Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

What is Neo-Nazism?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Margret Sanger, a person obviously of little historical importance, did write “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Wanting to exterminate the Negro [sic] population does seem like something a Neo-Nazi would advocate.
    This sentence gets thrown around a bunch, but the problem is that in the context of the letter itself it doesn't really prove much. Is she saying that because she was trying to exterminate the Negro population and didn't want people to find out, or was she saying that they didn't want people to wrongly believe that was the goal due to misunderstandings? The letter itself doesn't offer any real context to which to judge it. Given that the letter says nothing else about actually trying to exterminate them, and I haven't seen real evidence elsewhere that was her plan, I think the latter interpretation--she was trying to prevent misunderstandings--was more plausible.

    She was definitely into eugenics, no doubt (in fairness, so were a lot of people then, in both liberal and conservative circles). But I haven't seen clear evidence that it was racially based. The fact people have to turn to such an ambiguous quote for proof is just an indication of how weak the proof for that claim must be.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      1) Aborting a foetus with Downs is ableism.

      2) Neo-nazis are ableists.

      3) Aborting a foetus with Downs is consistent with Neo-Nazism
      Shuny didn't ask what ideas could be compatable with neo naziism. He asked who else in today's politics could be considered a neonazi.

      Further, try to keep in mind that neo nazis also accept that eating food is good. But one cant then claim that everyone who thinks eating food is good is necessarily a Neo-Nazi.
      Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
      --- Paulo Coelho

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        This sentence gets thrown around a bunch, but the problem is that in the context of the letter itself it doesn't really prove much. Is she saying that because she was trying to exterminate the Negro population and didn't want people to find out, or was she saying that they didn't want people to wrongly believe that was the goal due to misunderstandings? The letter itself doesn't offer any real context to which to judge it. Given that the letter says nothing else about actually trying to exterminate them, and I haven't seen real evidence elsewhere that was her plan, I think the latter interpretation--she was trying to prevent misunderstandings--was more plausible.

        She was definitely into eugenics, no doubt (in fairness, so were a lot of people then, in both liberal and conservative circles). But I haven't seen clear evidence that it was racially based. The fact people have to turn to such an ambiguous quote for proof is just an indication of how weak the proof for that claim must be.
        Analysis of the remark about "the minister's work" (and similar remarks elsewhere) seems to indicate that it was the latter.

        Sanger was a lot of things but she was staunchly anti-abortion (kind of ironic considering what PP became), which was why she was so strongly in favor of birth control (in order to prevent abortions).

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

          Shuny didn't ask what ideas could be compatable with neo naziism. He asked who else in today's politics could be considered a neonazi.

          Further, try to keep in mind that neo nazis also accept that eating food is good. But one cant then claim that everyone who thinks eating food is good is necessarily a Neo-Nazi.
          "Ableism" is listed in the definition Shuny gave regarding Neo-Nazism. The Nazis used abortion of undesirables. There are countries that have virtually eliminated Downs voluntarily.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

            "Ableism" is listed in the definition Shuny gave regarding Neo-Nazism. The Nazis used abortion of undesirables. There are countries that have virtually eliminated Downs voluntarily.
            again, the fact Nazi's used abortion to eliminate what they considered inferior peoples does not mean supporters of abortion as a women's right qualify as Nazi's. In fact, it is almost certain they do not.

            Further, the op is about which politicians qualify as nazis. You won't find many, but they tend to be found in conservative ranks, not liberal.
            Don’t waste your time with explanations, people only hear what they want to hear.
            --- Paulo Coelho

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post


              So the Nazis were ablest when they executed Downs individuals, but if they had the technology to just kill the foetus, it would not have been ablest?

              So Black individuals being overrepresented in stats is not racist?




              Per Wiki:

              Neo-Nazism is a global phenomenon, with organized representation in many countries and international networks. It borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including antisemitism, ultranationalism, racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, anti-communism, and creating a "Fourth Reich". Holocaust denial is common in neo-Nazi circles.



              Per Wiki (the same source as your Neo-Nazism definition which includes ableism):

              Ableism (/ˈeɪbəlɪzəm/; also known as ablism, disablism (British English), anapirophobia, anapirism, and disability discrimination) is discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities or who are perceived to be disabled. Ableism characterizes people as defined by their disabilities and inferior to the non-disabled.[1]


              Terminating a Downs foetus seems rather discriminatory and prejudicial towards someone with disabilities.
              Reaching a conclusion beyond the definition.

              I responded to all this in previous posts and no more on abortion until you respond to the following:

              Not as Neo-Nazism is defined. It does not include specifically issues of abortion. If your logic is true therefore . . . By your logic and definition the history of Christianity and the Bible is Neo-Nazi. {Ableism as you are using it is too broad to be a subject of this thread.

              Still failing to respond


              Note: Christians throughout their European history commonly committed infanticide for various reasons including Downs syndrome.

              What are the qualifications of being a true agnostic?
              Look it up in the dictionary. you apparently do not know what it means to be an agnostic.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-04-2022, 12:03 AM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                The Nazis used abortion of undesirables.
                Your wording is messy.

                While abortion and birth control were both made illegal, an amendment to the 1935 sterilisation law allowed for abortions to be carried out on women who were considered "hereditarily ill". It was therefore the mother who was the primary target because of her "hereditary" condition.

                "It ain't necessarily so
                The things that you're liable
                To read in the Bible
                It ain't necessarily so
                ."

                Sportin' Life
                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  This sentence gets thrown around a bunch, but the problem is that in the context of the letter itself it doesn't really prove much. Is she saying that because she was trying to exterminate the Negro population and didn't want people to find out, or was she saying that they didn't want people to wrongly believe that was the goal due to misunderstandings? The letter itself doesn't offer any real context to which to judge it. Given that the letter says nothing else about actually trying to exterminate them, and I haven't seen real evidence elsewhere that was her plan, I think the latter interpretation--she was trying to prevent misunderstandings--was more plausible.

                  She was definitely into eugenics, no doubt (in fairness, so were a lot of people then, in both liberal and conservative circles). But I haven't seen clear evidence that it was racially based. The fact people have to turn to such an ambiguous quote for proof is just an indication of how weak the proof for that claim must be.
                  You are not only way OFF TOPIC avoiding the subject of the thread, but asserting fals accusations based on a biased agenda. Rogue06 gave a more accurate picture in post #33
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                    I have stayed within the confines of your source.
                    NO!
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      Citation needed.

                      I've certainly seen people refer to them as such, and cite things they say that are claimed to be Neo-Nazi-like. However, I was unable to find any statement by either of them actually saying they were Neo-Nazis, which is required for them to be self-proclaimed.
                      Kanye West advocated Nazism, antisemitism numerous times, particularly in his stated 'love' of Hitler.

                      Source: https://www.newsweek.com/kanye-west-hitler-comments-full-nazis-alex-jones-transcript-1764113



                      Kanye West has doubled down on his antisemitic comments in October and November, by voicing his "love" of Adolf Hitler and denying that the Holocaust happened.

                      West, who now goes by Ye, made his latest comments on Thursday during Alex Jones' InfoWars podcast, where even the host, an alt-right political figure, pushed back against the rapper's statements.

                      Many public figures have spoken out against Ye's remarks, while the Republican Jewish Coalition has said "enough is enough." It called the show, which also featured white supremacist Nick Fuentes, a "horrific cesspool of dangerous, bigoted Jew hatred."

                      West: I like Hitler.

                      Jones: I don't like Hitler. I know you're trying to be shocking with that.

                      West: I'm not trying to be shocking. I like Hitler. I do not... the Holocaust is not what happened. Let's look at the facts of that. Hitler has a lot of redeeming qualities

                      This is West's first insistence that the Holocaust is "not what happened." His new acquaintance Fuentes is a known Holocaust denier.

                      Jones: Can we just kind of say, like, you liked the uniforms, but that's about it?

                      West: No. There's a lot of things that I love about Hitler. A lot of things. Hey, Netin, what did you think about that Netin? 'This is insane. You're insane person.'

                      West elongates his speech when he says there are things he "loves" about Hitler. He makes his voice higher again as he impersonates Netanyahu as his net.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Actually just plain Nazism is a better matter of fact wording of what Kanye West believes.. Neo-Nazism is simply a descriptive term of Nazism beliefs after WWII.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-04-2022, 09:39 AM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                        Kanye West advocated Nazism, antisemitism numerous times, particularly in his stated 'love' of Hitler.
                        Anti-semitism has long had a not-insignificant presence among blacks. From Malcom X, to Louis Farrakhan, and Al Sharpton, and the multitudes who look to them as leaders.



