11).

The ADL expects us to believe that depicting the Christian Savior being boiled in feces is not inflammatory, while any critical observation that Mr. Farrakhan dares to utter concerning Judaism is nothing but inflammatory. The hypocrisy is all too familiar.

Long-standing denials by Talmudists and Zionists and their gentile apologists concerning the supposed absence of Jesus in the Talmud, are slowly being discredited after having held sway for centuries. David Klinghoffer elucidated this development in his essay, “What the Talmud Really Says About Jesus”:

“…the scandalous passages indeed refer not to some other figure of ancient times but to the famous Jesus of Nazareth. What exactly is so scandalous? How about Jesus punished in Hell for eternity by being made to sit in a cauldron of boiling excrement? That image appears in early manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud, as does a brief account of Jesus’ trial and execution—not by the Romans but by the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin.” (Publishers Weekly, January 31, 2007).

Mr. Klinghoffer says that the “Jewish community” has been content to let the evil sayings of the Talmud about Jesus “remain obscure and unknown.” His claim is erroneous. The rabbinic “community” actively teaches these viciously bigoted statements about Jesus within their religion, while denying to the world that they are present in their sacred texts. These inconvenient facts must not be suppressed. The admission by Klinghoffer and other Judaic intellectuals that Jesus Christ is indeed targeted in the Babylonian Talmud, has brought with it no substantive analysis of the long record of rabbinic denials and falsification that preceded his revelation, and which continue in some instances, up to the present time. Mr. Klinghoffer is eager to have us pass over Judaism’s system of dissimulation as quickly as possible.

Christians and Muslims are rightly offended at the disgraceful libels, pornographic scurrilities and hate speech in the Talmud. Louis Farrakhan, virtually alone among public figures in America, has had the courage to defend Jesus against these obscenities.

 

Author Michael Hoffman


Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press and the author of nine books, including Judaism Discovered and Judaism’s Strange Gods.

Mr. Hoffman reviewed the Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Volume 2, for his publication Revisionist History newsletter (1 September-October 2010).

         

Mr. Hoffman reviewed the Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Volume 2 for his publication Revisionist History newsletter (1 September-October 2010).

Rabbi’s Words Connect Jewish Talmud to Anti-Black Violence, Police Killings

Student Minister Demetric Muhammad, NOI Research Group

The Bible and the Holy Qur’an describe the creation of man as a sacred act. The Holy Qur’an states that Allah (God) created man of Black mud. The Bible states that man is created in the image of God. 

In the Bible David states that “you are all gods, children of the Most High God.” David’s son Solomon states, “I am Black but beautiful, oh you daughters of Jerusalem.”

What emerges from these various scriptural passages is a picture of humanity as divine, beautiful and Black.

The image of Black people in America has always been controversial. A pure and honest examination of scripture and world history reveals a persistent negative image portrayal of Black people. In fact, the Times of Israel reported just a few days ago that the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel referred to Black people as monkeys. His office defended him by stating that the Chief Rabbi was only quoting a passage from the Talmud.

During the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan’s magnificent Saviours’ Day 2018 message, he cited instances that had taken place in Israel where spray-painted on churches were the graffiti words “Jesus was a monkey.” The Minister’s audience was shocked at learning of the Jewish hostility for Jesus coming out of Israel.

Most of the Minister’s audience is oblivious to the existence of the Jewish Talmud, the source where the Chief Rabbi learned to refer to Black people as monkeys.

“Jesus was a monkey” scrawled on Christian monastery in Israel.

It was the Jewish Talmud—a voluminous collection of rabbinical interpretations of the Torah—that introduced to the world the Hamitic Curse as an explanation for the origins of black skin and physical features. Even staunch critic of the Nation of Islam Harold Brackman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center tells us in his doctoral dissertation, “The Ebb and Flow of Conflict: A History of Black–Jewish Relations Through 1900,” that

There is no denying that the Babylonian Talmud was the first source to read a Negrophobic content into the episode by stressing Canaan’s fraternal connection with Cush. The Talmudic glosses of the episode added the stigma of blackness to the fate of enslavement that Noah predicted for Ham’s progeny…

The Minister also reminded his attentive Saviours’ Day audience of the many scandalous depictions of President Barack Obama by racist cartoonists, who portrayed him and his lovely wife, Michelle Obama, as monkeys or apes.

Rep. Todd Rokita

Indiana Representative Todd Rokita has sponsored a resolution that condemns our beloved Minister “for promoting ideas that create animosity and anger toward Jewish Americans and the Jewish religion.”

As a Black man, I find Congressman Rokita’s resolution ridiculous, offensive and wicked. It is especially offensive because he has never issued a resolution to condemn those who “promote ideas that create animosity and anger toward Black or African Americans.”

If he did, he would understand the sentiments being expressed by Minister Farrakhan and Black Americans who know all too well that in America no group has been the victim of “ideas that create animosity and anger” more than the American-born Black man and woman.

The record of history is clear: Minister Farrakhan’s words have never produced harm, suffering or the loss of life among the Jewish people. But the globally exported view that Jewish leaders have of Black people has been deadly!

In fact, a direct line of correlation can be drawn from the recent police killing of Stephon Clark in Sacramento, California, to the Jewish Talmud’s views of Black people as subhuman.

In an eye-opening and groundbreaking 2014 study titled “The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children we learn about how Black children, especially Black boys, are on the receiving end of harsher punishments and longer prison sentences when they enter the criminal justice system. The abstract of the study defines its scope with the following:

The social category “children” defines a group of individuals who are perceived to be distinct, with essential characteristics including innocence and the need for protection. The present research examined whether Black boys are given the protections of childhood equally to their peers. We tested 3 hypotheses: (a) that Black boys are seen as less “childlike” than their White peers, (b) that the characteristics associated with childhood will be applied less when thinking specifically about Black boys relative to White boys, and (c) that these trends would be exacerbated in contexts where Black males are dehumanized by associating them (implicitly) with apes.

In describing a central aspect of their research and results, the authors state:

In this research, White participants who were subliminally exposed to images of apes before watching a video of police beating a Black man were more likely to endorse that beating, despite the extremity of the violence. Participants did not, however, endorse the same beating when the suspect was White or when they had not been primed with the ape image. In a follow-up study, Goff et al. coded newspaper articles about death-eligible criminal cases in Philadelphia for ape-related metaphors. They found that the frequency of ape-related imagery predicted whether or not criminals were executed by the state. Of importance, in neither study was racial prejudice (explicit or implicit) a significant predictor. That is, dehumanization uniquely predicted violence and its endorsement.

The researchers, whose article appears in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, cite the histories of Emmett Till and George Stinney Jr. to highlight the importance of their study tounderstanding the all-too-frequent phenomenon of violence against Black children:

In 1944, a Black 14-year-old, George Junius Stinney Jr., became the youngest person on record in the United States to be legally executed by the state (electrocuted without the benefit of a lawyer, witnesses, or a record of confession; Jones, 2007). And, notoriously, in 1955, a 14-year-old Black boy named Emmett Till was dragged from his bed, disfigured, and lynched for allegedly whistling at a White woman (Crowe, 2003). What psychological context could explain this treatment of children?

