Hold On, DeSean: Jews Sold Black Slaves in Philadelphia!

by the Nation of Islam Research Group

The Jewish football player Julian Edelman wants to bring superstar DeSean Jackson to the Jewish Holocaust Museum, the one just across from the Department of the Treasury in Washington, DC, where America’s money is printed. Jackson enraged the Jews, who are forever trying to avoid standing up for racial justice in America. They have become seasoned experts at inventing “anti-Semites” at the most convenient time—and that allows them to avoid participating in freedom struggles. What better way to hide their role in creating the longstanding tensions between Blacks and the police. As the world now knows, Israel trains and helped militarize the police forces across America, so Jews had to yet again roll-out the anti-Semitism scam to avoid true law-enforcement reform.

The list of “anti-Semites” is growing longer and blacker—DeSean Jackson, Nick Cannon, Ice Cube, P. Diddy, Stephen Jackson, Allen Iverson, and the Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan! All of them, in a matter of a couple of weeks, have magically replaced the white murderers of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery as America’s most notorious racial villains. The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have learned that when they create an “anti-Semitism” controversy—especially a black one— the donations pour in. Racism—a Talmudic invention—is the world’s oldest trick.

By now, Blacks must understand that Jews, being the wealthiest and most powerful subset of white people, have NOTHING to gain if there is any systemic change in America. Their sojourn in America has been the most lucrative financial arrangement Jews have EVER had in 6,000 years. And for the 400-plus years it drove the Western economy slavery was the most profitable stock in the collective Jewish portfolio. As the Jewish Encyclopedia admits:

“[T]he cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.”

Slavery, Jim Crow, racism, sexism, and all the assorted isms and phobias have been institutionalized in America because that’s what works best for the rich and powerful and especially the Jews.

Brother DeSean’s innocent retweet of a quote falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler has generated the latest outburst from these tricky satans. The cure? Forcing Jackson to take a tour through the history of Jewish suffering and pain that occurred entirely among Caucasians, in another part of the Caucasian world. But a survey of Black suffering right here in America would seem to be far more appropriate. In fact, DeSean doesn’t need to go all the way to Washington, DC, to learn of the wretched history of American hatred and violent oppression. Philadelphia is a great place to start—and right in his own Eagles locker room.

The Jewish owner of the Eagles is Jeffrey Lurie. His money came from his grandfather, Philip Smith, who founded the General Cinema Theatres in 1935, a chain of 621 movie theaters. If you have ever been to a drive-in movie you helped little Jeffrey buy the Philadelphia Eagles. And you helped Jewish movie moguls that controlled Hollywood to spread some of the worst anti-Black propaganda ever created.
The famous screenwriter Dalton Trumbo couldn’t have been more precise when he wrote that Hollywood Jews

“…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 & Bailey side-shows of his religion. 

That’s where Lurie’s Eagles-buying money comes from. Yet, according to some reports, Lurie fined Jackson as much as $330,000!


Jews Selling Blacks in Philadelphia

If DeSean steps out of the Eagles locker room and into the city, there is much to discover about the anti-Black pioneers of Philadelphia’s Jewish community. More than three generations before the Liberty Bell was rung in the state house steeple, Jews were already wealthy and powerful in the “City of Brotherly Love.” 

For instance, Jonas Phillips was a founder of Philadelphia’s original synagogue, Mikveh Israel. In February of 1792, he placed an advertisement in the city newspaper to hunt and return his freedom-seeking “Negro Woman Slave” who “took nothing with her but the clothes she had on.JonasPhillips.Freeman's Journal- or, The North-American Intelligencer; Date- 08-08-1781; Issue- XVI; Page- [2];- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

In another public notice he was selling “A young handy NEGRO MAN, about nineteen years of age”—a human being he sold as a regular in-stock item, along with fish hooks, silks, ginger, linens, and other dry goods.

So common was slave trading among the Philadelphia Jews that two Jewish historians concluded: “The Jews who could afford them had both servants and slaves. The Quakers were the only people who as a religious denomination opposed the institution of slavery.” In fact, a large influx of Jews into the city occurred after the decline of the Jewish community of Barbados, but those settlers were not fleeing any anti-Jewish oppression. They left Barbados because of the emancipation of the slaves there! No more free Black labor and the Jews bounced, according to Peter Wiernik, “most of them going to Philadelphia.” 

Even the city’s rabbi owned African slaves! We know this because of an ad Rabbi Jacob Cohen placed describing “a short, teen-age, bound girl [who] wore a spotted jean jacket, a striped linsey petticoat, a spotted coarse shawl and a black wire-framed bonnet, when she ran away…”  The rabbi offered a dollar’s reward for her capture. Run, Sister, Run!

Nathan Levy was a founder of the Jewish community of Philadelphia, considered “the city’s richest Jew.” He and his brother Isaac teamed up with David and Moses Franks in 1741 to capture and import Black slaves from Africa. In the ad below they are selling a “young Negro Wench“:

And speaking of Hitler, Jewish merchant Levy Andrew Levy was part of a massive trading operation based in western Pennsylvania. It was Levy who participated in the extermination plot against the Indians by providing British General Jeffrey Amherst with blankets laced with smallpox. The disease killed millions of Indigenous human beings across America. Levy’s receipt for the blankets was published in a book by Rabbi Harold Sharfman.

The lead historian at the American Jewish Historical Society, Rabbi Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, made the remarkable claim that “David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760’s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent.” In 1761, David Franks’s slave ship Hannah was docked on the Delaware River with a “Cargoe of Likely Negroes Just Imported Directly from Guiney” for sale. In her Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin a disgusted Harriet Beecher Stowe mentions the Jewish slave traders that set up shop in Philadelphia. She called the Jewish Davis Brothers “the great slave-dealers.”

They are Jews [who] are always in the market, giving the highest price for slaves. During the summer and fall they buy them up at low prices, trim, shave and wash them, fatten them so that they may look sleek, and sell them to great profit.

Jewish merchant Isaac Franks “sold slaves from time to time” and owned a young female child named “Bell.” Franks advertised in the Pennsylvania Journal on January 4, 1786: “For Sale, a likely young Negro Girl, About eight years old; has twenty years to serve. Inquire of Isaac Franks.”



The Census of 1830 provides “official” data on the slave holdings of Philadelphia Jews.
NOTE: The tally here is of household slaves and not those they bought and sold on a daily basis.


The Philadelphia Jews weren’t just trading Black human beings: they further secured their wealth by becoming key pillars in the supply chain that kept the Southern slave system in operation. Scholar Elliott Ashkenazi wrote that Southern plantation suppliers looked to the “hundreds of Jewish wholesalers” based in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore to sell all they needed to keep a stolen African people producing cotton—the most valuable crop the world had ever seen.

Long before the NFL Jewish merchants and “redskins” had a long and violent relationship.

Further, another major source of wealth for Philadelphia Jews came from supplying arms to the colonial militias that were slaughtering the Native Americans—or as Lurie’s Jewish brother Dan Snyder in Washington would call them—redskins. Some of those Jews in the military supply trade in the HOLOCAUST of the NATIVE AMERICANS were Samuel Judah, Naphtali Hart Myers, Sampson Simson, Hayman Levy, Joseph Bueno, Simpson Levy and Nathan Levy.  The “dean of Jewish historians,” Rabbi Dr. Jacob Rader Marcus, could not have been clearer about their motive:

It was also during the French and Indian War that Jewish merchants from Philadelphia and Lancaster helped supply the army and the militia in their efforts to crush the Indians on the transallegheny western frontier. [emphasis ours]

When the Civil War threatened to break apart the nation, Philadelphia Jews were so deeply linked to the fortunes of Southern slavery that they spoke often and ardently for the Confederacy. Jewish Texan Jacob De Cordova visited his Jewish brethren in Philadelphia in 1858 to entice Jews to settle in Texas, where “By a wise provision of our state constitution, the institution of slavery has been guaranteed.” After the war, when someone compared Blacks to Jews B’nai B’rith leader Dr. Solomon Solis-Cohenfor whom a Philadelphia school is named—blamed Blacks in America for their own lynchings.

DeSean should take Julian Edelman and Jeffrey Lurie down West Hunting Park Avenue to Simon Gratz High School. The Gratz family was closely connected with the Hays, Moses, and Franks families in their slavSimonGratzHighSchoolTowerCloseupe-shipping businesses. Michael Gratz’s wife Miriam wrote a letter to him dated June 2, 1777—one month short of the original Fourth of July holiday—that reminded: “Dont forget your promise in getting me a negro boy or girl if to be had, as servants is very scarce. [sic]”

In a now famous 1772 letter, Bernard Gratz’s slave overseer wrote to his boss about a slave who even in chains was standing up against his Jewish oppressors.  He had tried to sell Gratz’s slave “George” at auction but George protested that he would kill whoever bought him,

“which deterred the people from bidding….[H]e behaved himself in such an insolent manner I immediately sent him back to the jail with directions to the jailer to keep him at hard labor, which he refuses to do, and goes on in such an insolent manner that it is impossible to get a master for him here….He’s now almost naked, and if not furnished soon with some clothes, I fear he’ll perish. P.S.: He’s now chained and handcuffed on account of his threats.”

No more is known of the fate of Brother George, but Blacks in Philadelphia should build a statue to that great and noble spirit! Let DeSean Jackson, Julian Edelman, and Jeffrey Lurie read that letter aloud in the Mikveh Israel synagogue on N. 4th St, where Brother George’s owner was a temple official. While there, ask the congregation about Jacob I. Cohen, who was president of that synagogue in 1810.  He and his Jewish partner, Isaiah Isaacs of Richmond, enslaved Blacks they named “Tom,” “Dick,” “Spencer,” “Mieshack,” “Fanny,” “Eliza” and their children. 

