Black Frankenstein Turns on its Jewish Creators

/
Black Frankenstein.jpg

Once again Michael Brown has held me responsible for attacks on Jews. Last year it was Pittsburgh and Poway. This time it was Jersey City and Monsey, New York. In order to make these accusations sound plausible against me, a man who prefaced virtually every YouTube video he ever posted on the Jewish Question with the statement “no one has the right to harm the Jew,”[1] Brown had to confect an overarching principle known as “Christian anti-Semitism,” to condemn me for what I did not say. “Christian anti-Semitism” turns out to be an oxymoron if we construe it racially or a straight forward reading of the Scriptures if we change the term to “anti-Jewish.”

Brown’s solution to the problem is banning hate speech as the ADL defines that term. That means de-platforming people like me. One day after Sasha Baron Cohen gave his speech calling for Internet censorship, the ADL issued a list of ten people who needed to be de-platformed immediately, and out of the literally billions of people on this planet who make use of social media platforms like Youtube and Facebook I had the distinction of being one of the ten people who were singled out by name. 

If the ADL were smart, they would have left me in the realm of “dynamic silence,” where I have been languishing for years. But—pace, Jared Taylor—Jews aren’t smart. Heinrich Graetz, the father of Jewish historiography, laid that “canard” (one of the ADL’s favorite terms) to rest in Volume V of his history of the Jews when he wrote that the morality of Polish Jews, who constituted the majority of that people on this earth, had been corrupted by their “scholarship,” because scholarship meant the study of the Talmud, which taught them how to lie, steal from, and cheat the goyim. “Love of twisting, distorting, ingenious quibbling, and a foregone antipathy to what did not lie within their field of vision,” Graetz wrote, “constituted the character of the Polish Jews. Pride in their knowledge of the Talmud and a spirit of dogmatism attached even to the best rabbis, and undermined their moral sense. The Polish Jews of course were extraordinarily pious but even their piety rested on sophistry and boastfulness.”[2]

Either way, this category of Brown’s mind was too complicated to serve as a plausible explanation, which is why the media ignored Brown and came up with their own idea of the source of the problem in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. According to their reading, the cause of anti-Semitism is white racism. White people are the problem, and restricting their ability to speak and assemble is the solution. 

If we look into what has been happening in New York City lately, we discover that the details reveal a completely different story, primarily because all of the perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence so far have been Black. The Jersey City attack which left four people dead was perpetrated by a bizarre religious sect known as the Black Hebrew Israelites.[3] The Hanukkah attack in Monsey was carried out by a machete wielding Black psycho who had stopped taking his meds. Beyond that there were the attacks which were too trivial to make the headlines. Surveillance camera footage captured the image of an obviously Jewish Hasid, a group locally known as “beards,” having a chair thrown at him by three Blacks while walking down a street in Brooklyn. Incident after incident reveals a huge reservoir of Black-Jewish animosity, but nothing even remotely resembling white racism. 

Sensing the collapse of an important paradigm, Jewish pundits rushed in to impose damage control so that they could regain control of the narrative. Commentary magazine, a publication of the American Jewish Committee, portrayed every attempt to explain what was happening by the locals as an attempt to blame the victim, claiming that “anti-Orthodox sentiments” in New York State “have been a bipartisan affair as politicians blame Orthodox Jews for overdevelopment and gentrification, and commentators even argue that the increasing size of Hasidic communities will “foster prejudice” and anti-Semitism—in short, blaming anti-Semitism on Jews themselves.[4]

MV5BNzUwMDI2M2EtYTUwZS00MzJmLWEzZWItYzM0ZGJiZGE5NGYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQ1MTYzNzY@._V1_.jpg

The explanations from the locals, however, have more plausibility than the claims of the ADL alleging uncaused anti-Semitism. Jersey City council member Joan Terrell Page laid the blame for that city’s attack on overzealous “brutes of the Jewish community” who were so aggressive in approaching “Black homeowners” who “were threatened, intimidated, and harassed by Jews telling them I WANT TO BUY YOUR HOUSE” that the city council had to pass a “no knock” ordinance to protect home owners from harassment.[5] The Associated Press got accused, at least implicitly, of promoting anti-Semitism for reporting that “Orthodox communities had taken advantage of open space and cheaper housing to establish modern-day versions of the European shtetls where their ancestors lived for centuries before the Holocaust,” leading to “flare-ups of rhetoric seen by some as anti-Semitic.” Joan Coaston, the author of an article in Vox, finds it hard to believe that “anti-Semitic violence with rocks and machetes logically stems from disputes over housing stock,” but the idea is hardly far-fetched. 