Prior to participating in this profound research report, one of the researchers, Phillip Atiba Goff, conducted research to examine the impacts of Blacks being associated with apes and monkeys. His team of researchers produced a report titled “Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization, and Contemporary Consequences.” Among their conclusions, the researchers state:

…the implicit association between Blacks and apes can lead to greater endorsement of violence against a Black suspect than against a White suspect. Finally, in Study 6, we demonstrated that subtle media representations of Blacks as apelike are associated with jury decisions to execute Black defendants.

This scientific study brings to light the danger of the Talmudic dehumanization of Black people that the Israeli chief rabbi articulated. And long before the Chief Rabbi of Israel, the revered twelfth-century rabbi Moses Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed—considered the “greatest work of Jewish religious philosophy”—reinforced the racism of the Talmud when he said Black Africans were “irrational animals,” “lower than the rank of man but higher than the rank of the apes.” Whether it is classifying Blacks as subhuman “strange creatures” or associating black skin with a divine curse, the Talmudic view of Black people is bizarre, ignoble and grotesque. For Black people, it is a deadly view.

The danger of the Talmudic view of Black people becomes especially important when we consider the globally exported and highly influential entertainment and pop culture industry of America. At the center of American popular culture is the motion picture industry, better known as Hollywood. Author Neal Gabler discusses thehistory of Hollywood in his book An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Prof. Gabler’s description of the Jewish founding, control and influence of Hollywood is illuminating. He writes:

What is amazing is the extent to which they succeeded in promulgating this fiction throughout the world. By making a “shadow” America, one which idealized every old glorifying bromide about the country, the Hollywood Jews created a powerful cluster of images and ideas—so powerful that, in a sense, they colonized the American imagination….Ultimately, American values came to be defined largely by the movies the Jews made.

As to what role the Talmud has played in the creation of this “powerful cluster of images and ideas” that have “colonized the American imagination, we reference the words of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Herman Wouk.   In his book This is My God: The Jewish Way of Life, he wrote:

The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion.  Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud.  It is our common law.

The powerful images and ideas that include the Talmudic dehumanization of Black people have been referenced and described by screenwriter Dalton Trumbo when he wrote:

[Hollywood made] tarts of the Negro’s daughters, crap shooters of his sons, obsequious Uncle Toms of his fathers, superstitious and grotesque crones of his mothers, strutting peacocks of his successful men, psalm-singing mountebanks of his priests, and Barnum and Bailey side-shows of his religion.

Jewish authors Barry Schwartz and Robert Disch, of the book White Racism: Its History, Pathology, and Practice, point exclusively to Hollywood as the fount from which the sewage of anti-Black racism and dehumanization have flowed and infected the world:

This statement should surprise no one, since Hollywood, more than any other institution, has been responsible for the glorification of the South, past and present, and for creating the image of black inferiority. It created the lying, stealing, childish, eyeball-rolling, feet-shuffling, sex-obsessed, teeth-showing, dice-shooting black male, and told the world this was the real Negro in the U.S.A. It invented the Negro “mammy” whose breasts were always large enough to suckle an entire nation, and who always loved old massa’s chilluns more than she loved her own. The men of Fake-town have brainwashed America and the entire world with the brush of white supremacy.

According to a report titled Diversity in Film and Television, authored by the diversity-monitoring entity called Media Scope, scientific studies have proven that the constant exposure to dehumanizing images of Black people in the media negatively impacts how whites view Blacks.  The Media Scope report states:

Considerable public concern has arisen over the issue of media diversity, as it is generally accepted that mass media has strong social and psychological effects on viewers. Film and television, for example, provide many children with their first exposure to people of other races, ethnicities, religions and cultures. What they see onscreen, therefore, can impact their attitudes about the treatment of others. One study found, for instance, that two years of viewing Sesame Street by European-American preschoolers was associated with more positive attitudes toward African and Latino Americans. Another study found that white children exposed to a negative television portrayal of African-Americans had a negative change in attitude toward blacks.

These disrespectful images of Black people, which permeate all forms of entertainment, serve a hidden role in psychologically programming the hatred of Black people into the thinking of all who are exposed to them. Hard-wired, now, into the thinking of even some in the Black community is the Hollywood-created, Talmudic-based image of Black humanity as subhuman, evil and shameful.

The negative stereotypes and images of Black people that have long been staples of Hollywood movie production are mirror reflections of the Jewish Talmud’s “ideas that create animosity and anger toward Black or African Americans.” Research studies have proven the dangerous effect of those views. Yet Congressman Rokita has done nothing to interfere with the proliferation of these ideas that remain in Hollywood and the music industry.

The significance of what we have presented in this essay is the role that the Talmudic view of Black people has played in what happened to Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, DeAunta Terrell Farrow and most recently Stephon Clark. All of these were young Black males who were murdered by either police or a private citizen who looked at these beautiful young men and saw them as older, menacing and threatening. And now we understand how these corrupt images of Black males got into the minds of their murderers.

I say that if Congressman Rokita will not sponsor a resolution to condemn all who promote “ideas that create animosity and anger toward Black or African Americans,” he proves that his sensitivity to dangerous ideas only applies to the Jewish community. He proves that at the heart of his condemnation of Minister Farrakhan is his hatred of the Minister for loving the long-vilified and dehumanized Black people enough to challenge all who mean us harm!

Why Criticism Of Israel (By Americans) Is Legally Impossible

by Cedric Muhammad

The concept of maturity in race relations is a key factor in understanding why and how the label of “Anti-Semitism” intentionally prevents an honest dialogue over (1) the policies of the state of Israel, (2) the power of the Jewish Political Establishment in the United States and (3) the influence of members of the Jewish Community in the fields of culture and finance.

Last week a law passed in South Carolina making it the first state in the United States to pass such a law defining anti-Semitism. Although the popular notion of Semitic people has increasingly and maliciously been narrowed (clearly not supported by the actual definition of the word “Semite”), no decent person wants to see Jewish people mocked, threatened or physically harmed. And any sincere effort to prevent the objectification or dehumanization of Jewish people is worthy of support.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R. Florida

But is that truly the motivation of such laws like that just passed in South Carolina or one moving its way through Congress authored by Senator Marco Rubio — S. 198, “Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017”?

The South Carolina law and Senator Rubio’s are both based upon the definition of anti-Semitism set forth by the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, in the fact sheet issued on June 8, 2010.

One of the listed components of that definition is “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

But are aspects of that particular definition consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

In late 2016 the U.S. Senate passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Bill. It foreshadows the bill Senator Rubio is currently advancing. One of its features is that it gives examples of what it defines as anti-Semitism. One is, to “Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation.” In a December 2016 New York magazine article titled “The Anti-Anti-Semitism Bill the ADL Is Pushing Is (Still) Such a Free-Speech Mess,” Jesse Singal writes: “…this is deeply problematic legislation. As many observers have noted, it defines, for the purpose of investigations into alleged civil-rights violations on campus, anti-Semitism in a way that plainly violates the First Amendment.”