It is almost guaranteed that Jeffrey Lurie and Julian Edelman have no idea how deeply their people were involved in Black slavery. But are they as willing to learn about the role their ancestors played in Black suffering as DeSean Jackson and Nick Cannon are to learn of Jewish history in Europe? Are Lurie and Edelman as anxious to apologize for their people and for their ignorance? Are they willing to acknowledge just how much wealth that JEWS built on the backs of Black suffering?

One of the things we do know from Jewish history is that they built their massive power across America through unity and organization: they worked in a collective manner to profit mightily from slavery and from marketing the products of Black slave labor.

At the end of this tour of Philadelphia’s Jewish slavocracy, Brother DeSean Jackson should go to Washington, DC—but not to the Jewish Holocaust Museum. He should go across the street to the Department of the Treasury—along with our Native American family—and demand from Jews an apology in gold.


[NOTE: This unfortunate Jewish human rights history goes far beyond Philadelphia and stretches into all of the Caribbean, South America, and the slave coasts of Africa. This hidden history is well documented in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vols. 1 & 2and the companion volume of slave-sale ads titled Jews Selling Blacks.]

Black Ops Matter — Video Proof of Agent Provocateurs


A black operation or black op is a covert or clandestine operation by a government agency, a military unit or a paramilitary organization; it can include activities by private companies or groups. Key features of a black operation are that it is secret and it is not attributable to the organization carrying it out….A black operation involves a significant degree of deception, to conceal who is behind it or to make it appear that some other entity is responsible (‘false flag’ operations).”


“French for inciting agent – a person who commits or acts to entice someone to commit an illegal/rash act or falsely implicates them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation of the target group or target the falsely implicated group for legal action.”

Below are links to a series of videos posted on social media of suspicious behavior by fake protesters. They are direct evidence of the activities of AGENT PROVOCATEURS engaged in Black Ops. A BLACK OP requires media collusion, so let us remember who SOMEHOW can’t see those videos:
Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League, the foremost American police training entity, says: “our Center on Extremism is actively monitoring extremist groups’…participation in — the nationwide protests,” yet the ADL is unable to see the riot instigators and obvious police agent provocateurs. According to the ADL website:

More law enforcement turn to ADL than to any other non-governmental organization for training, information and resources—to combat extremism, terrorism and hate crimes. ADL works with every major federal, state and local law enforcement agency, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to major city police departments, state police, highway patrol and sheriffs’ departments. Over the past decade, we have trained 150,000 law enforcement personnel—at no cost to taxpayers.

[Find out if your police force is trained by ADL-Israel here.  Israel is particularly significant here because it is the only nation to have declared that “The major problem with Israel is with the young generation of the black community — Black Lives Matter starts there…”]

Citizen journalists have collected plenty of video evidence of an expansive and well-funded operation to disrupt and corrupt the legitimate protest of the police murder of George Floyd and turn it into a narrative of violent criminality. Right on point, the Los Angeles Police Chief publicly stated that George Floyd’s death is on the “hands” of those who were “burglarizing or looting, victimizing.” And the mainstream media entities—CBS, Fox, NBC, ABC, NY Times—are already forecasting that they are about to hype a “resurgence” of COVID-19 cases, to then blame it on Black Lives Matter.
This is to derail any REAL structural change that might actually reform police behavior. A 1967 FBI-COINTELPRO memo (see below) is clear: “No opportunity should be missed…to disrupt or neutralize black nationalist, hate-type organizations…[I]n every instance careful attention must be given to the proposal to insure the targeted group is disrupted, ridiculed, or discredited through the publicity and not merely publicized.” Here is proof that this COINTELPRO directive is in full effect today:

Pink shirt man caught on 3 separate occasions helping police agent provocateurs (Pink was obviously the police “COLOR OF THE DAY” — See below NY Times article):


Seen “confronting” AutoZone vandal: https://twitter.com/TheeUnabonger/status/1266363229036519425

Seen walking with AutoZone vandal: https://twitter.com/realDailyCivic/status/1266343490465775622

Seen stopping police from stopping rock throwers: https://twitter.com/TheeUnabonger/status/1266362958659059712

Teams of white #AgentProvocateurs work together to burn police car to blame on protesters
“Staging” a pallet of bricks for protesters:
Boston cops staging bricks:
More bricks, no construction:
White cop dressed as Black Lives Matter protester:
White man breaking out windows while police are looking at him:

Team of white #AgentProvocateurs work together to burn police car to blame on protesters

LA cops laugh as white woman spray paints building; they told her to add “Floyd.”
White man urges protesters to flip over a vehicle is outted
Philly inciters caught: 
White man breaks windows and is stopped by Blacks: 
“An apparent agitator in the middle of a peaceful protest’s car is burned out … after the firework he tried to leave got thrown back into his car by a protester.  
NYPD Commissioner tweets about “strategically placing caches of bricks & rocks at locations throughout NYC.”
White women caught spray-painting Starbucks:

Black Woman Catches Whites Giving Bricks to Black Youth

Protesters catch white man pushing dumpster in street and scare him off

BLM Protesters stopped white man from breaking into store next to George Floyd memorial
Yucaipa residents force Antifa off the block amid scuffle

3 Men Plotted to Terrorize Vegas Protests, Prosecutors Say:

Nashville courthouse vandalized by white man: 
White man paying people to act up: 
Fake CNN “reporter” An undercover cop was caught dressing like a protester: 
White vandals ARRESTED by legitimate protesters: 
3 White men With a Machete Beat Up a Non-white Protester in Minneapolis



The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan: Iran Press Conference, 2018

TRANSCRIPT [complete]

Press Conference, November 8, 2018, Tehran, Iran

Final Call News description: The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan delivers a powerful message in Iranian capital, Tehran, during a press conference at Press TV’s headquarters, November 8, 2018. More info and updates at tinyurl.com/tehranfcn.

@2:49 The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan: As-Salaam Alaikum [Peace be upon you]. Bismillah, ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim. In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. I bear witness that there is no God but He. And we thank Him in America for Allah’s intervention in our affairs in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad, the Great Mahdi, Who came among us to start us in the process of being resurrected from a mental, moral, spiritual, economic, political, cultural, and social death that we can stand before you today as Muslims; as our fathers when they were brought out of Africa—many of them were already Muslims. But the enemies of Islam knew that if we kept our faith, they could never make us permanent slaves. So the aim of the enemy was to strip us of our names, our language, our culture, our history, our religion, our God, and grow us up in America with no knowledge of self, no knowledge of our origin in this world. But thanks for the coming of Master Fard Muhammad and raising up among us the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, I can come before you today and say As-Salaam Alaikum and my name is no longer the slave name that I once had. I didn’t realize when my Teacher named me Farrakhan that he was subtly connecting me to you. Because when I came to Iran the last time I was here, I noticed a village or a town in southern Iran named Farrakhan. I saw my name again and again in this country, and I said, Well, maybe this country is the place that I should be particularly at a time like this. I’m honored—

[Translator interrupts mid-sentence to translate the above.]

7:21: I’m exceedingly honored to be here at this time. And I want to thank the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, for the privilege of an audience with him. I want to thank my host, the Expediency Discernment Council, Dr. Mohsen Rezaei and Dr. Fouad Izadi, who extended the invitation to me to come to Iran at this time to deliver a speech at Tehran University.

8:53: I also was invited to the holy city of Qom to speak to the students there and to meet with the Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi. And my stay, and our stay, has been very, very rewarding. And I thank the people of Iran, all those with whom we had contact, for their wonderful, brotherly reception of us.

9:55: I must say, I have not enjoyed reading the press commentary on my visit here. But I guess I should not expect any different from a Zionist-controlled press, especially my being in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I want to thank Bro. Taleb Zadeh and his lovely wife, Zainab, for their help of us since we have been in the Republic.

Allah says in the Quran that the people who have been writing about me—it says: they altered the word of Allah after they knew it out of its place [HQ 2:75-79; 4:44-46; 5:41]. So if they would alter the word of God Himself, what chance do have that my word, my character, my reputation would not be altered by these same Satans? What is it that you fear about Louis Farrakhan? It is that God has blessed us to know the truth of Shaitan [Satan]. This is the day that Shaitan must be unmasked and revealed to the world. That mission has been given to me. It’s a very dangerous assignment. But Satan, or Shaitan, has deceived the whole world. In the Quran [HQ 7:12-18], Allah is having a discussion with Satan, and Satan is saying to God: Because You have judged me as one who is erring and caused me to remain disappointed, I am going to lie in wait for them in your straight path and I will make all of them deviate. And Allah said, whoever follows you, I will certainly fill hell with you all.

What is the straight path of God? Is it not the truth of His revelation that has inspired Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? So Satan has poisoned Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that is why Imam Mahdi has to come to expose Satan and cleanse and purify religion that we as human beings may once again be as we should be: brothers and sisters in love with one another.

Allah has guided us. And 23 years ago I was blessed to be the one through whom the Million Man March was organized in America, where through my voice I called for a million and nearly two million Black men showed up in Washington, DC, for the Million Man March.

I pray that the translation will be as I say it, and if you are interested in all that I have said since I have been in this country, it will be made available to you. My private meetings and my public meetings—if it is granted, you may have it. Because whatever I say in private, I am not afraid to say it in the public.

The theme of the Million Man March was based on 3 principles: atonement, reconciliation, and responsibility. And I have used those three principles all over the world to try to bring together disparate groups who belong as one. But atonement means that we must acknowledge our wrong to one another, seek atonement for the wrong, ask forgiveness for the wrong, and reconcile our differences so that we may stand as a united front in the face of Shaitan.

The Muslim world is in deep trouble. The Muslim world needs a process that will cause us to reconcile our differences and come together as one ummah. In that way Satan will never destroy our nations and our community as long as we resolve our differences and come together as one ummah, one community.