norman-podhoretz.jpg

Norman Podhoretz

One of the most famous articles ever published in Commentary was “My Negro Problem, and Ours,”[6] written by Norman Podhoretz, its editor and a man who would go on to become one of the founding fathers of neoconservatism. Written in 1963 at the high water mark of the Black-Jewish alliance that created the Civil Rights movement, Podhoretz’s article described Black violence against Jews in graphic detail from personal experience beginning in grade school: 

I think there was a day—first grade? second grade?—when my best friend Carl hit me on the way home from school and announced that he wouldn’t play with me any more because I had killed Jesus. When I ran home to my mother crying for an explanation, she told me not to pay any attention to such foolishness, and then in Yiddish she cursed the goyim and the Schwartzes, the Schwartzes and the goyim. Carl, it turned out, was a schwartze, and so was added a third to the categories into which people were mysteriously divided.[7]

Podhoretz writes as a deeply conflicted liberal, who defines himself as white—“To the Negroes, my white skin was enough to define me as the enemy, and in a war it is only the uniform that counts and not the person.”—but who hates Blacks primarily because he is a Jew: 

The hatred I still feel for Negroes is the hardest of all the old feelings to face or admit, and it is the most hidden and the most overlarded by the conscious attitudes into which I have succeeded in willing myself. It no longer has, as for me it once did, any cause or justification (except, perhaps, that I am constantly being denied my right to an honest expression of the things I earned the right as a child to feel). How, then, do I know that this hatred has never entirely disappeared? I know it from the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism.[8]

In framing the issue this way, Podhoretz differs from James Baldwin and Fiorella LaGuardia, both of whom described the Harlem riots of 1937 as a black-white conflict, when in fact it was a Black-Jewish conflict, brought about largely by the predatory behavior of Jewish merchants. Baldwin’s message, according to Podhoretz, is this: “Color is not a human or personal reality; it is a political reality.” This is certainly true, but it is also beside the point. Behind categories of the mind lie categories of reality like Jew. To attribute behavioral characteristics to skin color is a fantasy, but to attribute behavioral characteristics to the people who look to the Talmud for spiritual guidance is not a fantasy projected on a blank slate; it is, as Heinrich Graetz pointed out, a description which corresponds to the reality of who these people are and why they act in a certain way.

Crown Heights Riot in New York City

Irving Horowitz, whose father’s hardware store survived the Harlem riots of 1937, described in his memoir how his family delighted in cheating the shvartzes especially around Christmastime when they brought their Christmas tree light bulbs into the store to be tested. In his book The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual, Harold Cruse exposed the Black vs. Jew animosity that simmered just beneath the surface of the purported class unity of the Communist Party in Harlem, where Jews used Black party members to advance a Jewish agenda. When I met the late Rev. Hiram Crawford, pastor of the Israel Methodist Church on the South Side of Chicago, I knew of him as a defender of the unborn and expected to talk to him about the impact of abortion on the Black community in Chicago, but he wanted to talk about the Jews and how they had cheated him when he bought the movie theater that then served as his church. 

Fully aware of this animosity, Podhoretz ends his essay on a prophetic note: 

Yet the tragic fact is that love is not the answer to hate—not in the world of politics, at any rate. Color is indeed a political rather than a human or a personal reality and if politics (which is to say power) has made it into a human and a personal reality, then only politics (which is to say power) can unmake it once again. But the way of politics is slow and bitter, and as impatience on the one side is matched by a setting of the jaw on the other, we move closer and closer to an explosion and blood may yet run in the streets.[9]

Hasidic Jew.jpg

Fifty-six years after the appearance of “My Negro Problem—and Ours,” Norman Podhoretz’s prophecy reached its uncanny yet literal fulfillment, and Commentary is now commenting on Jewish blood running in the streets of Brooklyn, Jersey City, and Monsey. In the wake of the Jersey City attacks, politicians fell all over themselves to see who could denounce anti-Semitism in the strongest terms. What they forgot to tell us is that the main cause of anti-Semitism in the Black community is Jewish behavior. The one thing that Commentary under the editorship of Norman Podhoretz then and under the editorship of his son John now have in common is the belief that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Jewish behavior. 