In a way that is striking, the actual emphasis on these subjects reveals — in the minds of those supporting such legislation — a belief that Israel should be judged “by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation.”

Here’s how Peter Beinart in an article, “American Jewish Establishment Stifles Free Speech to Silence Zionism’s Critics,” published in the Israeli daily Haaretz, reacted to the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act and the definition it is based upon:

“Following the definition hatched by Soviet dissident turned Israeli right-winger Natan Sharansky, the Fact Sheet defines anti-Semitism as, among other things, Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.

This is nuts. Across the world, numerous peoples desire self-determination. Kurds have been seeking their own state since the late nineteenth century, roughly the same period when Jews hatched Zionism.

So have Basques. Sikhs have been agitating for their own country, in Punjab, since Indias creation. The Igbos of eastern Nigeria actually created one, Biafra, for three years between 1967 and 1970.

There are reasonable arguments in favor of these efforts at self-determination. There are also reasonable arguments in favor of requiring Kurds, Basques, Sikhs and Igbo to live in multi-ethnic countries based upon a national identity that supersedes their own.

Either way, bigotry has nothing to do with it. If opposing a peoples desire for self-determination makes you bigoted against that group, then a lot of American Jewish leaders should report themselves to the Department of Educations Civil Rights office right now.

After all, Palestinians want their own state. Many American Jewish leaders oppose it. Why aren’t those leaders bigots under the very principle they’re trying to write into law?”

Mr. Beinart’s concluding rhetorical question gets to the heart of the controversy between the Nation of Islam and the Jewish Political Establishment and the underlying tensions that have long existed in Black–Jewish relations and between the Zionist and Pan-African Movements.

The subtlety of the maneuver to define anti-Semitism and apply it in the broadest context possible — cultural, political, punitive, criminal and under international law — may be lost on many, but it essentially amounts to a censure and sanction regime that forbids freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly (study the demands by Jewish leadership that no one associate with Minister Louis Farrakhan) for a community of persons critical of Israel or the influence of Jewish persons. It ultimately results in only the State of Israel, the Jewish Political Establishment or Jewish persons being able to constructively critique themselves, while simultaneously being shielded from any criticism, censure or sanction for their negative attitudes, beliefs, policies and behavior against entire groups of non-Jewish people.

Here are three relevant examples:

First, in 1998 Jewish film historian Neal Gabler wrote a book titled An Empire of Their Own: How The Jews Invented Hollywood. Read the book or at least watch the A&E Home Video based upon it, which includes this statement early on in its narration: “Modern America first saw light on a Hollywood screen. It was largely the product of six movie studios established in the 1920s and run for over 30 years by a group of Jewish immigrants.” This is a general statement about Jewish people in the context of their historical, cultural influence. It is not mythology but has been referenced as a myth so many times that most people would consider it such. Some say it feeds a harmful stereotype. But how would that statement and the entire book fare under this portion of the definition of anti-Semitism moving through state legislatures and the United States Congress: “stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”? Now, imagine if it were a Black American making that statement. Or imagine if it were a Palestinian historian or scholar and not Neal Gabler who wrote the book?

Secondly, in 2000 a book was published by author Steven Silbiger titled The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys To The Enduring Wealth of a People. Steven Silbiger had already sold 200,000 copies of his classic, The Ten-Day MBA. His follow-up effort was The Jewish Phenomenon, wherein he broached the subject of Jewish success and wealth, disproportionate in terms of the community’s relatively small population size — in America and throughout the world. The back cover of The Jewish Phenomenon gets right to the heart of the matter, promising to answer why:

(1) Jews make up only 2% of the total U.S. population, yet 45% of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish

(2) One-third of all American multimillionaires are Jewish

(3) The percentage of Jewish households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews while, on the other hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000 is half that of non-Jews

(4) 20% of professors at leading universities are Jewish

(5) 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish and 25% percent of all American Nobel Prize winners are Jewish.

Now, imagine a Black American making those factual but very general statements. Imagine a successfully published Black professor or intellectual writing an entire book about that topic. What would the reaction and consequences be? And, what would happen if individuals began to tie criticism of the State of Israel or, say, criticism of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, or simply AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation-League (ADL) to those facts?

One could easily imagine such persons would soon or eventually be labeled “Anti-Semitic.” There appears to be no way (especially in America) to effectively cite the collective influence of Jewish people and connect it to political criticism of the State of Israel, in a public sphere.

Evan Bernstein, New York Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League

Finally, a couple of weeks ago Mr. Evan R. Bernstein began following me on Twitter. Mr. Bernstein is the regional director for the ADL in New York. I tweeted to him how pleased I was that he was following me and that perhaps it might lead to dialogue. I also mentioned in my tweet how much I appreciated his stance against the “#PunishAMuslimDay” social media movement. I suggested to Mr. Bernstein that perhaps we may have a dialogue. Then, I asked him two questions: (1) Have you or the ADL of New York condemned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s defamation of African migrants? And (2) What is your position on anti-Black statements in the Talmud.

Mr. Bernstein made me aware of the ADL’s tweet encouraging Prime Minister Netanyahu to “deal humanely” with African asylum seekers in Israel. But he did not immediately answer my second question.

I re-tweeted the ADL’s statement on the African migrants.

Mr. Bernstein subsequently made me aware of an ADL statement expressing compassion for the families, friends and community of the recently murdered Saheed Vasell.

I responded, “Appreciate this Sir. Anything on concerns about the Talmud feeding anti-Black sentiment?”

As of the date of this writing — 10 days later —I still have not received an answer from Mr. Bernstein.

Why is it so easy for certain members of the Jewish community to demand that Black Americans denounce anti-Semitism and yet so hard for them to respond to calls for them to denounce anti-Black attitudes sourced from the Talmud — the book most central to their community?

Now, imagine if an “Anti-Blackism” piece of legislation were crafted for passage in Congress that specifically defined “Anti-Black” with the same language as that of the proposed legislation defining anti-Semitism, “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Blacks….”

Would it have any chance of passage?  Would Jewish Members of Congress support it?

I still hope to have a mature dialogue with Mr. Bernstein regarding Black–Jewish relations, wherein we can discuss this.

 


Cedric Muhammad is an Economist and Member of The Nation of Islam’s Research Team. Follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cedricmuhammad

Congressman Rokita and Farrakhan

Indiana Republican Congressman Todd Rokita recently introduced a resolution condemning the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, the venerable leader of the Nation of Islam, the strongest and most independent organization in America serving the Black community and oppressed people around the world. Rokita—prompted by a cabal of sinister business and political activists primarily, but not exclusively, in the Republican establishment—has promoted a series of actions designed to discredit and demonize the strongest and most potent voice left in the Black community.

Rokita’s actions were stimulated by the more than three decades-old false charge of anti-Semitism leveled against Minister Farrakhan since 1984, when he rose to international prominence defending the Rev. Jesse Jackson in his quest to become the nation’s first Black president. Jackson, who himself was labeled an anti-Semite for his position on justice for the Palestinian people, had enlisted Farrakhan to promote his candidacy among the Black masses. Because of Farrakhan’s deeply embedded roots in the Black community, the combination of Jackson and Farrakhan ignited a spark in the Black community that shook the political establishment.