I am here at this moment in time because my brothers and sisters here are facing the wrath of the President of the United States and the government of America in these harsh sanctions that are being imposed on the government and people of Iran. The world said they did not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons, so an agreement was made between the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the government of the United States of America, England, France, Germany, China, and Russia. Every investigative body during the years of this treaty arrangement said that Iran had never violated one aspect of that agreement. In America, they said that they gave Iran billions of dollars but they never said that they were holding over a 150 billion dollars of Iranian money and they were supposed to give it back during the treaty arrangement—but has Iran gotten that money back yet? Can anybody answer that question for me? Iran fulfilled what she signed to do on that paper, but America has not.

And with the advent of our new president, President Donald Trump, he did not like the arrangement, so unilaterally he ripped it up and now has imposed, according to what I have read, the harshest sanctions ever imposed on any nation. Allah says in the Quran [HQ 17:64]: the devil promises only to deceive.

So here we are. Why did you come, Farrakhan? Because this is my family, along with my family in America, my family in Africa, my family in the Caribbean, my family in Asia. Though I am born in America, I am a citizen of the world because of my Islam. As the hurricanes destroyed parts of Texas, and Florida, and Puerto Rico, wherever we could offer our help to our brothers and sisters and those who were white, or Asian, or Hispanic, we did what we could to help. So why should not we come to Iran to encourage the believers, to strengthen them, to encourage them that Allah is trying us but if we are steadfast under trial, we will surely get the favor of God and we will be victorious.

So my enemies are saying that maybe I should stay in Iran, not come back to America. I want to warn you, you speak as the foolish: America is mine. America is ours. Our sweat and our blood built America. How dare you say that we have no place there. How dare you say that we cannot criticize your evil and point it out to you.  I am more of a patriot than most of you who bow down to evil and it is only truth that will make America better. And I speak that truth and I will be back in America to speak it again.

29:23: I warn you in the name of The Two that back me—Imam Mahdi and al-Massi, the Messiah—I’m coming home, to face whatever you have for me, but I hope you will be ready to face whatever my backers have for you. Now you may ask me your questions.

31:25 (The Minister’s answer to question by a reporter of IRIB News Agency, “What do you think about U.S. foreign policy in [the] Middle East?”): When you are a drug addict, you say whatever you need to say, do whatever you need to do, to satisfy your addiction. The Middle East is rich, rich, rich with oil. And any great industrial nation is in need of the fuel that fuels the industry of that nation. America and England and others have always wanted access to the oil of this region, and their foreign policy is aimed at that objective.

In Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, in a democratically fostered election, became the head of Iran, and he wanted the oil that comes from the earth in Iran to be of benefit to every citizen of Iran to give those citizens a decent quality of life. So the policy of my country became the idea to get Mossadegh out of the way, which a CIA plot did overthrow Mossadegh and give you in his place the Shah of Iran. Through the Shah of Iran the oil became a possession of America and the west, and the Shah was rich and powerful; and those that went along were rich, but the Iranian people suffered. People who did not like what was going on were persecuted, put to death, and among them was a man named Khomeini. He was exiled from his home into Turkey and France and Syria and Iraq, but 39 years ago the students erupted, because while he was away he was making cassette tapes and spreading his word and the word was taking root in the Iranian people and the Iranian Revolution began.

Now, if we fast-forward to 2018, the policy of our government as brought to Saudia Arabia by President Trump, who asked the king of Arabia, King Salman, to call all the Sunni nations together in Riyadh and he would come and address them. And when President Trump went to Riyadh, I saw him with pictures of new jet fighter planes, showing it to the king. And then they announced a $110 billion-dollar sale of weapons to Saudi, the United Arab Emirates, billions of dollars for weapons. But if you listen carefully to his speech, he was making toxic the division between Sunni and Shia and aiming those weapons subtly toward Iran and then openly saying to all of those nations they should reject their brother, Iran.

My Teacher, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, taught me years ago that the policies of our government would bring about a war in the Middle East that would be a trigger to the greatest war that has ever been, the War of Armageddon, spoken of in the Bible. [40:33] My teacher wrote an article warning America in a time of great confusion over who is going to be president—either a Democratic president or a Republican—and we saw that played out two years ago. And the Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us that we were living in that which is called the lull before the storm. No matter who wins the election, that President would have to guide America through the most difficult time in world affairs. Mr. Trump is that leader today. And Elijah Muhammad taught me that I should say to him: you would be wise, Mr. Trump, to delay the storm as long as you can. Because the longer the storm is delayed is to not only America’s advantage but is to the advantage of the world.

These sanctions are the predicate for a new war. A reporter asked my teacher, “Is America going to remain in the Middle East?” And my teacher said, America is going to come out of the Middle East. And when they asked about war, he said yes, there would be war. And he said bloodshed in this area would be much. I am begging our president and the government that supports him to be very, very careful because if the trigger of war in the Middle East is pulled by you using your surrogates at the insistence of Israel, then the war will trigger another kind of war, which will bring China, Russia, all of the nations into a war. And it bothers me to say this to you, Mr. President, but the war will end America as you know it. So when these Iranians chant “death to America, death to Israel,” no chant can bring about your death, but it is your policies that are eroding trust for you in the world, favor for you in the world. And now you’re pulling apart, confused. And if you do this, you will bring about—not the Iranian chant—you will bring about the death of the greatest nation that has been on this earth in the last six thousand years. I am a warner to you. I am a friend to America, not an enemy. But if you do not heed the warning and correct your path, death will come.

My host tells us that there are many questions, so they’ve asked me to make my answers short, but if you listen to what I’ve said I’ve answered most all your questions already. But you may ask and I’ll do my best to answer very short.

48:11: (“Minister Farrakhan, I’m from Fars News Agency. Uh, I would like to ask you, ‘What has the Nation of Islam done so far to disclose the smear campaign of the United States against Iran and what has it done so far for the Muslims that have been suffering in Yemen and Syria?’”): You know, my dear Sister, truth is the best weapon against a false smear. You just heard me. The Quran says [HQ 21:17-18]: Had We wished to take a pastime before Ourselves, We would have done it. Nay, We cast Truth at falsehood till We knock out its brains. That is my assignment: to speak Truth. The smear that’s on you is the smear that’s on me. So all of us who want change, if we are too cowardly to write the truth, too cowardly to speak the truth, too cowardly to live for the truth, and too cowardly to die for the establishment of the truth, then you’re too cowardly to have the smear removed from you.

May I respectfully say what is going on in Yemen is a crime against humanity: American planes, American bombs are being used. What is going on with the Rohingya Muslims is a crime. What is going on with the Uighur Muslims in China is a crime. Wherever Muslims are persecuted, wherever human beings are persecuted, there has to be an uprising against persecution. Because persecution is worse, the Quran [HQ 2:191] says, than slaughter. We must arise. We must throw a stone that we have in our hand against persecution, against the wickedness of the tyranny of governments. Speak the truth, if you know it! Rise against it, if you can! But everybody who loves truth and seeks justice and peace must rise up against the forces of evil, injustice, and falsehood. Nobody outside can do it for you if you’re not willing to do it for yourself.

The power of the press. What good is a press if the press won’t write truth. If we are afraid to speak the truth, to correct anything that is wrong in government—that’s the beauty of the press. Nobody can give you that courage. You must have the courage to speak truth to bring about the change that you seek. Next question please.

54:20 (Press TV correspondent: “‘Death to the United States’ is not a slogan chanted by the Iranian government against the U.S. government or the U.S. people, but it’s a slogan chanted by the Iranian people against the American leaders.”): I know.

54:34 (Press TV correspondent continues with question: “So, and it’s not just about the 1979 Islamic revolution, but it’s way back before: if you turn the pages of history back to 1953, and you clearly mentioned it when the United States reinstated monarchy in Iran, so it’s clear that the Iranian people have a, had a very dark memory about what the United States did back then. So ‘Death to the United States’ is not a slogan chanted by the government, so the United States, [if] it wants to re-impose sanctions, it’s re-imposing sanctions against the Iranian people, not the Iranian government.”): That’s correct.

(Press TV continues with question: “So the western media outlets, especially the United States media outlets, are accusing you these days of leading ‘Death to the United States.’ I just read a couple of news items about you and how the western media is accusing you of chanting the ‘Death to the United States.’ I want to ask you this question, Would you—are you willing to chant the slogan of ‘Death to the United States,’ because you are a person who is living in the United States and you are a person who is exposed to some of the policies that are done and conducted against you [and] carried out against you in the United States. The Black community in the United States is humiliated and you are a Black person and at the same time you’re a Muslim, and as you see Muslims these days are exposed to some of the wrong policies committed by the United States. So would you chant this for the—”) [56:17]: No, I will not do that. I will not do that. I would ask, Who sent you to ask that question. You seem to be one of those who are paid at Press TV to provoke that. That’s not my chant—listen to me. No, listen to me: you asked me a question. Your question is, your question—. I heard you. I heard you. But I also heard something else about you that I don’t like. You want me to chant, because they lied on me and said I led a chant. I know that chant came from the people of Iran and this sanction is what’s hurting the people of Iran. They have a right to chant it. But I am not a chanter—I’m a worker for God and the truth will undo falsehood and the righteous will win against the wicked. Not with a chant, but with actual words and deeds. I just, I don’t—I don’t like your attitude, man. I don’t like that. You know, I have to say this: I’m not just listening to your questions, God is showing me your motives. And I’m addressing with anger your motive. I know the question—I don’t like it. Now, I’ll take one or two more questions, but if you have not heard me yet, then I’m wasting my time. Is there another question?