                        Eunice G. Pollack

                        Introduction—In the Beginning

                        From the mid-1960s, barely a generation after the Holocaust—when corporate America had begun to hire Jews, universities had set aside their Jewish quotas, and covenants barring the sale of houses to Jews were disappearing—Black militants, often Black nationalists, began to mount a full-throated assault on Jews and the Jewish state. From these years until the present, polls regularly revealed not only significantly greater percentages of American Blacks than Whites endorsed antisemitic tropes, but that the animus was “strongest among younger, better-educated . . . blacks” (Schneider, 1984). A study conducted in 1970 ranked 73% of Blacks in their twenties, as opposed to 35% who were fifty and older, as high on its index of antisemitism. Unlike during the Civil Rights Movement, by 1978 a survey of “black leaders” found that 81% agreed that “Jews chose money over people” and in a 1975 poll, about two-thirds were “indifferent to whether Israel existed as a state” (Friedman, 1995). Overall assessments of the incidence of antisemitism among Blacks and Whites revealed stark differences: in 1981, 42% of Blacks, as opposed to 20% of Whites, agreed that “Jews have too much power in the United States” (Schneider, 1984). About a quarter century later, in 2005, the divide persisted: 36% of African Americans held “strong antisemitic beliefs”—four times the percentage of Whites (Anderson, 2005). The racial gulf was evident even within political categories: in 2020, 42% of “black liberals” versus 15% of “white liberals” endorsed antisemitic “stereotypes” (Sales, 2021).

                        Despite all the evidence of enduring Jew-hatred, few Black leaders openly condemned it, with many taking refuge behind the formula voiced by the African American novelist James Baldwin in 1972 that “the powerless, by definition, can never be ‘racists.’” Henry Louis Gates, Jr., chair of Harvard University’s African and African American Studies Department, recognized that this “slogan . . . would all too quickly serve as a blanket amnesty for our own . . . bigotries” (Gates, 1992). Indeed, currently, “anti-racist campaigners” continue to echo the dictum “Racism equals prejudice plus power.” As a result, the writer John-Paul Pagano explains that “even drooling Jew hatred . . . can get a pass if the antisemite first registers as a victim” (2016).

                        With this license, Black student activists provided the platforms from which militants/nationalists regularly delivered antisemitic harangues in arenas jammed with cheering—and a few jeering—students. At the University of Maryland in 1986, Kwame Ture (formerly, Stokely Carmichael) instructed, “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist!” When Jewish students protested, the Black Student Union responded by inviting him to speak again—for an even higher honorarium (Pollack, 2011; Norwood, 2013). In 1989, “Professor Griff,” “minister of information” of the rap group Public Enemy, claimed in an interview that Jews were responsible for “the majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe,” elaborating that Jews “have a grip on America, [and] a history of killing black men” (Altschuler & Summers, 2011). Ignoring Jewish groups’ protests, Columbia University’s Black Student Organization provided him a podium on campus, where he could extend his reach. Black students generally defended the speakers’ rants, one stating categorically, “Everything he said had a foundation in truth.” “Jewish people control all the money in the United States—that’s true, that’s not being prejudiced” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020). Having absorbed the message about the invidious Jews, one concluded in a Black students’ magazine that “Caucasian Jews” continue to “defile and trash and defecate on the rest of the world,” and warned that “Caucasian Jews . . . should not expect anyone to respect or protect their humanity or even shed a tear when something catastrophic happens to them” (Pollack, 2011; Pollack, 2008).

                        Both on and off the campus, a number of Black political and cultural figures formulated and promoted a racialized version of antisemitism. Although American Jews had been the ethnoreligious group most engaged in the struggle to end racial discrimination, the new antisemites relentlessly portrayed Jews as Blacks’ foremost foe. Turning reality on its head, they depicted Jews as bent on thwarting Blacks’ advance. Whereas over the centuries antisemites accused Jews of creating capitalism and communism, the Black nationalists identified Jews as the developers of racial capitalism—determined to subjugate and exploit Blacks above all. Some taught that Jews had never been slaves but were the leading enslavers of Black people. Jews were victimizers, never victims—or had suffered at most four or five years. In the 14th century, Christians accused Jews of poisoning the wells across Europe, causing the Black Death; now, Black nationalists accused the Jews of poisoning the ‘hood. They were responsible for all the toxins destroying Black communities—now, as then, the servants of Satan. Where Jews had earlier been portrayed as bleeding innocent Christian peasants, the new antisemites characterized them as “the bloodsuckers of the black nation” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020).

                        Decades before the current embrace of “intersectionality,” Black political and cultural militants promoted the narrative of the commonality of the oppression of African Americans and Arabs—both colonized by White/racist Jews. Convinced by the Arab League and the Organization of Arab Students, its army on the campus, that in contrast to Israel, which discriminated against people of color, the Arab states were racially egalitarian and that supporters of Israel were “accomplices of colonialism and imperialism,” they sought to forge an alliance with their brown brothers. As Stokely Carmichael exclaimed in 1968, Black people had “begun to see the evil of Zionism, and we will fight to wipe it out wherever it exists, be it in the ghetto of the United States or in the Middle East,” adding that Blacks are “ready to take up arms and die if necessary to help free the Arabs of Palestine” (Pollack, 2013).

                        ...

                        The militants’ narrative reached a wide African American audience, and in 1981 a major survey found that “blacks were the least favorable [to Israel] of any major subgroup in the population”—35% were “unfavorable,” and only 20% “highly favorable.” Indeed, “the strongest racial differences show up on questions relating to the Palestinians as an oppressed, presumably racial minority” (Schneider, 1984). The social analyst Charles Silberman concluded that for the militants, “the Palestinians are ‘the niggers of the Middle East’” (Silberman, 1979). Black students had absorbed the lesson well. In 1991, the newspaper of Morehouse College, a prestigious Black school in Atlanta, featured an editorial “What is Zionism?” “Zionism,” the editors had learned, “is a well-organized and financed international conspiracy which controls the economic and political life of the United States and Europe, using this stranglehold to steal and colonize the land of Palestinian people. It utilizes terror and murder to achieve its goal” (Anti-Defamation League [ADL], 1992).

                        Shaping Black Antisemitism

                        Malcolm X can be identified as the founding father of contemporary Black antisemitism. Formally joining the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1952 upon his release from prison, Malcolm X became its leading spokesperson until his stormy break with the organization in March 1964. After his assassination on February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was raised to sainthood and “his picture and philosophy abounded wherever black students gathered from Tougaloo to Harvard” (Turner, 1969).

                        Central to Malcolm X’s message and appeal was his portrayal of Jews as the major “bloodsuckers” preying on the “so-called Negroes of America” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020). He railed again and again about all the allegedly usurious Jewish shopkeepers in Black neighborhoods who were “robbing you deaf, dumb and blind.” “It’s Jews that run these run-down stores that sell you bad food” (Pollack, 2011). He informed rapt audiences that Jews “control 90 percent of the businesses in every Negro community from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020).

                        But Malcolm X updated the saga of the bloodthirsty Jew. Picturing Jewish merchants fleeing after dark “with another bag of money drained out of the ghetto,” he charged that they “sap the very lifeblood of the so-called Negroes to maintain the state of Israel.” “Israel,” he explained, “was just another poorhouse which is maintained by money sucked from the poor suckers in America” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020).

                        Malcolm X was bent on sundering Blacks’ alliance with Jews. Over and over he declaimed that Jews were not progressives—“You can find a whole lot of them who are Nazis.” He acknowledged that Jews were “among all other whites the most active . . . in the Negro civil rights movement” (Pollack, 2011). But, he proclaimed, the deceitful Jews had joined and subsidized the civil rights organizations to “control and contain the Negro’s struggle,” subverting the revolt of the “downtrodden black masses” here in “the last stronghold of white supremacy.” The Jews and the “Uncle Tom” leaders they select ignite “artificial fires” in a “desperate” attempt to thwart “the Black Revolution” that has already “swept white supremacy out of Africa, out of Asia,” and is “now manifesting itself . . . among the black masses in this country” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020).

                        Malcolm X also took the lead in recrafting Blacks’ perception of the Holocaust and of Jews as victims. The narrative had to focus only on the suffering of Blacks. “Why,” he instructed, “only 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler.” “Don’t let no Jew get up in your face and make you cry for him.” “One hundred million of us were kidnapped and brought to this country—100 million. Now everybody’s getting wet-eyed over a handful of Jews . . . What about our hundred million?” Besides, he explained, Jews “brought it on themselves” (Pollack, 2011).

                        ...

                        Above all, Malcolm X stressed the parallels between the determination of the Jews to thwart the rising of the Black masses in the US and to derail the “awakening” and development of Blacks and people of color in Africa and the Middle East. Writing from Cairo in September 1964, he elaborated a full-blown anti-Zionist ideology, whose antisemitic foundation was clear. “Zionist Israel,” he claimed, was perfecting the modern evil of “neo-colonialism,” which he labeled “Zionist-Dollarism”—the “number one weapon of twentieth-century imperialism.” “Their colonialism appears to be more ‘benevolent’” and therefore it has “fast become even more unshakeable than that of the 19th century European colonialists.” Just as the Jews had effected in the US, the “Zionist-capitalist conspiracy” was now creating “economic cripples” of the Blacks and people of color in its long reach (Pollack, 2013).