At the root of that political firestorm stood the Zionist leadership and their enablers in the ADL, backed by the leaders of the 12 most powerful Jewish organizations of America. Their anger was based on Farrakhan’s statement that not only exposed Israel as a racist settler state, having disenfranchised the Palestinians and sequestered them in a small part of their original homeland, but also revealed the Jewish control of Black politicians, entertainers, and athletes here in America.

Congressman Rokita, born in 1970, was at that time (1984), a political neophyte. He knew nothing then, nor does he know now, of the Honorable Minister Farrakhan’s expanding national and global prominence. Today, however, Rokita has emerged as a rightwing conservative Republican mouthpiece for President Trump and the anti-Black Jewish establishment in the “Party of Lincoln.” How ironic it is that Rokita is the mouthpiece for one of the most vile, racist demagogues ever to occupy the Oval Office, a man the Washington Post says has told more than 2,000 lies over the past year. Consider that, according to the Book of Proverbs, God “detests lying lips, but delights in those who tell the truth.” Yet Rokita seeks to pass a congressional resolution condemning a man who never lies, but is vilified for telling the truth and speaking truth to power. Rokita instead gives a pass to a man accused of a variety of sordid behaviors, ignoble activities, and outrageous policies. He has nothing but praise for a president who seemingly lacks morals, character, and ethics. But a man of faith and integrity he demonizes.

Rokita’s actions are sparked by the anger expressed by the Zionist community about a 2005 photograph that has recently emerged featuring Minister Farrakhan shaking hands with then-Senator Barak Obama as well as pictures of The Minister hugging members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Jewish community was so incensed that their anger has exploded across the media world that they control. As a result, the image of Louis Farrakhan has emerged all over the internet, radio, television, and social media. Again, he is being touted as a Black Hitler; the smear campaign against him has been relentless.

But the discerning observer, more familiar with The Minister now than they were in 1984, must ask themselves, Why would a little-known congressman from an obscure district in the Midwest be so concerned about the leading Black voice in America? Rokita’s 4th congressional district has a population of almost 730,000 people, of whom only 3.3% are Black. An article written by Jeffrey Blankfort and the words of Ariel Sharon may help put this issue in perspective.

Jeffrey Blankfort is a Jewish anti-Zionist radio talk show host, a radio program producer for KZYX in Mendocino, and a journalist. In a lengthy exposé published in CounterPunch magazine on September 5, 2016, Blankfort described how the Zionist lobby controls the entire Black political establishment. The article, titled “Congressional Black Caucus: Deep in the Israel Lobby’s Pocket,” details how the Congressional Black Caucus’s political parameters are controlled by the Jews. Further, on October 3, 2001, the BBC reported Ariel Sharon, the former Minister of Defense and former Prime Minister of Israel, proudly boasted: “ I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people control America and the American people know it.” Evidently Congressman Rokita knows it also.

Jude Wanniski with Minister Louis Farrakhan

Slavishly doing the bidding of his Jewish masters, Rokita is sponsoring a Congressional resolution condemning any politician taking a picture, dining, or talking with his own people in the political arena. Some Jews such as Alan Dershowitz, for example, have become so apoplectic that they have threatened to abandon the Democratic Party if Keith Ellison, a Black Muslim member of Congress, were elected to the chairmanship of the DNC. This corrosive bigotry was applied to Black elected members of Congress for their informal association with Farrakhan—and for just being in the same room with him. That corrosive bigotry, however, does not apply to White politicians and their surrogates. White politicians are given a “mulligan” when it comes to dining, planning, talking, and meeting with the man whose organizing genius resulted in calling four marches in Washington, D.C., where over four million members of the human family gathered together to celebrate their humanity. Members of the orthodox rabbinic community appeared at one of those gatherings and actually bowed to The Minister and later referred to him as the Messiah.

However, Rokita and the wily Jews who control him forgot to hold White politicians to the same Farrakhan Litmus Test. A personal friend of Minister Farrakhan, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, the late Jude Wanniski, invited The Minister to speak to the leaders of the Republican Party and Republican opinion-makers at Wanniski’s 13th annual gathering of Republican executives and investors, sponsored by the supply-side consultant at his Polyconomics Conference. The participants of this Republican economics think-tank did not consider Farrakhan an untouchable. Not only did they give him a standing ovation, the assembled leadership took turns shaking his hand and sought private meetings with him as well. The 1997 gathering of the Republican brain trust included Senator John Ashcroft, Representative John Kasich (now Governor of Ohio and potential presidential candidate), the former vice-presidential nominee Jack Kemp, and Robert Novak, noted syndicated columnist, journalist, television personality, author, and conservative political commentator.

John Kasich

Among the noted Democrats at the Boca Raton meeting were Senator Chris Dodd and UN Ambassador and former Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson; representing the international community was the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Li Daoyu.

The Republicans were enamored of Farrakhan. In a private meeting I had with Jack Kemp in New York City in 1995, Kemp said of Minister Farrakhan’s Million Man March speech, “I could have given that speech.” Kemp was not the only Republican leader who was enamored with and captivated by Farrakhan. Robert Novak, in an article he wrote in the Washington Post on March 6, 1997, titled “Farrakhan and the GOP,” spoke of the respect then-Rep. John Kasich had for Farrakhan. Speaking of the kind regards The Minister had for Rep. Kasich he wrote, “Kasich was startled when his speech here to a closed-door audience was interrupted several times by standing applause from the Nation of Islam leader. As they shook hands afterward, the congressman was floored by Farrakhan’s kind words.” Novak ended his article by saying, “But if they ever got together, the political landscape would be transformed.” That speech was buffered by an invigorating interview Novak had with Farrakhan on his CNN television program, Evans and Novak.

Jack Kemp

Robert Novak

Wanniski reports on his website, Polyconomics, on March 4, 1997, that The Minister spoke for 50 minutes on Saturday morning, and answered questions for another 45 minutes. Wanniski wrote: “The applause he [Farrakhan] received was the most sustained in the history of these events. Of the several Jewish couples in attendance, there was uniform agreement on what I have been advising for the last several months—that he seems a more complex and likeable man than they expected.” After the large group meeting Farrakhan then held small one-on-one meetings with the assembled leaders.

Mr. Rokita would be well advised to study the lessons his Republican predecessors learned from their dialogue with The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. The ill-advised methodology he is employing at the behest of The Minister’s detractors will end up as an exercise of fruitless utility. Instead of serving as an obstructionist, Rokita could serve as a broker. He should take the advice of Mr. Wanniski and facilitate a dialogue between The Honorable Minister Farrakhan and the Jewish leadership, or bring The Minister before Congress and let him dialogue with the country’s political leadership and have them talk together as intelligent adults.

By Brother Jackie Muhammad. He can be reached by email at jacrb519 [at] aol.com.

 

 

 





Why Do Jews Hate Jesus & Mary?

Why Do Jews Hate Jesus & Mary?

Muslims & Christians Revere Jesus and Mary; Jews hate them both.