58:30 (REPORTER from Al Jazeera English, “nice to meet you. …. Sir, my question has to do with the fact that you as a civil rights leader yourself. Um, I was wondering what your impressions were of the anti-government, anti-corruption economy-related protests that we’ve seen here in Iran. And did you have any discussions about that during your visit with officials here?”): Thank you, al Jazeera, for your question. In many of my commentaries, I was telling us to look within ourselves. Because your focus on the west is not hurting the west, but our focus on ourselves and the corruption that’s eating away at our faith is what is weakening the ummah. So I always spoke wherever I went, that we must look within ourselves. The greatest jihad is not with somebody else. The greatest struggle is against the Shaitan of self that turns you away from Truth and Faith and makes you an instrument of the enemy. Yes, I talk about it everywhere I go because the greatest enemy that we have is not the enemy outside—it’s the enemy within. And that’s what the Quran warns us against, the enemy within.

One more question please.

1:01:45 (REPORTER: …. “There’s a lively debate here in Iran about the extent to which religious injunctions should be a matter for the state and the security forces and how much it should be something personal. I was wondering if you could speak a little on that?”): Would you help me to understand your question more?

(REPORTER from ASB continues question: “For instance, should religious obligations be something that is enforced by the government, or is it something that should come from within?”): The Quran has arguments for every occasion. The Quran gives us laws that a Muslim observes not out of force from government but out of the force of conviction of faith. Whatever country you live in, there are laws. And the laws of the country are of no value unless they are enforced by those who have the law to enforce, and a citizen of the country should be respectful of those laws. So America says: we are not a government of men, we are a government of laws. And it is law that orders the society. This is a different experiment in Iran. If you live under the Shah, you didn’t live under the laws of Quran. I was a Christian and I still love my Christian family and roots. I—[translator respectfully interrupts to translate the above].

In the Nation of Islam in America, we have laws. We who believe in Allah and believe in the Prophet Muhammad and believe in our Teacher, the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, and believe in Quran, we try our best to live those laws—not by force of government but by the force of our faith.

So when you break the law, there are those who enforce the law; we try our best to live our law because that is what protects the society that we have. I have watched in the Muslim world when we try to impose Sharia on a people that have lived under western influence, we sometimes do not realize you have to give a people who have lived a reckless, ‘free’ life [the] time to reform. So our Teacher taught us so beautifully and he punished us when we broke the law—not with physical harm, but he deprived us of the right to be in our society for a time of 90 days, a year if it’s adultery. But the whole idea was, to bring us up so that the law is not a burden—we learn to love being righteous. And I pray, I pray that in the exercise of law, we do not misuse our power and authority then we become tyrants. So there’s a delicate balance that has to be achieved.

Thank you. I want to thank all of you.


(One last question @ 1:08:50 from an ANCHOR, Press TV: “…. As we’re speaking, actually, there were live feeds from Instagram, from YouTube, that are being blocked right now as we’re speaking, live feeds of this press conference. What is it, Minister Farrakhan, that you think that your message here in the Islamic Republic of Iran that has that type of effect, that right now even this feed is being blocked. And what can you as an African American who’s lived in the United States tell the people of Iran who have been fighting or trying to deal with their independence almost forty years against the United States? What could they learn from your experience?”): My dear Sister, truth uncovers a lie. Truth unmasks deceit. And when you have been a deceiver and this media [pointing with a sweep of his hand to all the media microphones lined up before him] has been used to control what comes to the masses and a man arises—not by his own power but by the power of God to speak the truth—then all of these [pointing to the media microphones] become the enemy of deceit if it’s used properly. And all of these can be turned against the speaker of truth.

They fear what I’m saying. They fear the passion that I speak the truth with. They fear that allowing the word to enter the ear of the people unobstructed will bring about the transformation of the human mind. So truth becomes the enemy in a world built on lies.

I’m so sorry that the people are deprived. Because once you know me for yourself, you can judge me properly. Once you hear me for yourself, you can make that determination. And to my brother, I hope—I’m not mean to offend him, but, you know, to ask me to chant is to make me say something that pleases the Zionist press that already took my words out of their place to make it difficult for me to go back into my own country. So for my brother to ask me to do that, and for me to even entertain it is foolish on my part, but it’s wicked on his. May God bless you all.


White Jews Play ‘The Race Card’ Against Black Jews

White Jews Play ‘The Race Card’ Against Black Jews

Black Jews have begun to raise their voices about what they perceive as a hypocritical racial duplicity by their white Jewish brethren. They see white European Jews—also known as Ashkenazi Jews—as on the one hand claiming the historical mantle of an oppressed race, but easily toggling back into whiteness to access the multiplicity of privileges of institutionalized White Supremacy. Meanwhile, from their advantaged position white Jews deny or ignore the racism faced by Black Jews and make little or no effort to truly ameliorate racism or to upset a racially skewed system from which they derive such profound benefits.

A recent op-ed in the Forward by a Black Jew challenged “white Jews” to stop denying that they are “functionally white” and admit that they are unabashed beneficiaries of White Supremacy. This rather mild criticism generated a most fearsome anti-Black backlash—so much of a firestorm that it closed down online Jewish forums, causing some Black Jews to quit in protest: “I got hateful messages, my black friends and I were called ‘racist c**ts,’ and people outright laughed at my fears.” So volatile was this internecine explosion that the Forward had to take a break from cheerleading Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians to cover the rebellion in an article titled “An Oped About Race Sets Jewish Facebook Aflame.”

Lawyer Micha Danzig, an Israeli army veteran and former New York cop, took strong issue with being labeled “white”—and by a Black Jew, no less. White Jews have debated this “Are-Jews-a-race-or-religion?” issue for years, as recorded in Karen Brodkin‘s book How Jews Became White Folks. But when Black Jews venture an opinion, all hell apparently breaks loose. After all, Blacks are, according to Israel’s top rabbi, “monkeys.”

In a Forward response titled “No, Ashkenazi Jews Are Not ‘Functionally White’,” Mr. Danzig insists that Jews are a separate and distinct “race” that has suffered for their Jewishness. But to make his point and to belittle the Black Jews, Danzig propagandizes a fake Black history, contorting three episodes into unrecognizable remnants of actual events. In fact, when placed back in their proper historical context, all three of his examples demonstrate the very opposite of the Jewish victimhood narrative that he intended to promote. His examples instead show that Jews are among America’s most prominent purveyors of white supremacy and that their vicious and hateful reaction to their own Black “brethren” is—historically—not the least bit surprising.



Danzig framed his argument via the case of Walter White, a very light-skinned Black man who could “pass for white” and who became an official in the NAACP, not a “founder” as Danzig misstates. According to Danzig, White “went undercover with the KKK in order to investigate and sometimes prevent lynchings in the South. He was a hero.” In this role, Walter White was undoing what many white-skinned Ashkenazi Jews in the South had worked to establish to secure their place in the cotton-based economic infrastructure. Being well-represented among the major cotton traders of the South, Jews had as much or more to gain than any other white ethnic or religious group in ensuring that the Black man continue in the cotton-producing role he had been in for the previous 300+ years.

And that is why the early Gentile leaders of the terrorist Ku Klux Klan sailed all the way to England to secure investment from an exiled Confederate Jewish banker and plantation owner named Judah P. Benjamin. Benjamin had been so effective in arranging Jewish financing for the Confederacy that they put his Ashkenazi face on their 2-dollar bill. When the slavocracy was defeated, Benjamin lost the 140 Blacks he enslaved, and he, like most Southern whites, saw the KKK as a way to terrorize Blacks and force them back into their former roles on cotton plantations. The Jewish Encyclopedia couldn’t be clearer: “[T]he cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.”



Danzig believes that Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s infamous 1862 Order Number 11, in which he calls for the expulsion of Jews from parts of Tennessee, demonstrates that Jews were oppressed and targeted in America. The expulsion order itself was designed to enforce a trade embargo on the Southern Confederacy—just as the world embargoed and sanctioned the apartheid government of South Africa a century later. Israelis and American Jews were among those who secretly supplied South Africa, the most racist government on earth, with material support and even nuclear weapons—despite world outrage at the violent and repressive anti-Black regime. According to Seymour Hersh, Israel’s Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin “gushed over” South African Prime Minister B. J. Vorster, even though he “belonged to one of the most extreme of the pro-Nazi groups—the Ossewabrandwag.”

Photo | South Africa’s prime minister John Vorster (second from right) meets with Israel’s prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (right) and Menachem Begin (left) and Moshe Dayan during his 1976 visit to Jerusalem. (Photo: Sa’ar Ya’acov)

And so it was in the case of the Jewish presence in the American Civil War. As soon as Lincoln heard of Grant’s order against Jewish traders, he rescinded it. But we should understand why Grant and those prosecuting the war against the Confederacy were so frustrated with Jewish merchants, traders, and peddlers. Jews were among those whites attempting (very often successfully) to break the embargo by smuggling cotton out of the South in exchange for gold. This gold was desperately needed to continue the rebellion of the slave states and to continue the slave trade. Danzig apparently expects that we—the descendants of the Black slaves and victims of the slave system these Ashkenazi Jewish merchants were intending to uphold—ignore this incredible Jewish betrayal and see these victimizers as victims?!

Further, the “vicious anti-Semite” Ulysses S. Grant won the presidential election, taking the majority of the Jewish vote and becoming “one of the greatest friends of Jews in American history.” Danzig, in his futile quest to find “anti-Semites” finds only friends. Meanwhile, Blacks are reviewing Robert Rosen’s much more interesting book Jewish Confederates, which is filled with Ashkenazis who were willing to die—to die—to keep the Black man and woman in chains. It is a fat 517 pages long.



In his third historical delusion, Danzig writes that “In Georgia, in 1915, Leo Frank was wrongly convicted of a crime and lynched because he was Jewish.” Danzig is here relying on white Ashkenazi “historians” who for 100 years have fabricated much of the Leo Frank story for the very purpose that Danzig now uses it—to convince uninformed Blacks that the lynching of a single Ashkenazi Jew for a murder he did in fact commit outweighs 360 previous years of Jewish slave-trading, KKK involvement, and Jim Crow collaboration. The Leo Frank case (which began in 1913, not 1915 as Danzig again misstates) is notable because it is credited with initiating the ADL, the racist forerunner of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI COINTELPRO operation.

