In his essay, Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White, James Baldwin explains the constant state of Black protest for self-assertion as compared to the Jew's:  The Jew's suffering is recognized as part of the moral history of the world and the Jew is recognized as a contributor to the world's history: this is not true for the blacks.


Jewish history, whether or not one can say it is honored, is certainly known: the black history has been lasted, maligned, and despised  the Jew is a white man, and when white men rise up against oppression, they are heroes: when black men rise, they have reverted to their native savagery.


The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was not described as a riot, nor were the participants maligned as hoodlums: the boys and girls in Watts and Harlem are thoroughly aware of this, and it certainly contributes to their attitude toward the Jews.


But of course, my comparison of Watts and Harlem with the Warsaw Ghetto will be immediately dismissed as outrageous.  There are many reasons for this, and one of them is that while America loves white heroes, armed to the teeth, it cannot abide bad niggers.  But the bottom reason is that it contradicts the American dream to suggest that any gratuitous, unregenerate horror can happen here.  We make our mistakes, we like to think, but we are getting better all the time.

Arrest Of 5 Youth In The West Bank Causes Uproar In Jewish Settler Community



On April 20, 1969, eighty members of the Afro-American Society (AAS) marched out of Cornell University's Willard Straight Hall with their fists raised in Black Power salutes.  The students held up rifles, while the AAS minister of defense wore a bandoleer of bullets across his chest.  As the day wore on, the AAS, the Students for a Democratic Society, and several radical faculty members declared that they would seize other buildings.

The Cornell faculty initially vetoed making any concessions to the Afro-American Society.  As the standoff continued, the faculty split into two factions.  One, led by President Perkins, wanted to reach an agreement with the students.  The other led by Straussianism: Professors Allan Bloom, Walter Berns, Werner J. Dannhauser and their students.  For them, the idea of treating with the protesting students was tantamount to appeasement.  They wanted to face down the rebellious students.  Ultimately, they had a heroic conception of history with themselves in a Churchillian role.


Donald Kagan, a professor of classics at Cornell who vehemently disagreed with the Straussians, [whose leader was Paul Wolfowitz—G.W. Bush's administration], about the nature of political science, nonetheless saw eye to eye with Bloom on the issue of radicalism.  During the events at Cornell, he understood for the first time how the Nazis could have come to power through mob violence.  Bloom declare that the Cornell student uprising was nothing less than a repetition of the ominous events that took place in Weimar Germany.

Heilbrunn notes that the importance of the radical attack on the universities for the neoconservatives cannot be exaggerated.  For striving Jewish immigrants, the universities had represented an oasis.  Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and the new Straussians camp were enraged by the Let's antics at Columbia, Cornell, Berkeley, Harvard, and elsewhere.  So were traditional social democrats like Daniel Bell.

The demands of Black radicals for race-based affirmative action came as a particular shock.   The Jews had experienced a Jewish quota; were the Blacks now, perversely, to insist on a special quota for themselves?  Was merit to be supplanted by skin color?  [Skin color, or the absence there-of had always determined the merit of entrance into the America Dream.]

As Jews the neoconservatives felt personally menaced by these developments, which therefore served to unify them despite their differences.  Nathan Glazer [a Negrotologist, i.e. an expert on Negroes and Negro life borrowed from Mein Kampf] attacked the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, which would be the source of the student uprisings in coming years.  In December 1964 they took over the administration building, and several hundred were arrested.

It was the beginning of a protest against American society itself for its conformism and banality.  Glazer denounced the New Left, declaring, “Anti-Semitism is only a part of this whole syndrome, for it the members of the middle class do not deserve to hold on to their property. Their positions, or even their lives, then certainly the Jews, the most middle-class of all, are going to be placed at the head of the column marked for liquidation.”  This is an extraordinary passage, invoking as it does, the fear of Jews being stripped of their possessions, herded into ghettos, and shipped off to concentration camps.

Of course, the Jews were never in such danger.

Future Of Women's March Uncertain As Tensions Flare Among Movement's Leadership


NPR's Mary Louise Kelly speaks with Farah Stockman of The New York Times about the state of the Women's March movement amidst tensions within its national leadership.


Michael Lerner and Cornel West dialog on Jewish-Black relationship in Jews and Blacks: Let The Healing Begin (1995) where Lerner states that in order to build the kind of alliances we, [Blacks and Jews] need to change the situation of the oppressed, we need to bring into the Movement people who don't share the same kinds of oppression.  Otherwise you'll never have the political clout to end police brutality, because it will remain a concern of a minority of Americans.