The recent attacks on the Nation of Islam and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan have focused attention on the larger issue of Christian-Jewish relations. In a major address at the Nation of Islam’s Saviours’ Day convention on February 25, 2018, Minister Farrakhan presented the harshly anti-Christian words of the Babylonian Talmud—a book revered and followed by today’s Jews, but little known among Christians. Not only is it the source of the most racist of religious teachings—the Curse of Ham—the Talmud says, among many other vile things, that for “leading Israel astray” Jesus is forever remaining seated in a cauldron of boiling excrement in hell. Farrakhan also revealed that the followers of this strange Jewish doctrine attacked a Christian monastery in Israel and painted “Jesus is a monkey” on the walls and further desecrated the church by burning the door.

“Jesus is a monkey” painted on the walls and burnt door of a Christian monastery in Israel.

The “boiling in excrement” passage in the Jewish holy book is highly offensive to all decent people and especially Christians. But it is just as repulsive for Muslims because of the high honor that the Holy Quran bestows upon Jesus and Mary of the Bible. Geoffrey Parrinder explains in his book Jesus in the Qur’an:

“The Qur’an gives a greater number of honourable titles to Jesus than to any other figure of the past. He is a ‘sign’, a ‘mercy’, a ‘witness’ and an ‘example’. He is called by his proper name Jesus, by the titles Messiah (Christ) and Son of Mary, and by the names Messenger, Prophet, Servant, Word and Spirit of God. The Qur’an gives two accounts of the annunciation and birth of Jesus, and refers to his teachings and healings, and his death and exaltation. Three chapters or suras of the Qur’an are named after references to Jesus (3, 5 and 19); he is mentioned in fifteen suras and ninety-three verses. Jesus is always spoken of in the Qur’an with reverence; there is no breath of criticism, for he is the Christ of God.” [i]

Nation of Islam named by Minister Farrakhan for the mother of Jesus, Mosque Maryam.

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is most devout on that critical subject. In 1988, he dedicated the main Nation of Islam mosque in Chicago and named it “Mosque Maryam” after Mary, the mother of Jesus. Minister Farrakhan explained that Mary, according to the Holy Qur’an, is referred to as “the best of women”—the example for all women. Indeed, she represents the standard of what a righteous woman is.[ii]

Since their immigration to the New World, Jews have enjoyed a more cordial relationship with Gentiles than they had in Europe. Both communities chose to leave their often violent intertribal conflicts in the Old World, as they sought the benefits of whiteness that came with the highly profitable systems of slavery and sharecropping

But now many Christians are rethinking their relationship with Jews on a spiritual level. What they are finding out about the viciously anti-Christian teachings of the Jewish faith is shocking indeed. Below is a summary of the filthy Jewish teachings about Mary, Mother of Jesus, in the Talmud. It is provided by Michael Hoffman in his all-encompassing 1102-page book examining the Talmud, titled Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit (Coeur d’Alene, ID: Independent History and Research, 2008).


Insults Against Blessed Mary

The Talmud says Jesus’ mother was a whore: “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” In Shabbath 104b it states that Jesus’ mother, “Miriam the hairdresser,” had sex with many men. (BT Sanhedrin 106a)

The Talmud fabricates an incident that “proves” that Jesus “is a bastard,” that he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman’s menstrual period). 

The Talmud says that the rabbis questioned Mary and promised her “eternal life” if she would admit how Jesus was conceived. Here is the fabricated exchange:

“He said to her, ‘My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to you, I will bring you to the world to come’ (eternal life). She said to him, ‘Swear it to me.’

“Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling it in his heart, said to her, ‘What is the status of your son?’ She replied, ‘When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my husband kept away from me; but my best man had intercourse with me and this son was born to me.’ Consequently the child was both a bastard and the son of a niddah.”

Other vile passages describe Jesus as the “inciter,” who has “brought forth witchcraft from Egypt.” They refer to his mother as “Miriam the hairdresser,” a woman of loose morals who cheats on her husband, having sex with many men. Hoffman references Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton University Press, 2007):

“If the Talmud takes it for granted that Jesus’ mother was having sex with someone other than her husband, then it follows that Jesus was a mamzer, a bastard. In order to be categorized as mamzer it didn’t matter whether his biological father was indeed his mother’s sex partner, and not her legal husband, the supposed fact that she had committed adultery made Jesus’ legal status dubious. ….”

None of this satanic Jewish hatred of Jesus and Mary seems to bother such Christian theologians as Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and even Billy Graham, all rabidly pro-Israel Zionists, whose belief in the Jews as “the Chosen People” is and was absolute. The current Christian president, Donald Trump, can be added to that list. Their apparent excusing of the Talmud, which condemns their Saviour—and His mother—to eternal damnation is itself inexcusable.

How incredible it is that in 2018, it is a Muslim—The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan—who is the most strident defender and protector of the faith of Jesus and Mary against the Talmudic slander of the Jews. That he does it from the Nation of Islam’s Mosque Maryam is divine irony. Perhaps when the satanic Jews show up with their “anti-Semitism” slander against Farrakhan, we will finally make them answer for the despicable way they have treated Jesus and His Mother Mary, and the family of God. 

 


 

Some Talmud citations concerning Christianity

  • Christians are allied with hell, and Christianity is worse than incest. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Avodah Zarah 17a)
  • Going to prostitutes is the same as becoming a Christian. (BT Avodah Zarah 17a)
  • Those who read the Gospels are doomed to hell. (BT Sanhedrin 90a)
  • When the Messiah comes, he will destroy the Christians. (BT Sanhedrin 99a)
  • Jews must destroy the New Testament bibles of the Christians (BT Shabbat 116a). The Israelis burned hundreds of them in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980.

 

[i] https://noirg.org/articles/is-the-jewish-talmud-anti-black-and-anti-christian-part-1/

[ii] Sources: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Minister_Louis_Farrakhan_9/article_8156.shtml, http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_8147.shtml

 


Editor’s note: The name “Jesus” is Greek. There is no “J” letter in the Hebrew language, and the letter “J” did not appear in the English language until several hundred years ago. Yoshua is his name in ancient Hebrew. In the Holy Qu’ran his proper name in Arabic is Isa. Prophet Isa was not a European. He never lived in Europe. He never missioned in Europe; nor did he speak any European languages. We use the appellation “Jesus” because of its popularity in the consciousness of the people, not because of its authenticity.

1 Maccabees 3:48
“And laid open the book of the law, wherein the heathen had sought to paint the likeness of their images”

ADL Tweets Honored Two Men Who Sound Just Like Farrakhan!

Both of the ADL’s Black History Month Tweets Honored
Two Men Who Sound Like Farrakhan!

The ONLY TWO Black History Month 2018 tweets by the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt honored two men whose religious views are far more aligned with Farrakhan’s than with the ADL’s. If he knew what they REALLY believed Greenblatt would call Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois “haters” and “anti-Semites”:

 

FREDERICK DOUGLASS:

“Between the Christianity of this land and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference—so wide that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason but the most deceitful one for calling the religion of this land Christianity…”


W.E.B. Du Bois

The erudite Du Bois devoted nearly all of his 95 years to the uplift of Black people. While in Georgia he surveyed the businesses, mills, and factories and came to a startling conclusion: “The Jew is the heir of the slave-baron.” He spoke of the exploitation of Blacks by the “shrewd and unscrupulous Jews” and penned what was one of the first written eyewitness testimonies describing the true exploitative nature of the Black–Jewish relationship.