B’nai B’rith leader Leo Frank was the Harvey Weinstein of his era. He ran a pencil factory filled with adolescent Gentile girls, many of whom testified under oath that Frank often sexually harassed them. Frank cornered 13-year-old machine operator Mary Phagan, who resisted, and in the struggle he raped and killed her. And just as Harvey Weinstein hired Israel Mossad agency Black Cube to clean up his mess and tarnish his accusers, Leo Frank hired two nationally known private investigation firms to help him pin the crime on two Black men. Ultimately, both detective agencies were unwilling to corrupt themselves and they publicly stated that Frank was guilty of the murder.

Danzig couldn’t have picked someone—Jew or Gentile—better suited to prove the utter whiteness of Ashkenazi Jews. At his trial for the murder of Mary Phagan, Leo Frank’s attorneys castigated Black witnesses as “niggers” and demanded that the jury dismiss all “negro testimony” because it came from “negro” mouths. They railed about the “smell of negroes” and argued that Frank, a white man, could not have committed the murder because murder “was a negro crime.”

Danzig should have just consulted the Forward‘s own archives, wherein founder Abraham Cahan interviewed Leo Frank himself and quoted the convicted murderer directly: “Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.”

Danzig presents these cases as “proof” of Jewish victimhood in America. Yet all three prove that Ashkenazi racism is at the very core of the American Jewish experience. Black Jews are now realizing that to embrace white Ashkenazi Jews means they are embracing their own oppression. Their utterly mild Black observations of white Jewish attitudes were met with the most unprintable racial filth, not from David Duke or Richard Spencer or Mahmoud Abbas but from lily-white Ashkenazi readers of the Forward—their own “family.”

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has always maintained that a proper relationship with Jews must begin with an honest dialogue about how one people’s actions have harmed another. To simply deny that such a history of harm exists and that any other Black point of view is “anti-Semitic,” has been the arrogant Ashkenazi position against Black people and The Minister for 34 years. In their identically hateful reaction to the experiences and earnest opinions of Black Jews, white Jews have only helped prove that there is simply no Ashkenazi respect for Blacks of whatever faith, no matter how reasoned their points of view.

Once Black Jews become aware of the massive role their Ashkenazi brethren have played on the oppressor side of the color line—and we have only scratched the surface here—it will give Blacks of the Jewish faith a new meaning for the Jewish seder tradition of leaving the door open for Elijah.



Read more about the REAL history of the Black-Jewish relationship in the 3-volume series The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, available here: https://amzn.to/2Jqg09x

Billy Graham Warned Nixon of ‘Synagogue of Satan’

Transcript: Billy Graham and Richard Nixon, February 21, 1973

Graham: “And the people that have been the most pro-Israel are the ones that are being attacked now by the Jews.



The Rev. Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon held a phone conversation on February 21, 1973, right after a horrific terrorist attack committed by Israel. The Israelis had just shot down a civilian airplane, killing 108. After an exchange of niceties, the transcription starts at 2:10:


Graham: I believe, I believe the Lord is with you. I really do. 

Nixon: You know, we’ve got, we’ve still got the problems. Wasn’t that a horrible thing, those Israelis shooting down that plane?

Graham: Terrible. [unintelligible]

Nixon: I’ve just been raising the devil about that because, uh, I mean it was so stupid, it was so stupid. I mean, to shoot down an unarmed 707? Good heavens. I mean, that’s worse than what they did at the Olympics, the other side. 

Graham: Well, this will be an embarrassment for her [Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir], coming here next week, won’t it?

Nixon: Well, I think it is, yes. But, on the other hand, that’s going to be her embarrassment—not ours. We didn’t do it. But we have to have her, of course. And, uh, she’s, uh—I’ve urged the Israelis, of course privately, that they ought not only to express condolences but to, uh, but to indicate that they’re gonna pay reparations for this. They’ve just got to do it. 

Graham: Absolutely.

Nixon: They just did a terrible thing to have happen, because…

Graham: Things seemed to be moving a little bit better. At least that from what all I read…

Nixon: Yes, and then bing—they do this. 

Graham: …and here Sadat was moving a little bit to the right, it seemed to me.

Nixon: Yes. Now this’ll force him over again.

Graham: That’s right. It sure will. 

Nixon: Yeah. 

Graham: He’ll have to listen to these extremists on the left. 

Nixon: Yeah. We—. It’ll probably stir up for a few days. I don’t know. But we’ll—. Any rate, we’re not going to be, we can’t be blamed for what everybody does. But, I must… with… Mrs. Meir, we’re gonna have to talk pretty straight to her about this sort of thing. When she’s here. 

Graham: Well—.

Nixon: Now, the Israelis, you see, what they do with a thing like this is they lose all of the support that they have in the world, you know…

Graham: That’s right. 

Nixon: We’re their only friends anyway: no other country’s their friend anymore. And now this just raises, uh—Oh! It’s just terrible. 

Graham: There’s two other points. One is, the front page of papers over the weekend carried the story that they’re talking about expelling all Christians from Israel. 

Nixon: Oh, isn’t that nice. 

Graham: And, uh, then the second point is that the Jews in this country are just raising a big… uh, uh…  in speech after speech. Now, for example, this morning on the front page of the Atlanta Constitution, its third major story on the front page was a rabbi denouncing what is called “Key ’73.” Key ’73 is a combination of all the major denominations in the United States including most Roman Catholics, for the first time, joining together in an evangelistic effort. [Nixon chuckles] And they are damning Campus Crusade and damning, so forth, and Rabbi Tannenbaum is coming down here to see me this week about it. And, of course, they are never calling my name. Because they know of uh…

Nixon: You’re their friend. 

Graham: I’ve been their friend, and they know that, but, at the same time, they are going right after the Church. And, and, and there’s a great deal of feeling beginning to rise in areas where they’ve had great friendship. 

Nixon: What’ll happen out of this, if they don’t, you know? What I really think is that deep down in this country there is a lot of anti-Semitism, and all this is going to do is stir it up. 

Graham: It’s right under the surface…

Nixon: Oh boy. 

Graham: …and right to the top.

Nixon: That’s right. Well, anyway. But, uh, I must say that in terms of the other things that, uh, nobody could have ever anticipated that those great tunnels, and the POW, how they would handle themselves. You know, we—they, they did it all on there own. Nobody planned it, they just came off there with their heads high. And if we hadn’t ended the war in the right way, you know, with, uh, they wouldn’t have come out that way. If, for example, we had done what so many were urging—just get out of the war; in other words, we withdraw, if they give us our prisoners—they’d come down with their heads down.

Graham: Well, I—. They surely would. And, uh, they came off those planes saluting and saying “God bless America” and “God bless Nixon.” It was tremendous. I told, uh, my son tonight—I hadn’t seen him in quite a while—and I told him—he’s 21—that, uh, I’m not very emotional but I really cried when I saw those people. I just thought…

Nixon: Yeah, well I think the whole nation did, actually. Yeah.

Graham: …it was just a tremendous experience for this country. You know, the country, Mr. President, needed some heroes. 

Nixon: Exactly.

Graham: And we got ’em. And if they don’t get exploited now and, uh, the high pressure promoters use them…

Nixon: Yeah, that’s right.

Graham:  …and the bad stories start coming out when they have to face problems at home. But, uh…

Nixon: Well, there will be some of that but we won’t exploit them, of course. We’re gonna wait until they all get back before we even have them here at the White House. But then, then we will. 

Graham: Well, they deserve it.  And, uh, they’re a marvelous group of people and it has brought a whole new wave of support, in a very unique way, to you, because people say, “Well, he was right.” In a very dark moment in December, you were right. And they’re gonna trust you the next time, in a way that they didn’t in the past.  And I think that you’ve, you’ve got a tremendous groundswell of support for you. Did you get a copy of the letter that I wrote to Mark Hatfield?

Nixon: Yes, I did [chuckles]. I was, uh, I, uh. [Of] course, I didn’t get particularly stirred up about his comments; I just thought it was rather bad taste. But uh…

Graham: Yeah, but for him.

Nixon: Uh… I think… I thought a lot of people thought he was quite a bit out of line on that—no grace, no, uh, no, you know.

Graham. Oh, it was terrible. I sat there so embarrassed I didn’t know what to do. And when he sat back down, I turned to him, I said, I said “Mark,” I said, “I want to talk to you about that talk.” 

Nixon: Did you? [chuckles]

Graham: And, uh, he didn’t say anything and I hadn’t heard from him so I wrote him a letter and told him that I, I just felt that it would have been a wonderful thing if he had turned to you and said “Mr. President, thank you for getting us this cease fire”… 

Nixon: Yeah, and he didn’t do it.

Graham: …instead of getting up, talking about the sins, and so forth—really, it was terrible. 

Nixon: Well, he’s a strange fellow sometimes, isn’t he?

Graham: I don’t understand him. He is the big disappointment in political life…

Nixon: He’s playing…

Graham: …at least in the politics that I have known…

Nixon: He’s playing… What he’s doing is… I think, unfortunately, he’s playing to the radical groups on the campus and the rest. He doesn’t realize that they’ve passed him by now. 

Graham: Well, they’re in the past. That was proven in McGovern. 

Nixon: That’s right. And here he is still, you know, pandering to that group, which is very unfortunate. 

Graham: Yes, but to use a platform like that in your presence, at a presidential prayer breakfast—which we’ve leaned over backwards all these years to keep nonpolitical—and to get up and do a thing like that was just inexcusable and if he has any part in it next year I don’t intend to go. 