Lerner declares that he is not saying that we should deny the actual differences that exist in our economic circumstances, but rather I'm asking, “Where should we place the emphasis?”  And that question does not ask for 'an objective account of reality,' because reality is multilayered and complex and would take an eternity to adequately describe—but rather, it is a question that asks, “By what principle should we decide what aspects of reality to give our primary focus?”


To which his answer is “those aspects most conducive to empowering us to heal, repair, and transform the world in ways that will maximize our ethical and spiritual and liberatory capacities.”  When you cut up the world that way, introduce categories using that as the criterion for which categories to emphasize, then you immediately see why “whiteness” itself is a problematic category, and why, at very least, liberals and progressives should insist that Jews are not white.


Today there are well-financed groups who are attempting to move the Jewish world even further to the Right, [and they have succeeded].  Elliot Abrams, the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz and Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Central American Affairs, who left government after having been implicated in the dishonesty surrounding the arming of the Contras, has joined with many other Jewish neocons to champion conservative politics inside the Jewish world.


They bought an ad on the op-ed page of the New York Times in December 1994, in which they congratulated Newt Gingrich and argued that traditional Jewish values favor conservatism.... The triumph of conservatism that these neocons are attempting to facilitate will further polarize the society, give greater credence to fascistic and anti-Semitic forces that have always found their primary base of support within the right and its anti-immigrant, racist, and xenophobic nationalist proclivities.


By the time these right-wing Jews realize what they've wrought, America may be plunged into a resurgence of hatred and reaction far more pernicious than anything we've experienced since the thirties.  Although they represent only a small percentage of American Jews, their impact is magnified because they represent the worldview of the riches Jews, they can fund their magazines and political organizations, their circles have disproportionate access to the most influential media, and they are overly represented among orthodox Jews and Jews in positions of leadership in the organized Jewish community.


The power of these neocons is increased the more that Jews tend to think of themselves and their interest as indistinguishable from that of the majority of American middle-class suburban white.


As Michael Lerner stated, the neocons have “access to the most influential media,” and this includes control of the book publishing medium, and they knew how to use “expert” pseudo-scientific-race theory propaganda to cast doubt on the intelligence of the Negro.  Books were written by Jewish social-scientists and their fellow neoconservative travelers (like Daniel Patrick Moynihan).  As an act of revenge for the Black Power Movement, the neoconservatives led by Irving Kristol, used and re-popularized the pseudo-race science of the 19th century.  Thus placing African Americans in a self-defensive stance that continues in the 21st century.


All of these texts would have been instantly discredited if African Americans had read Mein Kampf (most Blacks would have seen this as a betrayal).  Self-doubt and loyalty--thinking that the Jewish community, because of our common history of oppression, was “the best friend of the Negro,” prevented a reading of Mein Kampf as merely a book of Jewish hatred, instead of a book of defense against racist propaganda: friends don't deceive friends, instead Blacks were encouraged to read the Bible and identify with the Jews and his/her suffering. 


But as James Baldwin has pointed out: Jews were White and Negroes are not.


The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life is a 1994 book by psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray, in which the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and that it is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status. They also argue that those with high intelligence, the "cognitive elite", are becoming separated from those of average and below-average intelligence. The book was controversial, especially where the authors wrote about racial differences in intelligence and discussed the implications of those differences.

Shortly after its publication, many people rallied both in criticism and defense of the book. A number of critical texts were written in response to it.


The Bell Curve, published in 1994, was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray to explain the variations in intelligence in American society, warn of some consequences of that variation, and propose social policies for mitigating the worst of the consequences. The book's title comes from the bell-shaped normal distribution of intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in a population.

Media reception

The Bell Curve received a great deal of media attention. The book was not distributed in advance to the media, except for a few select reviewers picked by Murray and the publisher, which delayed more detailed critiques for months and years after the book's release.[8] Stephen Jay Gould, reviewing the book in The New Yorker, said that the book "contains no new arguments and presents no compelling data to support its anachronistic social Darwinism" and said that the "authors omit facts, misuse statistical methods, and seem unwilling to admit the consequence of their own words."[9]

A 1995 article by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting writer Jim Naureckas criticized the media response, saying that "While many of these discussions included sharp criticisms of the book, media accounts showed a disturbing tendency to accept Murray and Herrnstein's premises and evidence even while debating their conclusions".[10]