When Du Bois published these observations in a book called The Souls of Black Folks, he was called an “anti-Semite,” but a government study confirmed that Du Bois was spot on. The report revealed that in the middle of Black Georgia, “Nine-tenths of the storekeepers in Dougherty County are Jewish merchants—some Russian and German Jews, but most of them Polish Jews.”

Prominent Jews then pressured Du Bois to change the word “Jew” to “foreigner” or “immigrant.” They didn’t deny the truth of his observation, but demanded that he conceal this critical Jewish role from his Black readers. Even today one can find copies of the book with these sleight-of-hand variations of the original words. Read more in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews.

Newly UNCOVERED Photo Reveals Farrakhan Meeting Reagan, Bush

Jewish List of “anti-Semites” Just Got Much Longer and Much Whiter

 

In 2018, the Jewish leadership stepped up their racist campaign to destroy the reputations of Black leaders who no longer accept the political manipulations of Jewish money. It started many years ago, but the latest incarnation began with the recent publication of a 2005 photograph taken by journalist Askia Muhammad showing Senator Barack Obama happily posing for a photo with The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. Arrogant and overreaching, Jews demanded to know why they hadn’t been told of the photo, suggesting that knowledge of it would have changed the course of American history and even doomed the chance to elect Obama as the first Black president.

2005 photo by Askia Muhammad

Soon Jews feigning outrage demanded lists of ALL shvartses (Jewish term for “niggers”) who had EVER had photos taken with The Honorable Minister. Rep. Keith Ellison was thought to have been in a room with him and he was pilloried. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus were photographed hugging Black America’s most respected and admired leader, and ALL 21 of them were publicly whipped, their names plastered all over the Jewish-controlled media. It began to look like one of the many Jewish slave-auction advertisements that were so common when they dominated the slave trade for 400 years[1]. (See, for example, Rabbi Levin selling “22 Likely Negroes at Auction.”)

Ad placed by slave-selling Rabbi Levin

So Jewish leaders, in their utter madness, have established an absurd criterion they demand Blacks comply with: ANYBODY who has been in a room with The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan MUST be condemned, disgraced, and lose their jobs. And it escapes no one’s notice that ALL of their targets are Black—none are white. Driving the Jewish onslaught are such con artists as “lawyer” Alan Dershowitz, the ADL’s spymaster[2] Jonathan Greenblatt, political hack Ari Fleischer, and news actor Jake Tapper. How unsurprising that all of their megaphones fell silent at the exposure of a photo that Jews have been keeping secret for more than 20 years! The photograph shows The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan as a guest at the White House in Washington, DC, at the invitation of the father of the modern REPUBLICAN PARTY, President Ronald Wilson Reagan!

Several photographs were taken of the January 4, 1984, event, which was a celebration of the release of navy pilot Lt. Robert Goodman, a Black man who had been shot down flying a bombing mission over Syria. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, while in the midst of his historic campaign for the presidency, brought a delegation with him to Syria to appeal to President Hafez Al-Assad to release the pilot on humanitarian grounds. And several of those in that delegation attested to The Minister’s “significant and vital role” in freeing the prisoner of war. Chicago attorney Thomas N. Todd said that Minister Farrakhan was a “substantial part of the success” of Mr. Jackson’s Syria mission.[3]

So Farrakhan was not simply at the White House as some bystander: he had actually carried out American foreign policy where the United States government had failed its own captured officer.

Now, back to the Jews, who played no role in saving our brother’s life, but an immense role in attacking both Jackson and Farrakhan: Their list of damnable “anti-Semites” who have met with Farrakhan has now been substantially whitened, and now includes two “anti-Semitic” presidents!

Ronald W. Reagan

George H. W. Bush, future president

Edwin Meese, Counselor to the President

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense

James Baker, Chief of Staff

John Poindexter, National Security Council staffer

David Gergen, Assistant for Communications

George Shultz, Secretary of State

 

All of those white men met and shook hands with, thanked, and congratulated The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

The Jewish language is clear and unconditional about such “Farrakhan photo felons” when they are Black. Greenblatt saw the Obama photo, and even though Obama, as senator, had previously “denounced the bigotry of Farrakhan,” the Jewish attack dog commanded that former President Obama “do so again.” The ADL’s top bigot said of Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., “It is unfortunate that the congressman apparently can’t muster up the courage to denounce Farrakhan…” Referring to Keith Ellison’s meeting with Farrakhan, David Bernstein, the president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said on Twitter, “It’s very disturbing….Dining with hatemongers is not ok.” The ridiculous Alan Dershowitz blathered that that Obama–Farrakhan photo was “a really horrible truth,” and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted what amounted to a 21st-century runaway slave advertisement: “Here are 21 members of Congress today who belonged to the CDC in 2005. Why not ask them if meeting with anti-Semites is ok?”

Certainly, the publication of this photo of the Reagan–Farrakhan Rose Garden festivities has proved that two white presidents have crossed that Jewish line. Former President Bush is still alive and—just like former President Obama—must answer for his “anti-Semitism.” Who will get to him first—Greenblatt, Dershowitz, Bernstein, or Fleischer?

The answer, of course, is that all these Jewish hypocrites will prove for the millionth time that the Jewish leadership are some of America’s most accomplished racists. They and we know that the charge of “anti-Semitism” is nothing more than a historical hatchet to “justify” their true racist aims. They have avoided supporting real liberation movements by inventing “anti-Semitism” where none exists and then creating a fake outrage around that false charge. They are a one-trick pony and the tactic as an effective bludgeon against their enemies has run its course. In The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 2, Jewish scholar Marc Dollinger explains why Jewish leaders chose to use this tactic against the Nation of Islam:

“Despite the Nation of Islam’s political marginalization, [Jews] still feared [Elijah] Muhammad. His charismatic personality, willingness to confront racism in the most dramatic rhetorical terms and ability to inspire even non-believing African American listeners concerned Jewish leaders. The Nation of Islam leader, they feared, could earn the respect of his black audiences, even if they chose not to join his movement.”

Amazingly, Dollinger does not claim that Mr. Muhammad or the NOI evidenced any form of “anti-Semitism”—he says that the Jewish leaders “feared” the Hon. Elijah Muhammad’s “willingness to confront racism”! Jewish organizations, then, worked tirelessly against the NOI— an organization they knew was not anti-Jewishto STOP THE BLACK MUSLIMS FROM CONFRONTING RACISM! And this destructive, anti-Black policy—described by Dollinger—is how Jews in America have thoroughly earned the title “Synagogue of Satan.”

Your Jewish “friends” Greenblatt, Dershowitz, Bernstein, and Fleischer will run like Ussain Bolt to hide from that ugly truth. It is time for Blacks to finally free themselves from this historical deception and these incorrigible deceivers, lest we fall for their tricks yet again.