Nixon: Well, I won’t either. 

Graham: I told Doug Coe already about it and Doug, of course, is very clo—. And, you know, the interesting thing about it is that Harold Hughes is getting deep into this prayer breakfast thing, and he goes to every single meeting, he’s on every committee, and pretending to be, you know, a great Christian. And, uh, and in my judgment, there’s something wrong because the night that [Senator John C.] Stennis was shot…

Nixon: Yup.

Graham: …they asked me to come to a prayer meeting in the prayer chapel in the Senate, in the Capitol. And Harold Hughes was there. And, uh, Mark Hatfield was there. And when Harold Hughes started to pray—he was going to pray out loud—he said that he could not pray because he had such hatred in his heart for you. [Nixon chuckles] And so, uh, he really did, to his credit, he said “Oh, God, forgive me.” He said, “I want this out of my heart.” Because, he said, “He’s my president.” And he went through this tremendous, uh, strange experience. For me it was strange. And, um, I uh, I just—.

Nixon: One of their problems is, uh, Billy, with these people like Hughes and Hatfield too is, it’s, uh, it’s a very personal thing with them. That they proved to be wrong on the war and now they just hate to give up. That’s really what’s part of it, don’t you think?

Graham: And a lot of them, they hate to give up. But, they also, some of them, hated that you’re the one got the, got the thing over with. 

Nixon: Yeah, because they had been condemning it so much, and said everything we were doing was wrong and then when it proved to be right…

Graham: Well, I…

Nixon: …then it proved they were wrong, you see? 

Graham: Well, we’re—. All of your friends like me were just so proud and thrilled, and just think, you just think back four years ago where this country was and how far you’ve taken us, it’s tremendous. 

Nixon: Well, you’re feeling pretty good, are you?

Graham: I’m feeling great.

Nixon: Fine.

Graham: Now, Rosy, uh, talked to me about the possibility of coming to the dinner for Mrs. [Golda] Meir. I don’t know whether you know that they were inviting us, but I don’t know whether we should, whether you want us or not…

Nixon: Oh, sure, sure, you should come.

Graham: …[at] the, uh, dinner, but of course if we’re invited, we’ll be…

Nixon: Sure…

Graham: …able to come. 

Nixon: Sure. I uh. This incident, I don’t think is going to change that. I think we just have to go forward, we’re gonna have the dinner—we have to. I think your coming would be the right thing to do, right?

Graham: It might be, because of this religious situation that’s coming up in the country. 

Nixon: Right. But I would be very, very tough with, uh, all of our Jewish friends in here, and Mark Tannenbaum—you tell him he’s making a terrible mistake and that they’re gonna get the darndest wave of anti-Semitism here if they don’t behave. 

Graham: Well, that’s exactly right. And Mark Tannenbaum is probably the most outspoken and the most listened-to rabbi in America…

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham:  …and he’s going to come down here this week. And, uh, he wrote a, um, letter to the New York Times defending me a few days ago. And, uh, he, uh—I think if we can swing him over to make some strong statements, it’ll have a great effect.

Nixon: Right.

Graham: He certainly is one of the cleverest and most brilliant of the rabbis… 

Nixon: Right, right.

Graham: …and, uh, it was very much for you this past time. You know, we tried to get him to lead the prayer group at the convention and he felt he couldn’t go quite that far. 

Nixon: No. Well, the thing that you’ve really got to emphasize to him though, Billy, is that this anti-Semitism is stronger than we think, you know. They just—. It’s unfortunate, but this has happened to the Jews: it happened in Spain, it’s happened in Germany, it’s happening. And now it’s gonna happen in America, if these people don’t start behaving. 

Graham: Well, you know, I told you one time that the Bible talks about two kinds of Jews. One is called “the synagogue of Satan.” They’re the ones putting out the pornographic literature; they’re the ones putting out these obscene films. 

Nixon: Like the thing in Time Magazine. And… 

Graham: It’s terrible…

Nixon: …and then Newsweek

Graham: Ruth canceled both of them. 

Nixon: Good for her. 

Graham: We won’t take Time or Newsweek.

Nixon: I’ll tell you, it’s a disgraceful thing, and I think, I think, really, they don’t deserve to live.

Graham: And for Time to come out, the week of your inauguration, with that thing, was so… 

Nixon: That’s right.

Graham: …unbelievable.

Nixon: Yeah, they—. That’s the first time they ever covered an inauguration without having it on the cover.

Graham: And Henry Luce would turn over in his grave. 

Nixon: I’ll say he would. I’ll say. Well.

Graham: And they’re gonna go the same way that Life went.

Nixon: They will unless they start to shaping up. 

Graham: I was talking to [Barney? Laska?]. He was down there taking a vacation while we were, and he was telling me about the great amount of advertising that Time has lost over the thing.

Nixon: They really have.

Graham: That’s what he said. 

Nixon: Well, they deserve it, they deserve it. The advertisers ought to be sick about this sort of thing.

Graham: Well, I saw you walked over to Trader Vic’s. That’s where I eat in Washington, had a nice time. 

Nixon: Wonderful place, yeah, they’re so nice, all those people and uh… the uh…

Graham: And I saw you riding around with Jackie Gleason. [NIxon chuckles] That was great.

Nixon: Yeah, we had a great reception in South Carolina too. That was…

Graham: Oh yes, it’s on the front pages of every paper here.

Nixon: Those people are—they were great down there. Of course, that’s good country. Good country. 

Graham: This has become Nixon country down through here. [both chuckle]

Nixon: Well, we’ll see you then next, uh—is it Wednesday or Thursday or,  I guess, Thursday.

Graham: Thursday, I believe she told me. 

Nixon: Uh huh. Thursday. I guess. Right. Thursday. Well, we’ll try to make her [Golda Meir]… Uh… We’ll, we’ll let her feel all right. But, boy I’ll tell you, privately, you’ve got to be very strong with these people. 

Graham: We’re going to have a real hair-letting with Rabbi Tannenbaum and find out exactly. And he, he, I think basically, is our friend.  And I want to—.

Nixon: You could point out this: that there’s nothing that I want to do more than to be, I mean, not only a friend of Israel but the friend of the Jews in this country but that, that I have to turn back a terrible tide here if they don’t get a hold of it themselves. And, uh, and it’s up to them.

Graham: And they better understand it and understand it quick.

Nixon: Because there are, there are elements in this country—no, not just the Birchers but a lot of reasonable people are now getting awful sick of it. 

Graham: They really are. 

Nixon: Don’t you think so?

Graham: And the Church too. I think what has happened in the church in the last two months, is almost… uh… They have almost… uh… These denominational leaders, I’m amazed. They are shaken by all this because they’ve been so pro-Jewish. 

Nixon: Sure.

Graham: And the people that have been the most pro-Israel are the ones that are being attacked now by the Jews. And then they’re coming…

Nixon: Can’t figure it out.

Graham: …they’re going to kick all Christians out of Israel is, is unbelievable. 

Nixon: Can’t figure it out. Can’t figure it out. Well, it may be they have a death wish. You know, that’s been the problems with our Jewish friends for centuries. 

Graham: Well, they’ve always been, through the Bible at least, God’s timepiece and he has judged them from generation to generation…

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham:  …and uh… and yet used them and they’ve kept their identity…

Nixon: Right.

Graham: …and one of the things they’re terribly afraid of is so many of these Jewish young people are turning away from Judaism…

Nixon: Yeah. 

Graham: …and turning away from Jewishness. They say they’re Jews but they’re becoming followers of Jesus. Well, that’s just scaring them to death. 

Nixon: [chuckles] I see. 

Graham: You see they’ve set up, they’ve set up all over the country these Jews for Jesus at the various universities. 

Nixon: Good.

Graham: They said they’re remaining Jews but they believe that Jesus was treated wrongly. And uh, they’re—and this is frightening Jewish leaders and they’re overreacting in this country. [Nixon sighs deeply] I’m talking about the rabbis.

Nixon: Oh, I know. Sure. Sure. The professional Jews. But they’re—they’re like the Episcopalians. They’re, they’re losing any appeal to their own people. 

Graham: Sometime when, uh, I have, when you have a few minutes, I want to tell you a plan for organizing, on a world scale, a counterpart to the World Council of Churches. 

Nixon: Boy, GOOD!

Graham: Just for your knowledge, we’re having a conference next summer in Lausanne, with four thousand world leaders…

Nixon: Good.

Graham: …church leaders, bishops and so forth that are sick and tired of the World Council.

Nixon: Well, you know, [Eugene] Carson Blake and these people have been—well, they’re so, uh, totally overboard, you know, the, on everything that is decent. I mean, they’re, uh. they do it in the name of passivism and the rest, but they’re really, uh, uh, they’re really so close to the communists, it’s unbelievable. 

Graham: Well, they are, and, uh, and they say NOTHING against the communists. Ever.

Nixon: NEVER, never. I know.

Graham: Always against us, it’s against South Africa, it’s against Greece and so forth.

Nixon: That’s right. They say—.

Graham: And, uh, you can just—their stuff seems to be written, uh…

Nixon: — right out of …

Graham: …on that side of the country, uh, world.

Nixon:  …written right out of Moscow.

Graham: It sure does. 

Nixon: Right. 

Graham: And just as you have changed the, uh, political picture, we hope to change the religious picture…

Nixon: Well, listen, I’m all for it and uh—.

Graham: … and it’s going to be a bombshell when it comes. 

Nixon: When do you—that’s going to be in the summer?

Graham: Uh, next summer, summer after,  in ’74. We’re going to have, uh, at least half of the Anglican Church, the Anglican World…

Nixon: Mm hm.

Graham: …with us from Britain.

Nixon: Good. 

Graham: We will have a third of the German Lutheran. We will have the great majority of the American Church.

Nixon: Will you?