After reviewers had more time to review the book's research and conclusions more significant criticisms begin to appear.[8] Nicholas Lemann, writing in Slate, said that later reviews showed the book was "full of mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to mis-citations of sources to outright mathematical errors."[8] Lemann said that "Unsurprisingly, all the mistakes are in the direction of supporting the authors' thesis."[8]

Peer review

Herrnstein and Murray were criticized for not submitting their work to peer review before publication, an omission many have seen as incompatible with their presentation of it as a scholarly text.[8][11] A writer at the online publication Slate magazine complained that the book was not circulated in galley proofs, a common practice to allow potential reviewers and media professionals an opportunity to prepare for the book's arrival.[12] Many scholarly responses to the book arrived late. Richard Lynn (1999) wrote that "The book has been the subject of several hundred critical reviews, a number of which have been collected in edited volumes,"[13] suggesting that the book's lack of peer review had not prevented it from becoming the subject of subsequent academic commentary. Over two decades after its publication, one set of scholarly authors stated that The Bell Curve contained ". . . very little information that has since come into question by mainstream scholars. . . . The Bell Curve is not as controversial as its reputation would lead one to believe (and most of the book is not about race at all)."[14]

Mainstream Science on Intelligence

Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed "Mainstream Science on Intelligence",[15] an opinion statement endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal. Of the 131 who were invited by mail to sign the document, 100 responded, with 52 agreeing to sign and 48 declining. Eleven of the 48 who declined to sign claimed that the statement or some part thereof did not represent the mainstream view of intelligence.[15][16]


In Beyond the Melting Pot (1963), sociologists (Irish-American) Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Nathan Glazer posited that African Americans had no culture.  Because all their culture was appropriated as slaves from their masters; therefore, they had no culture to protect.  This was determined from Glazer's collaboration with David Riesman in Faces in the Crowd: Individual Studies In Character And Politics (1952).  Riesman and Glazer posit that in America, too many alternatives are evident—evident even to the most isolated, the dullest, the most oppressed or the most satisfied.  There are no real traditions to which to conform; only false traditions, that is ideologies.

The case of the American-born Negro is somewhat different.  The temptation to revert is present—witness the Negro Moslems, the Negro Jews of Harlem, the vanishing Garveyites—but as these very movements show, there is no fixed tradition, no church, no “nationalism” to revert to.  When the Negro becomes concerned about his race—and even the most oppressed and ignorant are so concerned.... This is not reversion, but in terms of character a step forward to a modern, inner-directed attitude. 


It is the Negro's tragedy—and perhaps eventually his blessing—that he possess no full Negro culture to return to; this was destroyed in the voyages of the slave ships, which disrupted families and threw together Negroes from many different tribal cultures. 


What was created here, in the South, was largely a caricature of white culture, as mediated by the house slaves and freedom; for most Negroes this blend could have no high status and only a very few elements (spirituals, jazz, and some aspects of religion) could possess even an ambiguous value as “Negro tradition.”  Thus, while our interviews in Harlem include a number with Negro women who had a fatalistic, accepting, and quiescent outlook on life... It cannot be said that this represents either survival of or return to tradition-direction as full-blown mode of conformity; what it does represent we shall try to see hereafter.


Views: 32

Comment by mary gravitt on January 9, 2019 at 2:13pm

The relationship between African Americans and Jews is complicated.  But this does not prevent a union to destroy a common enemy who is out to destroy us both.  The Zionists are playing a dangerous game in their Good For Israel Policy, but that is their choice.  But in the end it shall came to naught because Trump is a greedy deciever as well as his White Evangical backers.  But those are choices.

Comment by moki ikom on January 9, 2019 at 4:53pm

The relationship between Jews and Jews is complicated, some are Zionazi some are not.  I suspect there are exponentially more Christian Zionazi than Jewish Zionazi and even more secular Zionazi than Christian Zionazi.  Saudi and UAE royals could be Sunni Zionazi and there probably are virtually zero Shia Zionazi.

Torah Jews are not Zionazi, are not Zionist:



You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon


Greeting of the Day

Posted by Ron Powell on June 16, 2019 at 10:08am 0 Comments

Go Big or Go Home

Posted by Ron Powell on June 16, 2019 at 9:30am 2 Comments

Waiting And Seeing

Posted by Robert B. James on June 16, 2019 at 7:29am 1 Comment

Leaving the Purple House

Posted by J.P. Hart on June 15, 2019 at 9:30pm 2 Comments

As Luck Would Have It

Posted by Robert B. James on June 15, 2019 at 3:04pm 1 Comment

© 2019   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service