 

Nation of Islam International representative Abdul Akbar Muhammad shaking hands with President Ronald Reagan.

 

Jet Magazine cover, January 23, 1984.

 


[1] Jews & Slavery: Lecture by Dr. Leonard E. Barrett, Sr. <https://noirg.org/articles/jews-slavery-lecture-by-dr-leonard-e-barrett-sr/>; https://noirg.org/articles/jews-and-the-black-holocaust/

[2] https://noirg.org/articles/bnai-briths-adl-100-years-of-deception-leo-frank-abe-foxman-min-farrakhan/

[3] https://noirg.org/articles/coming-full-circle-minister-farrakhan-and-the-syrian-roots-of-the-obama-presidency/

Racist Jews and their Attacks on Black leaders

By the standards established by the contemptible Jewish leadership, all those who ever attended any meeting in the presence of The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan must be condemned, repudiated, and suffer the loss of their reputations and their jobs. Curiously, those who have been targeted in these recent Jewish attacks are ALL BLACK: Barack Obama, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Maxine Waters, and several Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members—but no whites.

Yet at a single meeting in 1998, Minister Farrakhan gave the Anti-Defamation League a whole lot of work to do. Farrakhan was one of over two hundred guests at a gala held by the Jewish-owned Time magazine, and nearly all of the guests were prominent white people. So, ADL, let the condemnations begin. You may wish to start with the two presidents who were there, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton; or with the high government officials Jack Kemp, John Glenn, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and William Westmoreland; or media figures Wolf Blitzer, Walter Cronkite, Roone Arledge, Ben Bradlee, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Carl Bernstein, Mike Wallace, and Barbara Walters; or with business leaders Steve Jobs and Bill Gates; or with Christian preachers Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. In fact, when the Reverend Graham saw Minister Farrakhan, he ran over to hug and kiss the Muslim leader.

But, racist Jews, you can’t stop there. At least 70 of the Farrakhan-meeting-attending luminaries were Jewish, including Henry Kissinger, Sidney Blumenthal, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and even “Holocaust survivor” Elie Wiesel. Yes, Elie “never again” Wiesel met with The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan!

It is time for Black leaders who have silently suffered this ludicrous Jewish onslaught to hold their Jewish “best friends” to the very same Jewish standards they have so rudely applied to Blacks alone. This “new” evidence shows that when the unscrupulous Hillary Clinton turned to presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 and demanded he condemn Farrakhan, Barack could have easily told her, “You met with Farrakhan too,” and ended that nonsense right then and there. But fear and trepidation of Jewish reprisals are a greater influence on most elected Black leaders than the needs of their oppressed Black constituents.

And let us be clear about how cynical these satanic gangsters are. Black leaders should check their calendars. The Jewish Star’s Jeff Dunetz noted the silence of the Congressional Black Caucus on Trump’s decision to relocate the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He wrote, “perhaps because around the same time as the Jerusalem announcement, pictures of many of their member smiling alongside famous anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan was released [sic].”[1]

And thus we have the reason why a 2005 meeting of Black people has become “news” thirteen years later in 2018. As the Mossad’s motto explains, “By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War.”

So the attacks on Black politicians and Min. Farrakhan have nothing to do with “anti-Semitism.” And to prove it, let us see if these selectively offended Jews will be so quick to condemn Elie Wiesel, Henry Kissinger, and Steven Spielberg as they are Barack Obama, Keith Ellison, and Maxine Waters. The responses of the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt, and his shills Alan Dershowitz and Jake Tapper, will prove definitively whether or not the Jews have changed their ways since their centuries of slave dealing, racist violence, and exploitation of Black people.

Don’t hold your breath.

 


 

Full List of Time Magazine’s 75th anniversary party held March 3, 1998, at New York City’s Radio City Music Hall with guest Minister Louis Farrakhan:

Lamar Alexander

Muhammad Ali

Kurt Andersen

Terry Anderson

Kofi Annan

Roone Arledge

Ken Auletta

Lauren Bacall

Lee Bailey

Anne Bancroft

Roger Bannister

Jill Barad

Dr. Christiaan Barnard

Carl Bernstein

Wolf Blitzer

Sidney Blumenthal

Reginald K. Brack Jr.

Ben Bradlee

Bill Bradley

William J. Bratton

Steven Brill

Phil Bronstein

Tom Brokaw

James L. Brooks

Mel Brooks

Tina Brown

Don Budge

Joseph Califano

Kate Capshaw

Steve Case

Carol Channing

Julia Child

Bill Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Jennet Conant

Sean Connery

Joan Ganz Cooney

Arthur Cooper

David Copperfield

Kevin Costner

Patricia Nixon Cox

Walter Cronkite

Tom Cruise

Michael Deaver

Dr. Michael E. DeBakey

Barry Diller

Joe DiMaggio

Dominick Dunne

Ahmet Ertegun

Mica Ertegun

Harry Evans

James Fallows

Jerry Falwell

Joe Ferrer

Kelly Flinn

Jodie Foster

Nancy Friday

Betty Friedan

David Frost

James R. Gaines

Bill Gates

Frank Gifford

Kathie Lee Gifford

William Ginsburg

John Glenn

Mikhail Gorbachev

Raisa Gorbachev

Billy Graham

Andrew Grove

Henry A. Grunwald

Bryant Gumbel

Bruce Hallett

Dorothy Hamill

Tom Hanks

Valerie Harper

Don Hewitt

Andrew Heyward

Anita Hill

Dr. David Ho

Richard Holbrooke

Evander Holyfield

John Huey

Lee Iacocca

John Irving

Walter Isaacson

Ann Jackson

Judith Jamison

Mort Janklow

Peter Jennings

Steve Jobs

Tom Johnson

Lanny Jones

Star Jones

Arthur Kaminsky

Peter Kaplan

Jeffrey Katzenberg

James Kelly

Jack Kemp

Caroline Kennedy

Edward Kennedy

John F. Kennedy Jr.

Rory Kennedy

Nancy Kerrigan

Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Nicole Kidman

Val Kilmer

Pat Kingsley

Larry Kirshbaum

Henry Kissinger

Michael J. Klingensmith

Jill Krementz

Steve Kroft

Frank Lalli

Bert Lance

Matt Lauer

Gerald M. Levin

Robert Levine

Marshall Loeb

Don Logan

Dave Long

Sophia Loren

James Lovell

Henry Luce III

Norman Mailer

Terry McDonell

Cynthia McFadden

Jay McInerney

Jason McManus

Robert McNamara

Lisa McRee

Sonny Mehta

Christopher Meigher III

Isaac Mizrahi

Ann Moore

Mary Tyler Moore

Dick Morris

Toni Morrison

Isolde Motley

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Henry Muller

Ralph Nader

Martha Nelson

Mike Nichols

Chris O’Donnell

Daniel Okrent

Edward James Olmos

Alan J. Pakula

Richard Parsons

Jane Pauley

Norman Pearlstine

Michael Pepe

Joy Philbin

Regis Philbin

George Plimpton

Sally Quinn

Dan Rather

Donna Rice

Leni Riefenstahl

Molly Ringwald

Gil Rogin

Ed Rollins

Sherrie Rollins

Andy Rooney

Mickey Rooney

Charlie Rose

Roger Rosenblatt

Tim Russert

Morley Safer

Robert Safian

Mort Sahl

Diane Sawyer

Claudia Schiffer

Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

Edwin Schlossberg

James W. Seymore Jr.