Graham: We’ll have 90% of the Latin Church, we’ll have 75% of the Far Eastern Church, and we’re going to have, uh— and we’ll be better financed. 

Nixon: Hmm. Now what about the Catholics?

Graham: We don’t know. They’re going to come in great numbers as observers. 

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham: So far, they would not be able to participate and, uh… 

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham: …you know, the Southern Baptists and groups like that wouldn’t…

Nixon: Yuh. The trouble is that, uh…

Graham:  …they couldn’t anyway.

Nixon: The difficulty too is—the Catholics had better shape up a bit too [or] they’re gonna be losing their stroke because…

Graham: Well, they’re, they’re as divided as the Protestants. 

Nixon: …they’re split right down the middle, they sure are. You’ve got the good guys like, you know, Crowe[?] [Krol?] in Philadelphia and, uh, Cook[1] in New York, and then there’s this, this bad wing, that is the Jesuits, who used to be the conservatives, have become the all-out, uh, barn-burning radicals. 

Graham: I, I think quite a bit, by the way, of that fellow you’ve got working for you, [John J.] McLaughlin.

Nixon: Oh yes, yeah, the priest! Yeah.

Graham: Yeah!

Nixon: He’s good. You know, he’s sort of a convert, uh, to our side. He came in a total, all-out peacenik and then he went to…

Graham: You told me about it.

Nixon: …went to Vietnam and changed his mind. 

Graham: I’d never met him until I was over at, uh, our Prayer Breakfast over at the White House about a month ago. 

Nixon: Yup, yup. 

Graham: Uh, he invited me up to his office and I went over and spent about an hour with him. 

Nixon: He’s a very capable fellow, bright as a tack. Well, anyway, we’ll see you then on the first. 

Graham: Well, thank you sir.

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham: I appreciate your calling.

Nixon: Tell Ruth, we’ll look forward to seeing her?

Graham: Okay.

Nixon: All right.

Graham: God bless ya.

Nixon: Bye. 

Graham: Bye.


[1] G. Bradford Cook?

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

Zionism, Pan-Africanism, For #Black Twitter

Rev. Jackson, Moshe Dayan & The Other Threatening Picture

In his introduction (written on Jan. 23, 1983) to the book Is It Possible That The Honorable Elijah Muhammad Is Still Physically Alive? Brother Jabril Muhammad wrote: “Among the main facts one should know about any communication, especially one of significance, whether it is spoken or written, are (1) the premise, (2) the intention, (3) the context. To put it another way, regardless to the means by which information is conveyed, or given, the more we know of the reason (the ‘why’ or the ‘motive’) for it and the circumstances involved in [its production], the better we can understand and [properly] use the information presented to us.”

That principle should guide everyone’s consideration of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan’s message, delivered from the Watergate hotel on November 16, 2017, in Washington, D.C.

Part of the message delivered and the context for it involves the Reverend Jesse Jackson. And part of that context also involves Moshe Dayan. Still more, contextually, comes from the writings of Jude Wanniski.

On Nov. 16th, 2017, Minister Farrakhan said, “He [Rev. Jackson] … shook hands with Arafat. Sin. I don’t understand you people—that the President can go and meet with his enemies but if we meet with one of your enemies, who’s not one of our enemies, all of a sudden we are anti-Semitic. Every Black man of consequence was called an anti-Semite. Why do you use that?”

In September of 1979, Rev. Jackson, with the stated purpose of seeking peace, visited Israel. The Prime Minister of Israel at that time, Menachem Begin, refused to meet with him. Rev. Jackson called that decision unfortunate and among other things openly called for recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the trip, though, was a photograph of Rev. Jackson embracing PLO leader Yasser Arafat. The picture and Rev. Jackson’s support of the Palestinian cause were used for years, prior to his presidential campaign in 1984, as justification for labeling him as an anti-Semite.

(Think over this, in the context of the current hysteria over a beautiful picture taken of Minister Farrakhan and a then-Senator Barack Obama.)

Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Moshe Dayan, who was in New York at the time of Rev. Jackson’s visit in September of 1979, reportedly said that Prime Minister Begin did not meet with Rev. Jackson because he did not want to legitimize Rev. Jackson’s efforts at mediation between the PLO and the Israelis. Rev. Jackson, who cited how Prime Minister Begin had met with the Prime Minister of South Africa during apartheid, reportedly described Begin’s rejection of him as “a racist decision based on skin color.”

When asked in February of 1984, by Bayard Rustin, to explain why he embraced Yasser Arafat, Rev. Jackson reportedly answered, “They keep running that picture. The pope met with Arafat and they don’t keep running that picture. I met with Arafat one time. When you go to Japan, you take your shoes off before entering the house. In the Mideast, you embrace and exchange kisses. I embraced Arafat; I wasn’t embracing his politics. When I went to see Arafat, I challenged him to fight for a mutual recognition policy with Israel. But that got lost in all the hype.”

Israel Defense Minister Moshe Dayan

Something else still lost “in all the hype” of 1979 is a comment made over a year later by Moshe Dayan (who also famously led Israel’s invasion of the Sinai Peninsula in 1956 and served as Defense Minister during the Six-Day War of 1967). Dayan said, in November 1980, that “most of the soldiers” in the U.S. armed forces up to the rank of sergeant were made up of “blacks who have a lower education and intelligence.” Dayan also added, the U.S. Army “is made up only of volunteers. They have to insure that better blood and brains go to their forces.” Rev. Jackson responded to Dayan with a stiff telegram that reportedly stated, “If these quotes are accurate, black Americans consider such comments unkind, insensitive and an insult. I would remind you that it was Dr. Ralph Bunche, the first black U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, that negotiated the pact that made Israel a legal entity in 1948. For his efforts he won a Nobel Prize.”

Is there a connection between Dayan’s expressed view of the intelligence of Blacks and the refusal of Menachem Begin to meet with Rev. Jackson back then? And what of the view that Dayan, Charles de Gaulle (President of France), Nelson Rockefeller, and Liberace are depicted as having toward the Honorable Elijah Muhammad in a 1964 Esquire magazine cartoon? There, it is framed that Mr. Muhammad should be “liquidated” because he was a threat to their future.

One of the things that made Rev. Jackson so powerful in 1979 was his open threat—in response to Israeli Prime Minister Begin’s rejection of him—that Black political support for the state of Israel was negotiable. The September 25, 1979, edition of the Washington Post reported:

“While repeatedly stressing that Israel can trust the United States and that black Americans will defend the Jewish state’s right to exist, Jackson warned that blacks represent a ‘political reality that Israel should not ignore. We do have 17 congressmen. We do have 15 million eligible voters. We are the difference in presidential elections,’ Jackson declared at a press conference at Ben Gurion International Airport. Pointedly noting that Israel receives more U.S. aid than ‘the whole African continent,’ Jackson said, ‘I would hope that Mr. Begin’s rejection of us does not indicate that he rejects that which we have to offer. We have tax money to offer, we have votes to offer, we have moral support to offer,’ Jackson said.”

Jude Wanniski with the Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan

Political Economist Jude Wanniski saw Minister Louis Farrakhan in this very context, believing that the Israeli lobby feared it was possible that Minister Farrakhan might one day cause Blacks to become more independent-minded in their political outlook, impacting U.S. foreign policy.

Recounting his first meeting with Minister Farrakhan on December 13, 1996, Mr. Wanniski wrote, “I expressed my belief that Jewish leaders fear that he could lead the black electorate away from the Democratic Party and into opposition of support for Israel.

As to the charge of him being anti-Semitic, Wanniski wrote, “His conflict with the Jewish Lobby is political, not religious or social, which is why Min. Farrakhan can insist he is not anti-Semitic or bigoted or a purveyor of hate, and I can agree with him on that.”

What Mr. Wanniski wrote is very insightful. Yet there’s more that can be expressed about the not so much religious but theological aspect of this conflict. And of the social aspects, it is critically important to note that Black–Jewish relations were deteriorating years before Minister Farrakhan’s involvement in the campaign of Rev. Jackson (more on that in a subsequent writing).

In two tweets I recently offered an opinion regarding the ultimate aim of the misapplication of the anti-Semitic label where Minister Farrakhan is concerned. Here they are:





Cedric Muhammad

March 26, 2018

(first begun on December 9, 2017)


Cedric Muhammad is an Economist and Member of The Nation of Islam’s Research Team

Tamika Mallory, the  ADL, & the Hypocrisy of the Anti-Black Zionists!

Minister Farrakhan and Ms. Mallory.

For the past month, Women’s March Co-organizer Tamika Mallory has faced relentless criticism for doing what millions and millions of African-Americans have done for decades and generations of their lives: she attended a speech by Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan.

While speaking, Minister Farrakhan made remarks which have been criticized for being anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).  When asked about these statements, Ms. Mallory stated: “I think people have to ask Minister Farrakhan about his views. I’m not responsible for Minister Farrakhan, nor am I a spokesperson for him.” [1]

She continued by stating, “What I do know is that I’ve worked with Minister Farrakhan for many years to address some of the ills in the Black community, where we’ve transformed lives… In those areas we have been able to work together. As it relates to some of the statements he has made and some of his personal views, people have to ask him about that.” [2]

Organizations such as the ADL refused to accept this and took to Twitter and other social media to criticize not only Ms. Mallory but other Black leaders who would dare share the same breathing space as Minister Farrakhan.                                             

The ADL has further called for Ms. Mallory to resign from her position in the Women’s March. The ADL complains, ”Tamika Mallory, one of the leaders of the Women’s March, who got a special shout-out from Farrakhan and who regularly posts laudatory pictures of him on her Instagram account — as does Carmen Perez, another leader of the March.“ [3]

Yet, former ADL director Abe Foxman has appeared in several photographs smiling with Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres, a man who offered to sell apartheid South Africa a long-range missile called the burglar. [4]

Former ADL director Abe Foxman takes picture with Shimon Peres, who once advocated that Apartheid South Africa needed ”More Modern Weapons.”

After signing a defense agreement with apartheid South Africa in 1975, Peres proudly posed in a photograph with Hendrik Van Den Berg, who was known as the most feared man in South Africa due to his role in mass-murdering Black, anti-apartheid activists. [5]  

Why didn’t the ADL attack Peres with as much tenacity for taking a photo with Hendrik van den Bergh, as they did Ms. Mallory for uploading a photograph with Farrakhan?

Despite Peres appearing in a photo with a mass-murderer of Black people and his role in arming apartheid South Africa, the ADL once hosted a celebration where they provided Peres with the distinguished statesmen award, claiming Peres changed the world for the better. [6]

Foxman asserted, “Just think of the diverse contributions Shimon Peres has made to mankind.” [7] It would appear the ADL does not hold itself to the same standard it seeks to impose upon Ms. Mallory.  Foxman has also  shared platforms and taken photographs with former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who believed that the racist white settlers in apartheid South Africa needed,”more modern weapons.” [8]  Was there any outcry about this appearance? No. 

 ADL’s role in Anti-Black Violence

In the Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, Sasha Polakow-Suransky writes: “As the anti-apartheid campaign turned its attention to Israeli links with South Africa, the ADL entered the propaganda fray, publically attacking Nelson Mandela’s ANC with arguments that mirrored those of hardline security officials in Pretoria.” [9]  Indeed, instead of repudiating Peres for signing a defense agreement with Apartheid South Africa, in 1986, the then national director of the ADL, Nathan Perlmutter, co-authored an article defending apartheid and South Africa’s President P.W. Botha, while denouncing Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress as “totalitarian, anti-humane, anti-democratic, anti-Israel and anti-American.” [10]  If the ADL had been aware of Nelson Mandela’s photograph with Minister Farrakhan, given their history, the ADL would have probably used that to call for Nelson Mandela to step down from his position. 

The ADL even dispatched spies throughout the United States to monitor groups working to end apartheid in South Africa. [11] Working as a spy for the ADL, Roy Bullock passed on data he collected on anti-apartheid activists to the racist intelligence agency of Apartheid South Africa. [12]

After this repugnant history, it’s absolutely absurd for the ADL to even posture as though it’s a credible civil rights organization when they have not  made any acknowledgment or amends with Black communities for their decision to support white murderous rule in apartheid South Africa.

The Israeli Defense Force vs the Nation of Islam

Whilst criticizing Ms. Mallory for associating with the NOI, the ADL in events such as “National Counter-Terrorism Seminar in Israel” [13] demonstrates it is more than willing to associate and even promote the Israeli defense force, an  organization that has a demonstrated track record of actual physical violence against Black people.

A 1984 U.N. report titled “Recent developments concerning relations between Israel and South Africa” states that the Israeli defense force’s “Collaboration with bantustans in military and police affairs is alarming because the racist regime of South Africa has utilized the bantustans as tools of oppression and suppression against the people of South Africa.” [14]

The Bantustans were systematically designed to confine the socio-economic mobility of Black people and ensure that Black people remained a permanent underclass and cheap labor source for white people. By any objective standard, the Israeli “defense”  force should be classified as a hate group for policing the bantustans of apartheid South Africa.

The ADL is upset that Ms. Mallory attended a Nation of Islam event, an organization whose members are forbidden to carry weapons—even a pen knife. In contrast, Peres provided apartheid South Africa with brutal weapons used to kill Black people.

A CIA memo titled ”Israel’s relationship with Apartheid South Africa” revealed that Israel under Peres’ leadership provided apartheid, South Africa with piloted reconnaissance drones, galil assault rifles, 155m howitzer kits, and the Israeli defense force provided technical assistance to modernize apartheid South Africa’s mirage 3 fighter aircraft. Israel also provided riot control equipment, including gas masks and tear gas training programs, to apartheid South Africa. [15] These weapons were utilized to kill Black people.

The Nation of Islam is currently characterized by the ADL as a “hate group,” despite a lack of history of actual hate crimes. In contrast, the Israeli defense force, whom the ADL is affiliated with, has a documented and undeniable history of facilitating state terrorism against Black people.

During the height of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Lekgau Mathabane, the head of Soweto’s Committee of Ten, an anti-apartheid civil rights organization, proclaimed: “A friend of the South Africa government cannot be a friend of the Black…. Israel also supplies arms to South Africa and South Africa uses those arms for killing Black people and even children three years old. You don’t  expect any Black person to be happy with that type of thing.” [16]

Why is it acceptable for Foxman to snap photos with Peres but a Ms. Mallory instagram post with Minister Farrakhan results in a national uproar? Given the anti-Black violence of the Israeli military, the ADL’s decision to promote the Israeli defense force is far worse and worthy of condemnation than Ms. Mallory’s decision to attend a Nation of Islam event.  

Anti-racist activist Tim Wise stated, “Perhaps when white folks begin to show as much concern for the bigoted statements and, more to the point, murderous actions of white political leaders as we show over the statements of Louis Farrakhan, then we’ll deserve to be taken seriously in this thing we call a ‘national dialogue on race’.” [17]

When Will the ADL condemn the Anti-Black Zionists?

Another immense double standard was revealed when Chief Rabbi of Israel Yitzhak Yosef referred to Black people as “Monkeys.” [18]  The characterization of Black people as monkeys is no light matter; it is rooted in Black people being portrayed as subhuman, and it is the very ideology that rationalized colonialism and the enslavement of Black people.

Yet the most the ADL did was issue a watered-down tweet claiming it was “racially charged,” as opposed to explicitly anti-Black. [19]  There were no calls for any particular individuals who were in the audience who attended the speech to resign from their places of employment. Moreover, the ADL has devoted a significantly larger amount of tweets indicting Minister Farrakhan, compared to one watered-down version condemnation of Rabbi Yitzhak. There was not even a call or pressure by the ADL to have Rabbi Yitzhak step down from his position as chief rabbi of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu with the Chief Rabbi of Israel who has called Black people ”monkeys.” When will the ADL pressure Netanyahu to resign for his association with a racist?

While Zionist Lobby groups have called for Senator Maxine Waters to resign for a video showing her warmly embracing Minister Farrakhan, there have been no calls for Netanyahu to step down as Israeli prime minister for photographs showing him shaking hands with the anti-Black rabbi, Yitzhak Yosef.

The reality of the Anti-Black Zionists

The anti-Black zionist groups such as the ADL place the state of Israel over Black lives. Given the ADL’s role in supporting apartheid in South Africa [20], it is not to be taken seriously as a civil rights organization. The ADL has no authority to tell Ms. Mallory or any other Black leader who they can associate with.  Instead of focusing on her decision to attend a speech by Minister Farrakhan and stalking her social media for Minister Farrakhan photos, the ADL should be seeking forgiveness and atonement from the Black community for their complicity in being anti-Black.


[The NOI Research Group thanks Brother Hakeem Muhammad for permission to publish this article. The original is posted here: https://muhammadhakeem.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/tamika-mallory-the-adl-the-hypocrisy-of-the-anti-black-zionists/]



[1] Refinery29.com. (2018). Women’s March Organizers Accused Of Anti-Semitism—Again. [online] Available at: https://www.refinery29.com/2018/03/192438/tamika-mallory-nation-of-islam-louis-farrakhan-speech-2018-anti-semitism-womens-march?bucketed=true [Accessed 29 Mar. 2018]. 

[2] IBID

[3]  “Women’s March Leaders Refuse to Condemn Farrakhan after Antisemitic Speec.” The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com, 4 Mar. 2018, www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Womens-March-leaders-refuse-to-condemn-Farrakhan-after-antisemitic-speech-544074.

[4] The Israeli Connection: Whom Israel Arms and why By Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, pg. 63.

[5]   “The Tall Assassin Sparks New Interest in Apartheid Atrocities.” Penguin SA @ Sunday Times Books LIVE, penguin.bookslive.co.za/blog/2009/10/16/the-tall-assassin-sparks-new-interest-in-apartheid-atrocities/.

[6] Presentation of the ADL Distinguished Statesman Award to Shimon Peres.” Anti-Defamation League, www.adl.org/news/article/presentation-of-the-adl-distinguished-statesman-award-to-shimon-peres.

[7] IBID

[8] Middleton, Drew. “SOUTH AFRICA NEEDS MORE ARMS, ISRAELI SAYS.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Dec. 1981, www.nytimes.com/1981/12/14/world/south-africa-needs-more-arms-israeli-says.html. 

[9] Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 209 

[10] Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 234 

[11] Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 209

[12] IBID

[13] “National Counter-Terrorism Seminar in Israel.” Anti-Defamation League, www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/law-enforcement-trainings/national-counter-terrorism-seminar.

[14]   Special Reports of the Special Committee Against Apartheid: Recent developments concerning relations between Israel and South Africa. http://repository.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/64451/A_39_22_Add.1%3bS_16814_Add.1-EN.pdf?sequence=21&isAllowed=y)

[15]   Israel’s Relationship With South Africa, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP06T00412R000606480008-9.pdf

[16] Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 187. 

[17] “Farrakhan Is Not the Problem: The Arrogance and Absurdity of America’s Racial Litmus Test.” Tim Wise, 24 Aug. 2010, www.timwise.org/2008/05/farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-the-arrogance-and-absurdity-of-americas-racial-litmus-test/.

[18] Osborne, Samuel. “Israeli Chief Rabbi Calls Black People ‘Monkeys’.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 22 Mar. 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-cheif-rabbi-black-people-monkeys-yitzhak-yosef-talmud-sephardic-a8267666.html.

[19] IBID

[20]  Polakow-Suransky, Sasha. The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa. Vintage Books, 2011. 209 

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.