The testimony of a veteran Catholic journalist who has lived his entire life in New York disputes this claim. In his view, the root of the current wave of “anti-Semitism” is Jewish behavior in racially mixed communities like Brooklyn, where:

the beards behave as if they are a law unto themselves. We can do anything we want is their attitude and they have carved out large areas which would otherwise cost the government hundreds of millions of tax dollars to support blacks on welfare. 

The Jews believe that there is one rule for us and one rule for everyone else. They treat the blacks like animals, like inferior beings. One manifestation of this is that they drive like crazy as if they are off by themselves in the desert. As a result a Jew hit and killed a Black Jamaican by the name of Gavin Cato, in an automobile accident. When the Jew was allowed to leave the scene of the crime, four days of rioting ensued from August 19 to 23, 1991. One Jew was killed during the rioting, along with one Italian, who was dragged out of his car by a black mob after being mistaken for a Jew. The Jew was never put on trial because he escaped to Israel, which does not honor extradition treaties.

Our Catholic correspondent then gets more specific about the recent troubles in the New York area:

The cause of the most recent riots is the ADL, which doesn’t like the Beards. During the 1991 riots the ADL told the city to withhold police protection from the Beards, to send them a message. Because the cops stayed out of the area, a disturbance which could have been quelled in a matter of hours raged on for five days. The current attacks on Jews in Brooklyn have been orchestrated by the ADL because they are losing control of the public mind and the sympathy which Jews traditionally received from the Catholic ethnic population of New York. Even before the Jersey City incident, the ADL was orchestrating street incidents by provoking people with histories of mental disorders to attack people in the streets who were clearly visible as Jews, ie., the Beards, or the Orthodox. Attacking Jews became a street game which then gained momentum on its own without any outside orchestration. The ADL then used the attacks as a pretext for pushing hate crimes legislation, something they have been promoting for at least 40 years. The attacks then took on a life of their own. There is no need for outside agitation. There was plenty of resentment because of Jewish behavior: the landlords who quadruple rent to drive blacks out of their apartments, the stores which sell bad food. The Blacks know who they have to deal with every day, and it’s not Norwegians. 

This corresponds to the rise of Yuppies in black areas, who live off of borrowed money and can outspend the blacks when it comes to paying rent. Yuppies are not afraid of living in crime-infested areas. They go jogging in hot pants past the notorious Farragut housing project. The Yuppies gentrify the blacks out of their neighborhoods by outbidding their current residents, but everyone knows that the Jews own the buildings, collect the rent, and want blacks replaced by tenants who have more disposable income.

race_07.jpg

Black/Jewish conflict on display at the Crown Heights Riot in 1991

In addition to preferring yuppies as tenants, the Jews have pursued an open door immigration policy bringing in immigrants who undercut wages and drive Blacks from their apartments. They are then replaced by a second wave of yuppies and homosexuals who live on debt and who are defined by their credit ratings. These people are a banker’s dream and they get preferential treatment, which the Blacks resent.  This creates an explosive mixture. Black resentment results from getting pushed out but also from the daily grind of dealing with Jews. All of a sudden one guy goes crazy.

Because Black leaders are installed by the banks, there is no Black leadership, and because there is no leadership Blacks take the law into their own hands. The clearest manifestation of this lack of leadership is the predictable attempt to portray the current Jewish-Black conflict as an essentially racial conflict  between blacks and “whites.” In this regard, Al Sharpton has followed the example of James Baldwin, without Baldwin’s literary talent. Al Sharpton became famous for saying that David Dinkins “wore too many yarmulkes,”[10] but now he’s wearing one himself. Shortly after the Monsey attack, Sharpton assembled a group of Black ministers who issued a statement claiming that they were “terribly disturbed by the attacks by people of the African American community” without giving any indication that the Black community which these ministers represented had legitimate grievances. 