Joyce Seymore

Bernard Shaw

Peggy Siegal

Liz Smith

Lois Smith

Jerry Solomon

Theodore Sorensen

Mira Sorvino

Steven Spielberg

John Squires

Martha Stewart

Sharon Stone

Kerri Strug

Strobe Talbott

Gay Talese

Nan Talese

Cheryl Tiegs

Laurence Tisch

Calvin Trillin

Garry Trudeau

Donald Trump

Peter Ueberroth

Paul Volcker

Diane von Furstenberg

Mike Wallace

Barbara Walters

Wendy Wasserstein

James Watson

Dr. Andrew Weil

Harvey Weinstein

Raquel Welch

Jann S. Wenner

David Westin

William Westmoreland

Tom Wicker

Elie Wiesel

Jeannie Williams

Rita Wilson

Jeff Zucker


 

[1] http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/hashana-byerushalayim-this-year-in-jsalem,15199

7 Shocking Quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is the victim of IDENTITY THEFT. White America was so desperate to have a Black leader guide its restless and awakening Blacks back into subservience that it took a gifted soldier of truth and put words in his mouth and made him everything white Americans wanted him to be. Let us FINALLY look at who Dr. King actually is. Dr. King evolved into a strategic thinker and planner—and a razor-sharp critic of white supremacy. He did not mince words: his speeches were a clear and concise damnation of a SYSTEM that had destroyed his people. His last speech the night before his murder in Memphis on April 4th, 1968—I Have Been To the Mountaintop—has been heavily edited and redacted by whites to censor and evade his instructions to Blacks: to establish an ECONOMIC foundation for their freedom. He said nothing of voting or integration; he said that when we Blacks feel pain, “we must kind of redistribute the pain” in the form of boycotts and the use of Black spending power as a weapon for our own advancement. He termed it “economic withdrawal.” 

King said and did more. Even as today’s negro leaders shake and shiver at the name FARRAKHAN, Dr. King sought out meetings with Minister Farrakhan’s Teacher, The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He spoke highly of and openly met with Black figures that frightened the hell out of white people: Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, and Muhammad Ali. Indeed, Dr. King emerged from his 1966 meeting with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad with these words:

 “We suffer domestic colonialism….We must achieve self-determination.”

Other quotes from Dr. King would make white people RE-THINK the gigantic statue they have put up in his memory, and the 900+ streets named after King in 42 states and Puerto Rico. Here are 7 SHOCKING Quotes by Dr. King:

  1. Dr. King asked, “Why does white America delude itself, and how does it rationalize the evil it retains?” He said white people’s belief in the fairness of America “is a fantasy of self-deception and comfortable vanity….There aren’t enough white persons in our country who are willing to cherish democratic principles over privilege.
  2. White Americans left the Negro on the ground and in devastating numbers walked off with the aggressor. It appeared that the white segregationist and the ordinary white citizen had more in common with one another than either had with the Negro.”
  3. To his friend Harry Belafonte he said: “I’ve come to the realization that I think we may be integrating into a burning house.”
  4. King’s critique of Jewish behavior in the ghetto was stinging: “We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew and a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and we would go out on our open housing marches on Gage Park and other places and we discovered that whites with five sanitary, nice, new rooms, apartments with five rooms, were paying only $78 a month. We were paying 20 percent tax. The Negro ends up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Negroes actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper.
  5. If you thought King had faith in the “political process”: “Throughout our history, laws affirming Negro rights have consistently been circumvented by ingenious evasions which render them void in practice. Laws that affect the whole population—draft laws, income-tax laws, traffic laws—manage to work even though they may be unpopular: but laws passed for the Negro’s benefit are so widely unenforced that it is a mockery to call them laws.
  6. King’s systems analysis could only frighten the American elite: “The trouble is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level….That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.
  7. Even Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., conceded, “there are points at which I see the necessity for temporary separation as a temporary way-station to a truly integrated society.

These quotes show that Dr. King could not be counted upon to carry the failed empowerment strategies promoted by the white financiers of the American Civil Rights Movement. King evolved to understand that the white and Jewish “philanthropists” that paid for Blacks’ INTEGRATION achieved their own status of wealth and power not through voting or integration but through the building of an ECONOMIC community infrastructure, on which they built independent institutions to serve and protect their own ethnic communities. Could King be any clearer than these words from his LAST and MOST DANGEROUS speech?

“But not only that, we’ve got to strengthen black institutions. I call upon you to take your money out of the banks downtown and deposit your money in Tri-State Bank. We want a ‘bank-in’ movement in Memphis. Go by the savings and loan association. I’m not asking you something that we don’t do ourselves at SCLC. Judge Hooks and others will tell you that we have an account here in the savings and loan association from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. We are telling you to follow what we are doing. Put your money there. You have six or seven black insurance companies here in the city of Memphis. Take out your insurance there. We want to have an ‘insurance-in.'”

“Now these are some practical things that we can do. We begin the process of building a greater economic base. And at the same time, we are putting pressure where it really hurts. I ask you to follow through here.”

As Dr. King began his last campaign it was a decidedly ECONOMIC in nature. So much so he called it the “POOR PEOPLE’s CAMPAIGN.” As he went through the nation to organize it he gave this shocking 169-word analysis:

 

“At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of congress our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor. But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm and they are the very people telling the Black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. This is what we are faced with and this is a reality. Now, when we come to Washington in this [Poor People’s] campaign, we’re coming to get our check.

Let us honor Dr. King FROM NOW ON—not by putting up more statues and naming streets for him, but by actually taking and following through on his economic advice!


Source: Many of these quotes are published in the new, updated, and expanded book, HOW WHITE FOLKS GOT SO RICH: The Untold Story of American White Supremacy.]  


BONUS QUOTES: In his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” (April 16, 1963) Dr. King signaled his utter disgust with the white liberals that he had been told he could trust to “help” aid in Black advancement:

“I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…”

On the Vietnam war:

“And I am sad to say that the nation in which we live is the supreme culprit.…God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war, as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in that war. We have committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it…”

King said during a February 1968 trip to Mississippi,

“It didn’t cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters….but now we are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power.”

On Uncle Toms:

“There are Negroes who will never fight for freedom. There are Negroes who will seek profit for themselves from the struggle. There are even some Negroes who will cooperate with their oppressors. The hammer blows of discrimination, poverty and segregation must warp and corrupt some. No one can pretend that because a people may be oppressed, every individual member is virtuous and worthy.”

In 1960, King spoke on Black Education and school integration:

“White people view Black people as inferior. A large percentage of them have a very low opinion of our race. People with such a low view of the Black race cannot be given free reign and put in charge of the intellectual care and development of our boys and girls. I don’t see school integration successfully happening right now and being beneficial.…It will be disastrous.”