                        Black Antisemitism Enters the Political Arena

                        Beginning in 1979, Black antisemitism—generally thinly garbed as anti-Zionism—entered the national political arena, where by 1988, it had been embraced—or tolerated—by most Black leaders and their supporters. No longer would they characterize Jews as fellow warriors against racial injustice; they had become racist Zionists colonizing Palestinian Arabs—fellow people of color. Jesse Jackson, an ordained Baptist minister and former lieutenant of Martin Luther King, Jr., took the lead of this movement and “at the end of the seventies [emerged] as virtually the sole national voice of the black community” (Frady, 1992b).

                        In mid-August 1979, when Andrew Young, US ambassador to the UN—the “highest-ranking black official in the country”—resigned under pressure, the dimensions of Black enmity toward their erstwhile Jewish allies were exposed (Friedman, 1995). Violating longstanding US policy, on July 26, Young met secretly with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) observer at the UN—and lied about it. Despite the absence of evidence, Jackson—and the majority of Black leaders—blamed Israel and American Jews for Young’s demise, and Jackson observed that relations between Blacks and Jews were “more tense . . . than they’ve been in 25 years” (Johnston, 1979).

                        On August 22, at a meeting called to address the Young affair, over 200 Black leaders drew up a document, adopted unanimously, that denigrated and dismissed Jews’ long support for “black causes” (Johnson, 1979). When “traditionalist leaders” demurred, arguing that their organizations relied on Jews’ donations and political support, the younger leaders reminded them that Arabs now had plenty of cash. Upon leaving the gathering, the renowned psychologist Kenneth Clark characterized the meeting as “Our Declaration of Independence” (Reynolds & Maclean, 1979; Johnson, 1979).

                        The next month, Jackson, whose “flamboyant style . . . draws the white media to him like bees to honey,” appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes, where he mocked the claim that a Black–Jewish alliance had ever existed (Roberts, 1979). On September 23, Jackson left for the Middle East, where, he predicted, his meetings with leaders could produce “a major breakthrough” in the search for peace (“Jesse Jackson Goes to Mideast,” 1979). Many Black leaders, no longer wary lest they “alienate Jewish supporters,” were determined to dramatize their independence and power by assuming a central role on the “whole question of Israel and Middle East policy”—but Jackson, always “a show boater,” took center stage (Delaney, 1979; Roberts, 1979).

                        ...


                        Determined to forge an alliance with Arabs, after returning to the US, Jackson informed them how fully he shared their view of Israel, Zionism, and the Jews. Addressing an Arab American audience in 1980, he declaimed, “We have the real obligation to separate Zionism from Judaism. Judaism is a religion . . . Zionism is a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism” (Puddington, 1984).

                        On November 3, 1983, Jackson announced, “Our time has come”—he was running for president. Having characterized him as “a spectacular and irrepressible virtuoso of ego,” few journalists or politicians were surprised (Frady, 1992a). Before long, however, the editor of the New Republic concluded that “with the candidacy of Jesse Jackson, black antisemitism gained a big-time tribune” (Editor, 1984).

                        In January 1984, in an interview with two Black reporters, Jackson’s antisemitism exploded. After condemning the US policy “that ‘excites one nation’—Israel—and ‘incites 23 others’—the Arab world,” Jackson complained, in effect, “That’s all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that’s all they want to talk about” (Coleman, 1984). On February 13, Jackson’s slur finally appeared, buried deep in an article in the Washington Post, where it elicited little attention. But on February 18, the Washington Post issued a scorching editorial calling on Jackson to explain his “degrading and disgusting” words. Notably, a number of other journalists heard Jackson use the slur but had not reported it. A CBS correspondent maintained that had another candidate made the comment, “it would have immediately been front-page news.” But “largely white news organizations have been ‘timid—they don’t want to look bigoted’” (Mayer, 1984).

                        ...

                        The controversies surrounding the campaign were soon exacerbated by threats leveled by Louis Farrakhan, head of the NOI since 1977, who attributed Jackson’s woes only to “the Jews.” On March 25, 1984, he warned: “I say to the Jewish people . . . if you harm this brother, I warn you in the name of Allah, this will be the last one you harm.” Farrakhan also threatened the interviewer who revealed Jackson’s slur: “You are a nigger in the eyes of white people . . . One day soon we will punish you with death” [crowd screams approval] (Reelblack, 2019). When asked to respond, Jackson shrugged, “I have no ability to muzzle surrogates who want to make a contribution” (Safire, 1984).

                        ...

                        On July 9, in a bitter interview assessing his “odyssey,” Jackson castigated the Jews, above all, for his difficulties. He singled out “the struggle by Jewish leaders to make me a pariah and . . . to separate me from the masses” (Skelton, 1984). To be sure, a significant number of Jewish leaders—and Jews—had concluded that Jackson was antisemitic. Nathan Perlmutter, head of the ADL, declared, “Let me say it plainly . . . [His] statements . . . render the self-portrait of an anti-Semite” (Goldman, 1984). Yet at the Democratic National Convention, from July 16–19, Jackson was “widely hailed” “in the black community . . . as King’s manifest successor.” He had amassed 21% of the vote in the primaries and caucuses—but captured only 4% of the white vote (Frady, 1992b).

                        ...


                        Antisemitism: The Foundation Stone of the Nation of Islam

                        On June 24, 1984, after assuring listeners to his radio address, “I’m not anti-Jew. I’m pro-truth,” Louis Farrakhan, head of the NOI (1977–present), screamed that Israel “will never have any peace because there can be no peace structured on injustice, lying and deceit, and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.” He declaimed, “The presence of a state called Israel is an outlaw act,” and if you “aid and abet someone in a criminal conspiracy, you are a part of that criminal conspiracy. So America, England and the nations are criminals in the sight of Almighty God” (UPI, 1984; Pollack, 2021).

                        Stunned by his characterization of Judaism as “a dirty religion” and the creation of Israel as “an outlaw act,” on June 28, the US Senate voted 95–0 for a resolution that “condemned” “hateful, bigoted expressions of anti-Jewish and racist sentiments such as those being made by Louis Farrakhan” (Lawsky, 1984). Responding to the resolution, Farrakhan challenged his interviewer on CNN, “Go out on the streets and talk to the little man . . . about the Senate’s repudiation of Louis Farrakhan. They love Farrakhan and they will love me more the more you fight against me” (Muhammad, 2016; Pollack, 2021).

                        Indeed, Farrakhan had wide support in the black community. In 1985, massive crowds of African Americans—of all social classes, both Christian and Muslim—turned out to cheer him. In Washington, DC, 10,000 heard him rail against “the Jews;” in Los Angeles, the crowd was estimated at 14,000; and in New York, 20,000 responded to each antisemitic charge by “rising to its feet, . . . arms outstretched at 45 degree angles, fists clenched” (Lester, 1985).

                        From its beginnings in the 1930s, the delegitimization of Judaism—and the denigration of “white Jews”—have formed the core of the NOI belief system. The founder of the NOI, W. D. [Fard] Muhammad, who revealed himself as “God in person”—the Mahdi—instructed Elijah Muhammad, his Messenger, in the fundaments of the racial theology to which the Nation has always adhered. Fard taught that 6,000 years ago, the “evil big-headed scientist” Yacub “grafted” “the white race … out of the black nation,” creating a race of devils (Muhammad, 1957; Pollack, 2021).

                        Central to the creation narrative, however, were the nefarious “white Jews,” “the Draftsmen and the Architects” of white supremacy—which “has dominated our planet for the last 4,000 years” (Farrakhan, 2011; Pollack, 2021). Elijah learned that “from the first day [the white Jews] received the Divine Scriptures”—soon after they emerged “naked [from] the caves and hillsides of Europe”—“they started tampering with its truth,” “converting the Bible into the graveyard of my poor people, the so-called Negroes” (Pollack, 2021). Guided by Fard, Elijah had racialized the basic Qur’anic precept that upon receiving the Torah, “a party from among the Jews . . . heard it, understood it, then [intentionally] altered it” (Pollack, 2021). The white Jews had contrived a counterfeit text, crafting a new deity who blessed their Satanic mission, above all, “to master” the Black Nation—and ultimately, “their own white brethren” as well (Pollack, 2020). Elijah taught Farrakhan that Jacob, the “master deceiver,” progenitor of the white Jews, had replaced God with Satan, whom the “imposter Jews” were destined to serve for the next 4,000 years—hence, the “dirty religion” (Pollack, 2021).

                        In fashioning the corrupted Torah, the “so-called Jews” had usurped African Americans’ position as “the real chosen people of God” (Norwood & Pollack, 2020). “Almighty God Allah revealed that the Black People of America are the Real Children of Israel . . . and . . . unto us He will deliver His Promise.” The Jews in the Middle East are only “the False Israel” (Farrakhan, 2011; Pollack, 2013). Addressing Israel’s prime minister, in 2017 Farrakhan warned: “To Israel, Bibi [Netanyahu]: . . . Your desire is to conquer that whole area lying, saying that ‘Abraham promised you.’ He ain’t promised you a damn thing!” (ADL, 2018).

                        When Farrakhan announced that “the presence of a state called Israel is an outlaw act,” he was merely voicing long-held NOI doctrine. As was his characterization of “America [and] England . . . [as] criminals in the sight of Almighty God.” Fard had foretold that Allah’s annihilation of the white devils in a lake of fire would begin with the destruction of England in retribution for the Balfour Declaration, which promised Palestine to the “false Jews.” After the establishment of Israel, Elijah updated the narrative, thrusting the US into the initial path of destruction of the fiery storm (Pollack, 2013; Pollack, 2021).

                        As NOI theology held that the Hebrew Bible was largely prophecy about the Black Nation, it was Blacks—not Jews—who had been enslaved for 400 years. For the NOI, the imposter Jews had not been enslaved—they were enslavers—of the Black Nation. Anonymously authored by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, in 1991 the NOI published The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which attributed “monumental culpability” for the Atlantic slave trade to the Jews—a “monumental lie” (Axelrod, 1995). Scholars have shown that Jews had only a “very marginal place” in the slave trade (Davis, 1994). Still, NOI members crisscrossed the country, hawking the tract and preaching its message. In 2019, Farrakhan continued to rail that “members of the so-called Jewish community brought our fathers out of Africa, owned the ships, owned the plantations, were the <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Number+1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Number.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Number 1</a> buyers of slaves!” (Pollack, 2021).
                        ...

                        Several co-chairs of the Women’s March—organized to demonstrate opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump—had ties to Farrakhan and endorsed his antisemitic message. In 2016 and early 2017, women of color co-chairs informed Jewish organizers that “You people [or “your people”] hold all the wealth,” and “Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people” (McSweeney &amp; Siegel, 2018; Pollack, 2019). Tamika Mallory, one of the co-chairs, later clarified that their remarks only referred to “white Jews.” In 2018, Mallory attended the NOI’s annual commemoration of “Saviour’s Day,” honoring Fard’s birth, where Farrakhan denounced “Satanic Jews” and promised “Satan is going down” (Pagano, 2018). Mallory then praised Farrakhan as the “GOAT”—“Greatest of All Time” (Page, 2018; Pollack, 2021).

                        The Black Lives Matter Movement: When Narrative Replaces Reality

                        ...

                        Although the movement has generally leveled its charges at “Zionists,” frequently antisemitism appears undisguised. Updating the centuries-old blood libel, BLM marchers chanted, “Israel, we know you kill children too!” and signs proclaimed, “Defend Gaza: the New Warsaw Ghetto”—the Jews cast as the Nazis annihilating innocent people of color (Lapkin, 2020; Torok, 2021). Addressing a conference on Human Rights in 2015, Patrisse Cullors, one of the three co-founders of the movement, characterized the Palestinian cause as “our generation’s South Africa” and urged the audience to “step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project that’s called Israel,” concluding that “we’re doomed” if Israel is not brought to an “end” (Chamberlain, 2021). As Natan Sharansky, the eminent human rights activist, explained, “The denial of Israel’s right to exist is always antisemitic” (2005). Manfred Gerstenfeld, longtime analyst of Judeophobia, warned, “BLM is a racist movement . . . [which] intends nothing good for Jews or Israel, no matter how many Jews proclaim their allegiance to it” (2020).

                        ....

                        ...

                        Reading—or Denying—the Handwriting on the Wall


                        The handwriting was clearly on the wall. Yet many national Jewish organizations chose to ignore the signs—until August 1, 2016, when the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) posted the policy platform “A Vision for Black Lives.”

                        The BLM website identified M4BL as one of its four (sometimes, five) “partners”—apparently “divided for fundraising purposes”—and provided a direct link to the M4BL platform. (Hollander, 2020; BLM, 2016). The “Invest/Divest” section of the platform stated that because of its alliance with Israel, “the US . . . is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.” It claimed that “Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people” and condemned “the US-funded apartheid wall.” In a variant of the blood libel, the platform charged that Israeli soldiers “regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old.” The platform called on activists to “build invest/divestment campaigns that ends [sic] US Aid to Israel’s military industrial complex” and provided a link to the BDS movement website (M4BL, 2020).

                        To Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, “the platform is the closest thing to a formal declaration of principles by BLM” (2016). By contrast, national Jewish organizations minimized the platform’s significance. Jonathan Greenblatt, executive director of the ADL since July 2015, condemned the claims of the Invest/Divest section, but insisted that it was only “some individuals and organizations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement [that] have engaged in antisemitic rhetoric” (Hollander, 2020). The Jewish Council for Public Affairs [JCPA] also tried to isolate M4BL, stressing that its views should not be seen as “the consensus position of the entire movement. The Black Lives Matter movement is diffuse and diverse” (JCPA, [n.d.]).

                        Dershowitz, by contrast, refused to minimize the import of the platform: “To falsely accuse Israel of ‘genocide,’ the worst crime of all, . . . is antisemitic. Until and unless BLM removes this blood libel from its platform and renounces it, no decent person . . . should have anything to do with it” (Dershowitz, 2016). To Isi Leibler, a leader of the movement to liberate Soviet Jews, it was “unconscionable” that “any mainstream Jewish organization [would] continue providing legitimacy” to the BLM movement “on the grounds that only ‘a small minority of leaders’ are responsible. [But] for an organization like the ADL, whose principal mandate is to combat antisemitism, it is sheer lunacy” (Leibler, 2016).

                        Although these organizations continue to insist that the BLM movement should not be identified with the M4BL platform, much evidence contradicts their claim. Ricki Hollander, senior analyst at CAMERA, who carefully traced the organizational interconnections within the movement, concluded that “it is not only a few individual activists or protestors who espouse antisemitic views. Rather, there is a top-down strategy of incorporating anti-Zionist activism into the movement” (Hollander, 2020). Moreover, prospective chapters must undergo “a rigorous assessment” and “commit to the organization’s [thirteen] guiding principles” before being admitted to the BLM network (Cobb, 2016). That is, it is not the “diffuse and diverse” organization that some portrayed.

                        One scholar suggested that Jews should “point out BLM’s moral blind spot” to activists (Rosenblatt, 2016). But, as Jonathan Tobin, editor-in-chief of Jewish News Syndicate, explains, the platform’s condemnation of “Israel as an ‘apartheid state’ [is] a lie that is integral to the intersectional ideology at the core of the BLM mindset” (Tobin, 2020c)—not a “blind spot.”

                        The paradigm that guides leading BLM activists positions the Jewish state and Zionism at the epicenter of racial oppression—with Israelis classed as ‘Whites’ in the current lexicon. This is part of the tendency of Black militants/nationalists—dating at least since Malcolm X, whom BLM activists revere—to recast Jews as victimizers—even the worst of the victimizers—no longer, or never, victims. The Holocaust is replaced by the “Black Holocaust.” For BLM leaders and activists, Only White Racism Matters. Melina Abdullah, co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of BLM, stated, “You can’t be on the front lines for the struggle for freedom for one group of people, and then be silent on everyone else’s” (Sullivan &amp; Wootson, 2021). In practice, however, BLM has focused only on “the struggle for freedom” of Palestinian people of color from the “racist” Jewish state.

                        ...

                        On August 28, 2020—the day chosen to “coincide with the 57th anniversary of [Martin Luther King’s] 1963 March on Washington”—a full-page ad appeared in the New York Times, consisting of a letter entitled “We Speak with One Voice when We Say, Unequivocally: BLACK LIVES MATTER.” Organized by Bend the Arc, which identifies as “the only national Jewish organization focused exclusively on progressive social change in the United States,” the letter was signed by more than 600 Jewish groups—allegedly “representing over half of Jewish people in the U.S.” (Stancil, 2020). The signatories endorsed the BLM movement as “the current day Civil Rights movement in this country” (”Jewish Organizations Say,” 2020).

                        The letter addresses antisemitism, but only to identify it as a sword wielded by “politicians and political movements in this country who build power by deliberately manufacturing fear to divide us against each other” (”Jewish Organizations Say,” 2020). In short, according to the letter, accusations of antisemitism within the BLM movement are without foundation. That the signatories “seek[ ] to link opposition to the movement to antisemitism,” Tobin observes, “isn’t just wrong. It’s outrageous since intersectional radicals who form the shock troops of the BLM movement . . . are themselves guilty of antisemitism” (2020c).

                        Many who signed the letter present their support for the BLM movement as an expression of their commitment to tikkun olam—repairing the world—or to “social justice,” which is, as Tobin observes, not just at the core of “their political views,” but represents “their conception of Judaism” and “their American Jewish identity” (2020b). Thus the Jewish Council for Public Affairs continues to insist that “experience has shown that we can have a far greater impact in deterring antisemitism if we are in relationship with leaders and organizations” (JCPA, [n.d.]). But, as Tobin concludes, “anyone expecting BLM ideologues to join the fight against antisemitism, let alone BDS, isn’t paying attention” (2020b). Or, as Manfred Gerstenfeld lamented, for the signatories of the letter, “repairing the world entails embracing antisemites, being Jewish masochists, . . . and foregoing Jewish dignity” (2020).

                        Conclusion

                        Although today anyone suspected of harboring racist views is designated a pariah, even overt, “egregious” expressions of antisemitism do not elicit “the same moral opprobrium” (Tobin, 2020a). This is even more true if the antisemite is African American. The columnist Richard Cohen’s 1984 lament—that “few know how to deal with black racism—a double standard of sorts [exists]”—remains valid (Cohen, 1984). Compounding the problem is the tendency of Black academic, political and cultural figures to run interference for the offenders. Derrick Bell, the first Black professor at Harvard Law School, defended Blacks who celebrated Farrakhan, warning that “even those who strongly disagree with some of his positions must ask whether the negatives justify total condemnation” (Muravchik, 1995). In 2005, when Farrakhan was organizing the Millions More March, Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, challenged Black leaders to disavow an event whose conveners “taint the proceedings with the baggage of anti-Semitism and hate.” In response, Russell Simmons, the hip-hop mogul—and chair of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding—denounced Foxman: “Simply put, you are misguided, arrogant and very disrespectful of African Americans”—and unloosed an antisemitic charge of his own: “When you keep demonizing Farrakhan in front of the Jewish community . . . that might be another way to raise money” (Anderson, 2005).

                        In 2019, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that interceded on behalf of Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Caucus member, blocking her censure and objecting to a resolution that would have condemned what Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) characterized as her “vile, hate-filled, antisemitic, anti-Israel bigotry.” Among other comments, Omar had famously tweeted that Congress’s support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins, baby”—that is, Jewish money bought their votes. Instead, Congress approved an all-inclusive resolution that denounced “antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry.” Elated, Omar celebrated it as a “historic” victory for Muslims (Nelson, 2019; Davis, 2019). Deflecting attention from Black antisemitism, Congress had also erased the uniqueness of the world’s oldest and longest hatred.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                          again, the fact Nazi's used abortion to eliminate what they considered inferior peoples does not mean supporters of abortion as a women's right qualify as Nazi's. In fact, it is almost certain they do not.

                          Further, the op is about which politicians qualify as nazis. You won't find many, but they tend to be found in conservative ranks, not liberal.
                          Ultimately, this is about trying to pigeonhole people so that their arguments can be dismissed without consideration. For instance, a conservative might say, "I believe the United States should be wholly self-sufficient in terms of energy production and manufacturing. We should never have to depend on another country for our basic needs," and a liberal might scoff and say, "That's exactly the sort of racist and xenophobic ultranationlist attitude I would expect from a neo-Nazi!" And then all of his pink-haird liberal friends would cheer and say, "You go, girl!" and they would preen around like they just scored a great victory without ever actually addressing the argument. That's pretty much what this thread is about.

                          Perhaps we should stop trying to label each other and start debating ideas instead.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Ultimately, this is about trying to pigeonhole people so that their arguments can be dismissed without consideration.
                            The upfront problem is staying on topic, and NOT pigeonholing people.

                            For instance, a conservative might say, "I believe the United States should be wholly self-sufficient in terms of energy production and manufacturing. We should never have to depend on another country for our basic needs," and a liberal might scoff and say, "That's exactly the sort of racist and xenophobic ultranationlist attitude I would expect from a neo-Nazi!" And then all of his pink-haird liberal friends would cheer and say, "You go, girl!" and they would preen around like they just scored a great victory without ever actually addressing the argument. That's pretty much what this thread is about.
                            Bad example. Staying on topic is the up front issue.

                            Perhaps we should stop trying to label each other and start debating ideas instead.
                            Avoid the invitation of labels by staying on topic.

                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                              Anti-semitism has long had a not-insignificant presence among blacks. From Malcom X, to Louis Farrakhan, and Al Sharpton, and the multitudes who look to them as leaders.



                              Eunice G. Pollack

                              Introduction—In the Beginning

                              From the mid-1960s, barely a generation after the Holocaust—when corporate America had begun to hire Jews, universities had set aside their Jewish quotas, and covenants barring the sale of houses to Jews were disappearing—Black militants, often Black nationalists, began to mount a full-throated assault on Jews and the Jewish state. From these years until the present, polls regularly revealed not only significantly greater percentages of American Blacks than Whites endorsed antisemitic tropes, but that the animus was “strongest among younger, better-educated . . . blacks” (Schneider, 1984). A study conducted in 1970 ranked 73% of Blacks in their twenties, as opposed to 35% who were fifty and older, as high on its index of antisemitism. Unlike during the Civil Rights Movement, by 1978 a survey of “black leaders” found that 81% agreed that “Jews chose money over people” and in a 1975 poll, about two-thirds were “indifferent to whether Israel existed as a state” (Friedman, 1995). Overall assessments of the incidence of antisemitism among Blacks and Whites revealed stark differences: in 1981, 42% of Blacks, as opposed to 20% of Whites, agreed that “Jews have too much power in the United States” (Schneider, 1984). About a quarter century later, in 2005, the divide persisted: 36% of African Americans held “strong antisemitic beliefs”—four times the percentage of Whites (Anderson, 2005). The racial gulf was evident even within political categories: in 2020, 42% of “black liberals” versus 15% of “white liberals” endorsed antisemitic “stereotypes” (Sales, 2021).

                              Despite all the evidence of enduring Jew-hatred, few Black leaders openly condemned it, with many taking refuge behind the formula voiced by the African American novelist James Baldwin in 1972 that “the powerless, by definition, can never be ‘racists.’” Henry Louis Gates, Jr., chair of Harvard University’s African and African American Studies Department, recognized that this “slogan . . . would all too quickly serve as a blanket amnesty for our own . . . bigotries” (Gates, 1992). Indeed, currently, “anti-racist campaigners” continue to echo the dictum “Racism equals prejudice plus power.” As a result, the writer John-Paul Pagano explains that “even drooling Jew hatred . . . can get a pass if the antisemite first registers as a victim” (2016).

                              With this license, Black student activists provided the platforms from which militants/nationalists regularly delivered antisemitic harangues in arenas jammed with cheering—and a few jeering—students. At the University of Maryland in 1986, Kwame Ture (formerly, Stokely Carmichael) instructed, “The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist!” When Jewish students protested, the Black Student Union responded by inviting him to speak again—for an even higher honorarium (Pollack, 2011; Norwood, 2013). In 1989, “Professor Griff,” “minister of information” of the rap group Public Enemy, claimed in an interview that Jews were responsible for “the majority of wickedness that goes on across the globe,” elaborating that Jews “have a grip on America, [and] a history of killing black men” (Altschuler &amp; Summers, 2011). Ignoring Jewish groups’ protests, Columbia University’s Black Student Organization provided him a podium on campus, where he could extend his reach. Black students generally defended the speakers’ rants, one stating categorically, “Everything he said had a foundation in truth.” “Jewish people control all the money in the United States—that’s true, that’s not being prejudiced” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020). Having absorbed the message about the invidious Jews, one concluded in a Black students’ magazine that “Caucasian Jews” continue to “defile and trash and defecate on the rest of the world,” and warned that “Caucasian Jews . . . should not expect anyone to respect or protect their humanity or even shed a tear when something catastrophic happens to them” (Pollack, 2011; Pollack, 2008).

                              Both on and off the campus, a number of Black political and cultural figures formulated and promoted a racialized version of antisemitism. Although American Jews had been the ethnoreligious group most engaged in the struggle to end racial discrimination, the new antisemites relentlessly portrayed Jews as Blacks’ foremost foe. Turning reality on its head, they depicted Jews as bent on thwarting Blacks’ advance. Whereas over the centuries antisemites accused Jews of creating capitalism and communism, the Black nationalists identified Jews as the developers of racial capitalism—determined to subjugate and exploit Blacks above all. Some taught that Jews had never been slaves but were the leading enslavers of Black people. Jews were victimizers, never victims—or had suffered at most four or five years. In the 14th century, Christians accused Jews of poisoning the wells across Europe, causing the Black Death; now, Black nationalists accused the Jews of poisoning the ‘hood. They were responsible for all the toxins destroying Black communities—now, as then, the servants of Satan. Where Jews had earlier been portrayed as bleeding innocent Christian peasants, the new antisemites characterized them as “the bloodsuckers of the black nation” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020).

                              Decades before the current embrace of “intersectionality,” Black political and cultural militants promoted the narrative of the commonality of the oppression of African Americans and Arabs—both colonized by White/racist Jews. Convinced by the Arab League and the Organization of Arab Students, its army on the campus, that in contrast to Israel, which discriminated against people of color, the Arab states were racially egalitarian and that supporters of Israel were “accomplices of colonialism and imperialism,” they sought to forge an alliance with their brown brothers. As Stokely Carmichael exclaimed in 1968, Black people had “begun to see the evil of Zionism, and we will fight to wipe it out wherever it exists, be it in the ghetto of the United States or in the Middle East,” adding that Blacks are “ready to take up arms and die if necessary to help free the Arabs of Palestine” (Pollack, 2013).

                              ...

                              The militants’ narrative reached a wide African American audience, and in 1981 a major survey found that “blacks were the least favorable [to Israel] of any major subgroup in the population”—35% were “unfavorable,” and only 20% “highly favorable.” Indeed, “the strongest racial differences show up on questions relating to the Palestinians as an oppressed, presumably racial minority” (Schneider, 1984). The social analyst Charles Silberman concluded that for the militants, “the Palestinians are ‘the niggers of the Middle East’” (Silberman, 1979). Black students had absorbed the lesson well. In 1991, the newspaper of Morehouse College, a prestigious Black school in Atlanta, featured an editorial “What is Zionism?” “Zionism,” the editors had learned, “is a well-organized and financed international conspiracy which controls the economic and political life of the United States and Europe, using this stranglehold to steal and colonize the land of Palestinian people. It utilizes terror and murder to achieve its goal” (Anti-Defamation League [ADL], 1992).

                              Shaping Black Antisemitism

                              Malcolm X can be identified as the founding father of contemporary Black antisemitism. Formally joining the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1952 upon his release from prison, Malcolm X became its leading spokesperson until his stormy break with the organization in March 1964. After his assassination on February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was raised to sainthood and “his picture and philosophy abounded wherever black students gathered from Tougaloo to Harvard” (Turner, 1969).

                              Central to Malcolm X’s message and appeal was his portrayal of Jews as the major “bloodsuckers” preying on the “so-called Negroes of America” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020). He railed again and again about all the allegedly usurious Jewish shopkeepers in Black neighborhoods who were “robbing you deaf, dumb and blind.” “It’s Jews that run these run-down stores that sell you bad food” (Pollack, 2011). He informed rapt audiences that Jews “control 90 percent of the businesses in every Negro community from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020).

                              But Malcolm X updated the saga of the bloodthirsty Jew. Picturing Jewish merchants fleeing after dark “with another bag of money drained out of the ghetto,” he charged that they “sap the very lifeblood of the so-called Negroes to maintain the state of Israel.” “Israel,” he explained, “was just another poorhouse which is maintained by money sucked from the poor suckers in America” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020).

                              Malcolm X was bent on sundering Blacks’ alliance with Jews. Over and over he declaimed that Jews were not progressives—“You can find a whole lot of them who are Nazis.” He acknowledged that Jews were “among all other whites the most active . . . in the Negro civil rights movement” (Pollack, 2011). But, he proclaimed, the deceitful Jews had joined and subsidized the civil rights organizations to “control and contain the Negro’s struggle,” subverting the revolt of the “downtrodden black masses” here in “the last stronghold of white supremacy.” The Jews and the “Uncle Tom” leaders they select ignite “artificial fires” in a “desperate” attempt to thwart “the Black Revolution” that has already “swept white supremacy out of Africa, out of Asia,” and is “now manifesting itself . . . among the black masses in this country” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020).

                              Malcolm X also took the lead in recrafting Blacks’ perception of the Holocaust and of Jews as victims. The narrative had to focus only on the suffering of Blacks. “Why,” he instructed, “only 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler.” “Don’t let no Jew get up in your face and make you cry for him.” “One hundred million of us were kidnapped and brought to this country—100 million. Now everybody’s getting wet-eyed over a handful of Jews . . . What about our hundred million?” Besides, he explained, Jews “brought it on themselves” (Pollack, 2011).

                              ...

                              Above all, Malcolm X stressed the parallels between the determination of the Jews to thwart the rising of the Black masses in the US and to derail the “awakening” and development of Blacks and people of color in Africa and the Middle East. Writing from Cairo in September 1964, he elaborated a full-blown anti-Zionist ideology, whose antisemitic foundation was clear. “Zionist Israel,” he claimed, was perfecting the modern evil of “neo-colonialism,” which he labeled “Zionist-Dollarism”—the “number one weapon of twentieth-century imperialism.” “Their colonialism appears to be more ‘benevolent’” and therefore it has “fast become even more unshakeable than that of the 19th century European colonialists.” Just as the Jews had effected in the US, the “Zionist-capitalist conspiracy” was now creating “economic cripples” of the Blacks and people of color in its long reach (Pollack, 2013).

                              Black Antisemitism Enters the Political Arena

                              Beginning in 1979, Black antisemitism—generally thinly garbed as anti-Zionism—entered the national political arena, where by 1988, it had been embraced—or tolerated—by most Black leaders and their supporters. No longer would they characterize Jews as fellow warriors against racial injustice; they had become racist Zionists colonizing Palestinian Arabs—fellow people of color. Jesse Jackson, an ordained Baptist minister and former lieutenant of Martin Luther King, Jr., took the lead of this movement and “at the end of the seventies [emerged] as virtually the sole national voice of the black community” (Frady, 1992b).

                              In mid-August 1979, when Andrew Young, US ambassador to the UN—the “highest-ranking black official in the country”—resigned under pressure, the dimensions of Black enmity toward their erstwhile Jewish allies were exposed (Friedman, 1995). Violating longstanding US policy, on July 26, Young met secretly with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) observer at the UN—and lied about it. Despite the absence of evidence, Jackson—and the majority of Black leaders—blamed Israel and American Jews for Young’s demise, and Jackson observed that relations between Blacks and Jews were “more tense . . . than they’ve been in 25 years” (Johnston, 1979).

                              On August 22, at a meeting called to address the Young affair, over 200 Black leaders drew up a document, adopted unanimously, that denigrated and dismissed Jews’ long support for “black causes” (Johnson, 1979). When “traditionalist leaders” demurred, arguing that their organizations relied on Jews’ donations and political support, the younger leaders reminded them that Arabs now had plenty of cash. Upon leaving the gathering, the renowned psychologist Kenneth Clark characterized the meeting as “Our Declaration of Independence” (Reynolds &amp; Maclean, 1979; Johnson, 1979).

                              The next month, Jackson, whose “flamboyant style . . . draws the white media to him like bees to honey,” appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes, where he mocked the claim that a Black–Jewish alliance had ever existed (Roberts, 1979). On September 23, Jackson left for the Middle East, where, he predicted, his meetings with leaders could produce “a major breakthrough” in the search for peace (“Jesse Jackson Goes to Mideast,” 1979). Many Black leaders, no longer wary lest they “alienate Jewish supporters,” were determined to dramatize their independence and power by assuming a central role on the “whole question of Israel and Middle East policy”—but Jackson, always “a show boater,” took center stage (Delaney, 1979; Roberts, 1979).

                              ...


                              Determined to forge an alliance with Arabs, after returning to the US, Jackson informed them how fully he shared their view of Israel, Zionism, and the Jews. Addressing an Arab American audience in 1980, he declaimed, “We have the real obligation to separate Zionism from Judaism. Judaism is a religion . . . Zionism is a kind of poisonous weed that is choking Judaism” (Puddington, 1984).

                              On November 3, 1983, Jackson announced, “Our time has come”—he was running for president. Having characterized him as “a spectacular and irrepressible virtuoso of ego,” few journalists or politicians were surprised (Frady, 1992a). Before long, however, the editor of the New Republic concluded that “with the candidacy of Jesse Jackson, black antisemitism gained a big-time tribune” (Editor, 1984).

                              In January 1984, in an interview with two Black reporters, Jackson’s antisemitism exploded. After condemning the US policy “that ‘excites one nation’—Israel—and ‘incites 23 others’—the Arab world,” Jackson complained, in effect, “That’s all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that’s all they want to talk about” (Coleman, 1984). On February 13, Jackson’s slur finally appeared, buried deep in an article in the Washington Post, where it elicited little attention. But on February 18, the Washington Post issued a scorching editorial calling on Jackson to explain his “degrading and disgusting” words. Notably, a number of other journalists heard Jackson use the slur but had not reported it. A CBS correspondent maintained that had another candidate made the comment, “it would have immediately been front-page news.” But “largely white news organizations have been ‘timid—they don’t want to look bigoted’” (Mayer, 1984).

                              ...

                              The controversies surrounding the campaign were soon exacerbated by threats leveled by Louis Farrakhan, head of the NOI since 1977, who attributed Jackson’s woes only to “the Jews.” On March 25, 1984, he warned: “I say to the Jewish people . . . if you harm this brother, I warn you in the name of Allah, this will be the last one you harm.” Farrakhan also threatened the interviewer who revealed Jackson’s slur: “You are a nigger in the eyes of white people . . . One day soon we will punish you with death” [crowd screams approval] (Reelblack, 2019). When asked to respond, Jackson shrugged, “I have no ability to muzzle surrogates who want to make a contribution” (Safire, 1984).

                              ...

                              On July 9, in a bitter interview assessing his “odyssey,” Jackson castigated the Jews, above all, for his difficulties. He singled out “the struggle by Jewish leaders to make me a pariah and . . . to separate me from the masses” (Skelton, 1984). To be sure, a significant number of Jewish leaders—and Jews—had concluded that Jackson was antisemitic. Nathan Perlmutter, head of the ADL, declared, “Let me say it plainly . . . [His] statements . . . render the self-portrait of an anti-Semite” (Goldman, 1984). Yet at the Democratic National Convention, from July 16–19, Jackson was “widely hailed” “in the black community . . . as King’s manifest successor.” He had amassed 21% of the vote in the primaries and caucuses—but captured only 4% of the white vote (Frady, 1992b).

                              ...


                              Antisemitism: The Foundation Stone of the Nation of Islam

                              On June 24, 1984, after assuring listeners to his radio address, “I’m not anti-Jew. I’m pro-truth,” Louis Farrakhan, head of the NOI (1977–present), screamed that Israel “will never have any peace because there can be no peace structured on injustice, lying and deceit, and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.” He declaimed, “The presence of a state called Israel is an outlaw act,” and if you “aid and abet someone in a criminal conspiracy, you are a part of that criminal conspiracy. So America, England and the nations are criminals in the sight of Almighty God” (UPI, 1984; Pollack, 2021).

                              Stunned by his characterization of Judaism as “a dirty religion” and the creation of Israel as “an outlaw act,” on June 28, the US Senate voted 95–0 for a resolution that “condemned” “hateful, bigoted expressions of anti-Jewish and racist sentiments such as those being made by Louis Farrakhan” (Lawsky, 1984). Responding to the resolution, Farrakhan challenged his interviewer on CNN, “Go out on the streets and talk to the little man . . . about the Senate’s repudiation of Louis Farrakhan. They love Farrakhan and they will love me more the more you fight against me” (Muhammad, 2016; Pollack, 2021).

                              Indeed, Farrakhan had wide support in the black community. In 1985, massive crowds of African Americans—of all social classes, both Christian and Muslim—turned out to cheer him. In Washington, DC, 10,000 heard him rail against “the Jews;” in Los Angeles, the crowd was estimated at 14,000; and in New York, 20,000 responded to each antisemitic charge by “rising to its feet, . . . arms outstretched at 45 degree angles, fists clenched” (Lester, 1985).

                              From its beginnings in the 1930s, the delegitimization of Judaism—and the denigration of “white Jews”—have formed the core of the NOI belief system. The founder of the NOI, W. D. [Fard] Muhammad, who revealed himself as “God in person”—the Mahdi—instructed Elijah Muhammad, his Messenger, in the fundaments of the racial theology to which the Nation has always adhered. Fard taught that 6,000 years ago, the “evil big-headed scientist” Yacub “grafted” “the white race … out of the black nation,” creating a race of devils (Muhammad, 1957; Pollack, 2021).

                              Central to the creation narrative, however, were the nefarious “white Jews,” “the Draftsmen and the Architects” of white supremacy—which “has dominated our planet for the last 4,000 years” (Farrakhan, 2011; Pollack, 2021). Elijah learned that “from the first day [the white Jews] received the Divine Scriptures”—soon after they emerged “naked [from] the caves and hillsides of Europe”—“they started tampering with its truth,” “converting the Bible into the graveyard of my poor people, the so-called Negroes” (Pollack, 2021). Guided by Fard, Elijah had racialized the basic Qur’anic precept that upon receiving the Torah, “a party from among the Jews . . . heard it, understood it, then [intentionally] altered it” (Pollack, 2021). The white Jews had contrived a counterfeit text, crafting a new deity who blessed their Satanic mission, above all, “to master” the Black Nation—and ultimately, “their own white brethren” as well (Pollack, 2020). Elijah taught Farrakhan that Jacob, the “master deceiver,” progenitor of the white Jews, had replaced God with Satan, whom the “imposter Jews” were destined to serve for the next 4,000 years—hence, the “dirty religion” (Pollack, 2021).

                              In fashioning the corrupted Torah, the “so-called Jews” had usurped African Americans’ position as “the real chosen people of God” (Norwood &amp; Pollack, 2020). “Almighty God Allah revealed that the Black People of America are the Real Children of Israel . . . and . . . unto us He will deliver His Promise.” The Jews in the Middle East are only “the False Israel” (Farrakhan, 2011; Pollack, 2013). Addressing Israel’s prime minister, in 2017 Farrakhan warned: “To Israel, Bibi [Netanyahu]: . . . Your desire is to conquer that whole area lying, saying that ‘Abraham promised you.’ He ain’t promised you a damn thing!” (ADL, 2018).

                              When Farrakhan announced that “the presence of a state called Israel is an outlaw act,” he was merely voicing long-held NOI doctrine. As was his characterization of “America [and] England . . . [as] criminals in the sight of Almighty God.” Fard had foretold that Allah’s annihilation of the white devils in a lake of fire would begin with the destruction of England in retribution for the Balfour Declaration, which promised Palestine to the “false Jews.” After the establishment of Israel, Elijah updated the narrative, thrusting the US into the initial path of destruction of the fiery storm (Pollack, 2013; Pollack, 2021).

                              As NOI theology held that the Hebrew Bible was largely prophecy about the Black Nation, it was Blacks—not Jews—who had been enslaved for 400 years. For the NOI, the imposter Jews had not been enslaved—they were enslavers—of the Black Nation. Anonymously authored by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, in 1991 the NOI published The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, which attributed “monumental culpability” for the Atlantic slave trade to the Jews—a “monumental lie” (Axelrod, 1995). Scholars have shown that Jews had only a “very marginal place” in the slave trade (Davis, 1994). Still, NOI members crisscrossed the country, hawking the tract and preaching its message. In 2019, Farrakhan continued to rail that “members of the so-called Jewish community brought our fathers out of Africa, owned the ships, owned the plantations, were the <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Number+1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Number.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Number 1</a> buyers of slaves!” (Pollack, 2021).
                              ...

                              Several co-chairs of the Women’s March—organized to demonstrate opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump—had ties to Farrakhan and endorsed his antisemitic message. In 2016 and early 2017, women of color co-chairs informed Jewish organizers that “You people [or “your people”] hold all the wealth,” and “Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people” (McSweeney &amp; Siegel, 2018; Pollack, 2019). Tamika Mallory, one of the co-chairs, later clarified that their remarks only referred to “white Jews.” In 2018, Mallory attended the NOI’s annual commemoration of “Saviour’s Day,” honoring Fard’s birth, where Farrakhan denounced “Satanic Jews” and promised “Satan is going down” (Pagano, 2018). Mallory then praised Farrakhan as the “GOAT”—“Greatest of All Time” (Page, 2018; Pollack, 2021).

                              The Black Lives Matter Movement: When Narrative Replaces Reality

                              ...

                              Although the movement has generally leveled its charges at “Zionists,” frequently antisemitism appears undisguised. Updating the centuries-old blood libel, BLM marchers chanted, “Israel, we know you kill children too!” and signs proclaimed, “Defend Gaza: the New Warsaw Ghetto”—the Jews cast as the Nazis annihilating innocent people of color (Lapkin, 2020; Torok, 2021). Addressing a conference on Human Rights in 2015, Patrisse Cullors, one of the three co-founders of the movement, characterized the Palestinian cause as “our generation’s South Africa” and urged the audience to “step up boldly and courageously to end the imperialist project that’s called Israel,” concluding that “we’re doomed” if Israel is not brought to an “end” (Chamberlain, 2021). As Natan Sharansky, the eminent human rights activist, explained, “The denial of Israel’s right to exist is always antisemitic” (2005). Manfred Gerstenfeld, longtime analyst of Judeophobia, warned, “BLM is a racist movement . . . [which] intends nothing good for Jews or Israel, no matter how many Jews proclaim their allegiance to it” (2020).

                              ....

                              ...

                              Reading—or Denying—the Handwriting on the Wall


                              The handwriting was clearly on the wall. Yet many national Jewish organizations chose to ignore the signs—until August 1, 2016, when the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) posted the policy platform “A Vision for Black Lives.”

                              The BLM website identified M4BL as one of its four (sometimes, five) “partners”—apparently “divided for fundraising purposes”—and provided a direct link to the M4BL platform. (Hollander, 2020; BLM, 2016). The “Invest/Divest” section of the platform stated that because of its alliance with Israel, “the US . . . is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.” It claimed that “Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people” and condemned “the US-funded apartheid wall.” In a variant of the blood libel, the platform charged that Israeli soldiers “regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old.” The platform called on activists to “build invest/divestment campaigns that ends [sic] US Aid to Israel’s military industrial complex” and provided a link to the BDS movement website (M4BL, 2020).

                              To Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, “the platform is the closest thing to a formal declaration of principles by BLM” (2016). By contrast, national Jewish organizations minimized the platform’s significance. Jonathan Greenblatt, executive director of the ADL since July 2015, condemned the claims of the Invest/Divest section, but insisted that it was only “some individuals and organizations associated with the Black Lives Matter movement [that] have engaged in antisemitic rhetoric” (Hollander, 2020). The Jewish Council for Public Affairs [JCPA] also tried to isolate M4BL, stressing that its views should not be seen as “the consensus position of the entire movement. The Black Lives Matter movement is diffuse and diverse” (JCPA, [n.d.]).

                              Dershowitz, by contrast, refused to minimize the import of the platform: “To falsely accuse Israel of ‘genocide,’ the worst crime of all, . . . is antisemitic. Until and unless BLM removes this blood libel from its platform and renounces it, no decent person . . . should have anything to do with it” (Dershowitz, 2016). To Isi Leibler, a leader of the movement to liberate Soviet Jews, it was “unconscionable” that “any mainstream Jewish organization [would] continue providing legitimacy” to the BLM movement “on the grounds that only ‘a small minority of leaders’ are responsible. [But] for an organization like the ADL, whose principal mandate is to combat antisemitism, it is sheer lunacy” (Leibler, 2016).

                              Although these organizations continue to insist that the BLM movement should not be identified with the M4BL platform, much evidence contradicts their claim. Ricki Hollander, senior analyst at CAMERA, who carefully traced the organizational interconnections within the movement, concluded that “it is not only a few individual activists or protestors who espouse antisemitic views. Rather, there is a top-down strategy of incorporating anti-Zionist activism into the movement” (Hollander, 2020). Moreover, prospective chapters must undergo “a rigorous assessment” and “commit to the organization’s [thirteen] guiding principles” before being admitted to the BLM network (Cobb, 2016). That is, it is not the “diffuse and diverse” organization that some portrayed.

                              One scholar suggested that Jews should “point out BLM’s moral blind spot” to activists (Rosenblatt, 2016). But, as Jonathan Tobin, editor-in-chief of Jewish News Syndicate, explains, the platform’s condemnation of “Israel as an ‘apartheid state’ [is] a lie that is integral to the intersectional ideology at the core of the BLM mindset” (Tobin, 2020c)—not a “blind spot.”

                              The paradigm that guides leading BLM activists positions the Jewish state and Zionism at the epicenter of racial oppression—with Israelis classed as ‘Whites’ in the current lexicon. This is part of the tendency of Black militants/nationalists—dating at least since Malcolm X, whom BLM activists revere—to recast Jews as victimizers—even the worst of the victimizers—no longer, or never, victims. The Holocaust is replaced by the “Black Holocaust.” For BLM leaders and activists, Only White Racism Matters. Melina Abdullah, co-founder of the Los Angeles chapter of BLM, stated, “You can’t be on the front lines for the struggle for freedom for one group of people, and then be silent on everyone else’s” (Sullivan &amp; Wootson, 2021). In practice, however, BLM has focused only on “the struggle for freedom” of Palestinian people of color from the “racist” Jewish state.

                              ...

                              On August 28, 2020—the day chosen to “coincide with the 57th anniversary of [Martin Luther King’s] 1963 March on Washington”—a full-page ad appeared in the New York Times, consisting of a letter entitled “We Speak with One Voice when We Say, Unequivocally: BLACK LIVES MATTER.” Organized by Bend the Arc, which identifies as “the only national Jewish organization focused exclusively on progressive social change in the United States,” the letter was signed by more than 600 Jewish groups—allegedly “representing over half of Jewish people in the U.S.” (Stancil, 2020). The signatories endorsed the BLM movement as “the current day Civil Rights movement in this country” (”Jewish Organizations Say,” 2020).

                              The letter addresses antisemitism, but only to identify it as a sword wielded by “politicians and political movements in this country who build power by deliberately manufacturing fear to divide us against each other” (”Jewish Organizations Say,” 2020). In short, according to the letter, accusations of antisemitism within the BLM movement are without foundation. That the signatories “seek[ ] to link opposition to the movement to antisemitism,” Tobin observes, “isn’t just wrong. It’s outrageous since intersectional radicals who form the shock troops of the BLM movement . . . are themselves guilty of antisemitism” (2020c).

                              Many who signed the letter present their support for the BLM movement as an expression of their commitment to tikkun olam—repairing the world—or to “social justice,” which is, as Tobin observes, not just at the core of “their political views,” but represents “their conception of Judaism” and “their American Jewish identity” (2020b). Thus the Jewish Council for Public Affairs continues to insist that “experience has shown that we can have a far greater impact in deterring antisemitism if we are in relationship with leaders and organizations” (JCPA, [n.d.]). But, as Tobin concludes, “anyone expecting BLM ideologues to join the fight against antisemitism, let alone BDS, isn’t paying attention” (2020b). Or, as Manfred Gerstenfeld lamented, for the signatories of the letter, “repairing the world entails embracing antisemites, being Jewish masochists, . . . and foregoing Jewish dignity” (2020).

                              Conclusion

                              Although today anyone suspected of harboring racist views is designated a pariah, even overt, “egregious” expressions of antisemitism do not elicit “the same moral opprobrium” (Tobin, 2020a). This is even more true if the antisemite is African American. The columnist Richard Cohen’s 1984 lament—that “few know how to deal with black racism—a double standard of sorts [exists]”—remains valid (Cohen, 1984). Compounding the problem is the tendency of Black academic, political and cultural figures to run interference for the offenders. Derrick Bell, the first Black professor at Harvard Law School, defended Blacks who celebrated Farrakhan, warning that “even those who strongly disagree with some of his positions must ask whether the negatives justify total condemnation” (Muravchik, 1995). In 2005, when Farrakhan was organizing the Millions More March, Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, challenged Black leaders to disavow an event whose conveners “taint the proceedings with the baggage of anti-Semitism and hate.” In response, Russell Simmons, the hip-hop mogul—and chair of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding—denounced Foxman: “Simply put, you are misguided, arrogant and very disrespectful of African Americans”—and unloosed an antisemitic charge of his own: “When you keep demonizing Farrakhan in front of the Jewish community . . . that might be another way to raise money” (Anderson, 2005).

                              In 2019, it was the Congressional Black Caucus that interceded on behalf of Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Caucus member, blocking her censure and objecting to a resolution that would have condemned what Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) characterized as her “vile, hate-filled, antisemitic, anti-Israel bigotry.” Among other comments, Omar had famously tweeted that Congress’s support for Israel was “all about the Benjamins, baby”—that is, Jewish money bought their votes. Instead, Congress approved an all-inclusive resolution that denounced “antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry.” Elated, Omar celebrated it as a “historic” victory for Muslims (Nelson, 2019; Davis, 2019). Deflecting attention from Black antisemitism, Congress had also erased the uniqueness of the world’s oldest and longest hatred.

                              Much of this true except for your conclusion. In terms of Kanye West and Nick Fuentes it is not a matter of being 'suspected of harboring racist views.'

                              Black racism is as much a problem as white and Hispanic racism. Our country is waist deep in racism from coast to coast. This is far to often minimized and white washed as described in post #

                              Thank you for staying on topic
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                                The upfront problem is staying on topic, and NOT pigeonholing people.



                                Bad example. Staying on topic is the up front issue.



                                Avoid the invitation of labels by staying on topic.
                                I find it hilarious how anybody who challenges the premise behind one of your threads is immediately declared by you to be "off topic".
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Bill the Cat, Today, 04:39 PM
                                12 responses
                                51 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by One Bad Pig, Today, 12:33 PM
                                5 responses
                                52 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 11:04 AM
                                10 responses
                                56 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:09 PM
                                11 responses
                                73 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:24 AM
                                27 responses
                                151 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X