According to our Catholic source, the ADL has brought this calamity on itself. The Jews’ promotion of indiscriminate immigration, beginning with the Javitts bill of 1965, eroded the large, largely Catholic Middle Class of the 1950s which sympathized with Jewish plight during World War II.  Cardinal Spellman was in bed with the Zionists. It was his Midnight Flight to South America which got the votes in the United Nations to ratify the creation of the state of Israel. The once warm relations which the Catholics had with the Jews have been replaced by the indifference of low wage laborers from Central America who have never heard of the Holocaust and have more important things to think about, like making ends meet in low wage/high rent New York.

Leo Frank.jpg

The Lynching of Leo Frank

The cry of anti-Semitism is the surest sign that the big Jews want to divert our attention from the Jewish behavior which is its main cause. Since the founding of the ADL, they have linked anti-Semitism with racism. Beginning with the anti-lynching campaign in the south which followed the murder of Leo Frank, the ADL has used Blacks as proxy warriors to advance their agenda. The Black-Jewish alliance reached its pinnacle of power with Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement, but it collapsed almost immediately thereafter one year before King’s death when Harold Cruse’s book came out in 1967.

Liddell Hart could have predicted what was going to happen after that because irregular warfare always gets out of control, and every successful revolution leads to a civil war. The Jewish attempt to turn Blacks into revolutionaries succeeded. Together they conquered the South in the name of de-segregation, but in doing this they created, as Tom Watson predicted they would, their own version of Frankenstein’s monster, which is now turning on its creator. The Trotskys create the revolution, but the Bronsteins pay for it. The Jews behind the scenes make the revolution, but the Jews who are most visible because of their Orthodox dress pay for it on the streets of Brooklyn. 

amy-robbieWEB.jpg

Roberta Kaplan

As Roberta Kaplan’s lawsuits following the rally in Charlottesville showed, the Jews never abandoned their use of race to destroy their enemies. A crucial part of this plan was getting clueless goyim and secret Jew admirers to identify as white. This was a crucial element to the trap laid for the white boys in Charlottesville and the subsequent lawsuits because as soon as anyone admitted to being white he was admitting to being a racist, which meant it was easy to deny him the rights which the constitution guaranteed. 

We are now seeing that strategy collapse before our eyes because the main perpetrators of violence against Jews in New York, the Jewish capital of America, are without exception Black. We now have a civil war between two of the most privileged groups in identity politics. The conflict between Blacks and Jews is real, but it has no symbolic or moral value, which means that it must be ignored by the pundits who earn a living by fomenting lynch mobs to do the oligarchs’ bidding. Politicians like Bill de Blasio, whose wife is Black, are in a bind because Jewish groups like the ADL, which wants him to declare a state of emergency in New York, are demanding what would be tantamount to political suicide, which is what identifying the perpetrators of violence would mean. 

The Black/Jewish civil war means the end of Liberalism. The Left simply cannot condemn Blacks as anti-Semitic because it would cut the heart out of their program of identity politics. Similarly, Democratic politicians are completely incapable of stopping the random violence which has become a routine part of American life. This is why they support gun control. This is also why they support hate speech laws. It calms their most vocal critics, while at the same time doing nothing to solve the problem, which is again, Jewish behavior of the sort which Blacks complain about when their rent gets quadrupled by Jewish landlords. 

But, the Black-Jewish civil war also means the end of conservatism because it exposes the Jewish hand behind its funding. Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA has an annual budget of $24 million to promote oligarchic, i.e., Jewish, i.e., Koch brother interests. First Things engages in a more sophisticated form of the same thing, advancing the agenda of what that magazine has now taken to calling “Catholic Zionism.”[11] 

First Things editor R. R. (Rusty) Reno is married to a Jewish lawyer and committed to a form of Catholic-Jewish syncretism. Reno agreed to “have Jewish children, but they had to be raised with a Judaism that was more than occasional, and full-hearted, not half.”[12] Reno’s decision to raise his children as Jews preceded his conversion to Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church proclaims as one of its dogmas that Baptism is necessary for salvation, Reno’s decision would lead to soul-searching down the road, on his part and on the part of his daughter, who broke down at her Bat Mitzvah, “sobbing because her father, as a Gentile, cannot stand with her as she reads Torah.” Or was it because she cannot stand with the baptized on judgment day? “She was angry,” Reno writes, but “neither the rabbi, nor her mother, nor I could give her what she wanted. In fact, I did not want to give her what she wanted, for her desire was that obedience to God would not require the pain of renunciation, would not require the visible marks on our bodies....” And so as her brother was marked by his cut penis, she is marked by the bitter tears of separation from her father. And so, in the pews, “I feel the tears on my cheek, and the liquid fire of her voice [chanting Torah and] touching the lips of my unclean heart. O, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and knowledge of God!”

Renos1.jpg

The reality of Baptism as necessary for salvation has even made it to the editorial offices of America. “A more orthodox believer would say that while there may be two ways of seeing God, ultimately only one way can be correct.” The Renos, for example, know that they will have to reckon further with their theological differences, if not in this life then in the next. This means at the end of life, one spouse goes to heaven and the other to hell, or both go to hell along with their children. Is Baptism necessary for salvation? If so, you contributed to the damnation of your children. No wonder Reno’s daughter is angry. At his daughter’s bat mitzvah, Reno tells us that he was consumed with: 

self-doubt, a worry about the invisibility of my own faith.” Jews were marked by their faith, but was [Reno]? “Where had God’s commandment set me apart and marked me as Christ’s own? Did we—no, did I—make the commandments of God into empty ephemera, ‘spiritual’ and pious commitments that the currents of culture eroded and obliterated the moment I left the church?”

The short answer to that question is yes. First Things is proof of that. First Things was born out of theft. Richard John Neuhaus connived with Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz to steal a $250,000 Bradley Foundation grant earmarked for the paleocon Rockford Institute. Now First Things gets money from vulture capitalists like Paul Singer. The money flows from the Paul E. Singer Foundation to the Philos Project and ends up in Hertog Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC), which also receives funding from the Hertog foundation which contributes directly to First Things.[13] The CJCUC lists “Dr. Russell Ronald Reno” as one member of a “team of contributors” which has produced “academic works” like Covenant and Hope: Jewish and Christian Reflections, Plowshares into Swords: Reflections on Violence and Religion and Returning to Zion: Christian and Jewish Perspectives.[14] First Things then uses this money to advance the cause of “Catholic Zionism”[15] by conscripting Catholic human shields like John Waters and Patrick Deneen to write articles on other topics. 

The religious syncretism known as conservatism has been made obsolete by the zeitgeist. Turning Point USA speaker Glenn Beck recently defended pornography, probably at the behest of the oligarchs who fund him, unaware of the fact that the demographic he is being paid to control now understands the mechanism controlling them, as this recent e-mail to me points out: 

More than one year free of porn thanks to the encouragement of men like E. Michael Jones. Within a week or two I stopped lying completely and within the first two months I met a truly good, virtuous woman who I will soon make my wife. The combination of these things is no coincidence. Porn and lies make you blind to God and I’m so grateful to men like you, Dr. Jones, for helping me see. Logos is rising!

The same group of people who are waking up to the fact that sexual liberation is a form of political control are coming to an understanding that America’s wars in the Middle East are being fought for Israel’s benefit and not the benefit of the demographic which is being asked to fight them. In a recent Press TV interview on the crisis which followed the assassination of General Qassam Soleimani, I said that America was in that mess because “three rich Jews”—Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, and Paul Singer—convinced Donald Trump to tear up the nuclear deal. The Iranians, I continued, should keep this in mind if they have retaliation in mind and not attack Americans instead of the people responsible. One day later Binyamin Netanyahu said that Israel played no role in the attack on Iran. On the same day, Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah would attack Israel if the United States attacked Iran. One day later, the Iranian revolutionary guard attacked two American bases with precision missile strikes which left no Americans dead. Instead of responding by obliterating 52 sites in Iran, including cultural sites, which if attacked constituted a war crime, Donald Trump stepped back from the abyss of war and did nothing. I felt that I played no role in that sequence of events until I read Dexter van Zile’s attack on me one day later.[16] Van Zile is an employee of CAMERA, an Israeli propaganda front. I hold their condemnation of my attempts to bring peace to the Middle East in even higher esteem than the routine condemnations from the ADL.

This article has been reproduced online in its entirety from the March 2020 edition of Culture Wars Magazine. Please purchase a digital download, or become a subscriber to the magazine to help support our work!

Culture Wars: Volume 39 Issue 4
Culture Wars: Volume 39 Issue 4
$4.00
Add To Cart

Footnotes: