This is a specific subject page, dealing exclusively with, or primarily with, the subject in the title. Because of need, there are many such pages at RHWW: usually, but not always, linked to primary pages. For those in a hurry, they enable a quick summary of many important subjects. The menu for these pages is here: Click>>>



Blacks and Jews


Modern material illuminating the relationship, past and present, between Blacks and Khazar Jews





Encyclopedia Britannica – The Siege of Jerusalem - The Jewish-Roman war of 70 A.D.

The fall of Jerusalem was a pivotal moment in the first Jewish-Roman war. It resulted in the destruction of the ancient temple of Solomon and much of the surrounding city by a fire started by the Roman army under the command of the future Emperor Titus.

The Jewish-Roman war of 66 to 73 A.D. was the first of three rebellions by Jews against Roman rule in Judaea and is referred to as "The Great Revolt." The revolt started in 66 A.D. following religious tensions between Greeks and Jews, but soon involved protests against taxation and attacks on Roman citizens. Shocked by the defeat of a legion under the command of Gallus, Emperor Nero sent military commander Vespasian, with a force of 60,000, to ensure that order was restored.
Despite victories elsewhere, Jerusalem proved difficult to take. Vespasian’s son, Titus, surrounded the city with a wall and a trench, and anyone caught trying to escape was crucified. Titus then put pressure on the food and water supply by allowing pilgrims to enter the city in order to celebrate Passover but not letting them out.

After a number of failed attempts to attack the city, the Romans set about the destruction of Jerusalem’s formidable defenses with a battering ram. Having breached these defenses, the Romans fought their way from street to street. Many Zealots sought sanctuary in the ancient temple of Solomon and in the fortress of Antonia. The Romans finally overwhelmed the fortress, and the ancient temple was destroyed by fire in the ensuing battle, reputedly against the wishes of Titus. The destruction of the temple is still mourned by Jews in the annual fast of Tisha be-Av, and the fall of Jerusalem is celebrated in Rome’s Arch of Titus. Losses: According to Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish, 1.1 million dead and 97,000 enslaved; Roman, unknown.




Publius Cornelius Tacitus c. 56 – c. 120 A.D.) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors (69 AD). These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus, in 14 AD, to the years of the First Jewish–Roman War, in 70 AD. There are substantial lacunae in the surviving texts, including a gap in the Annals that is four books long.

The Histories

Only the first four books and twenty-six chapters of the fifth book survive, covering the year 69 and the first part of 70. The work is believed to have continued up to the death of Domitian on September 18, 96. The fifth book contains—as a prelude to the account of Titus's suppression of the Great Jewish Revolt—a short ethnographic survey of the ancient Jews, and it is an invaluable record of Roman attitudes towards them.



The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 A.D.) had these thoughts on the origins and customs of the Hebrews, as the Romans prepared to destroy Jerusalem.


This is in the context of Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea.


Tacitus: History Book 5

1. EARLY in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea, and who had gained distinction as a soldier while both were still subjects, began to rise in power and reputation, as armies and provinces emulated each other in their attachment to him. The young man himself, anxious to be thought superior to his station, was ever displaying his gracefulness and his energy in war. By his courtesy and affability he called forth a willing obedience, and he often mixed with the common soldiers, while working or marching, without impairing his dignity as general. He found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian's. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria. This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy's territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitring every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem.

2. As I am about to relate the last days of a famous city, it seems appropriate to throw some light on its origin. Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name. (The Solymi were supposedly a tribe from Pisidia, a region of ancient Anatolia/Asia Minor/Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire/Turkey).


Watch out for Racist Translations!

Here we must pause and caution against using any translation of ancient texts without crosschecking it with others. In this case, the Racist Degenerates at the University of Chicago once again reveal their vile nature by conveniently leaving out Ethiopian as a possible origin of the Hebrews. The reason is quite simple, though the simple-minded might be fooled into believing that Cretans, Egyptians, Assyrians and Solymi were Albinos: Even the dumbest knows that Ethiopians are Black.

Do NOT use this Translation!*.html


This translation at Tufts University seems Okay.




According to historians of the actual times,

the above is what a Jew (or Hebrew) actually looked like.

So who are the Albino people claiming to be Jews?


Encyclopedia Britannica - The Khazar people

Khazar, member of a confederation of Turkic-speaking tribes that in the late 6th century ce established a major commercial empire covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia. Although the origin of the term Khazar and the early history of the Khazar people are obscure, it is fairly certain that the Khazars were originally located in the northern Caucasus region and were part of the western Turkic empire (in Turkistan). The Khazars were in contact with the Persians in the mid-6th century ce, and they aided the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (reigned 610–641) in his campaign against the Persians. By the beginning of the 7th century, the Khazars had become independent of the Turkic empire to the east. But by the middle of that century, the expanding empire of the Arabs had penetrated as far northward as the northern Caucasus, and from then on until the mid-8th century the Khazars engaged in a series of wars with the Arab empire.

Although basically Turkic, the Khazar state bore little resemblance to the other Turkic empires of central Eurasia. It was headed by a secluded supreme ruler of semireligious character called a khagan—who wielded little real power—and by tribal chieftains, each known as a beg. The state’s military organization also seems to have lacked the forcefulness of those of the greater Turkic-Mongol empires. The Khazars seem to have been more inclined to a sedentary way of life, building towns and fortresses, tilling the soil, and planting gardens and vineyards. Trade and the collection of tribute were major sources of income.

But the most striking characteristic of the Khazars was the apparent adoption of Judaism in about 740 A.D. The circumstances of the conversion remain obscure, the depth of their adoption of Judaism difficult to assess; but the fact itself is undisputed and unparalleled in central Eurasian history. A few scholars have even asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote ancestors of many eastern European and Russian Jews.




The New York Times (A jewish publication)

Opinion - July 20, 1992

Black Demagogues and Pseudo-Scholars

By Henry Louis Gates Jr.;

{Henry Louis Gates Jr. is professor of English and chairman of the the Afro-American Studies Department at Harvard}.


CAMBRIDGE, Mass.— During the past decade, the historic relationship between African Americans and Jewish Americans -- a relationship that sponsored so many of the concrete advances of the civil rights era -- showed another and less attractive face.

While anti-Semitism is generally on the wane in this country, it has been on the rise among black Americans. A recent survey finds not only that blacks are twice as likely as whites to hold anti-Semitic views but -- significantly -- that it is among the younger and more educated blacks that anti-Semitism is most pronounced.

The trend has been deeply disquieting for many black intellectuals. But it is something most of us, as if by unstated agreement, simply choose not to talk about. At a time when black America is beleaguered on all sides, there is a strong temptation simply to ignore the phenomenon or treat it as something strictly marginal. And yet to do so would be a serious mistake. As the African-American philosopher Cornel West has insisted, attention to black anti-Semitism is crucial, however discomfiting, in no small part because the moral credibility of our struggle against racism hangs in the balance.

When the Rev. Jesse Jackson, in an impassioned address at a conference of the World Jewish Congress on July 7, condemned the sordid history of anti-Semitism, he not only went some distance toward retrieving the once abandoned mantle of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s humane statesmanship, he also delivered a stern rebuke -- while not specifically citing black anti-Semitism -- to those black leaders who have sought to bolster their own strength through division. Mr. Jackson and others have learned that we must not allow these demagogues to turn the wellspring of memory into a renewable resource of enmity everlasting.

We must begin by recognizing what is new about the new anti-Semitism. Make no mistake: this is anti-Semitism from the top down, engineered and promoted by leaders who affect to be speaking for a larger resentment. This top-down anti-Semitism, in large part the province of the better educated classes, can thus be contrasted with the anti-Semitism from below common among African American urban communities in the 1930's and 40's, which followed in many ways a familiar pattern of clientelistic hostility toward the neighborhood vendor or landlord.

In American cities, hostility of this sort is now commonly directed toward Korean shop owners. But "minority" traders and shopkeepers elsewhere in the world -- such as the Indians of East Africa and the Chinese of Southeast Asia -- have experienced similar ethnic antagonism.

Anti-Jewish sentiment can also be traced to Christian anti-Semitism, given the historic importance of Christianity in the black community.

Unfortunately, the old paradigms will not serve to explain the new bigotry and its role in black America. For one thing, its preferred currency is not the mumbled epithet or curse but the densely argued treatise; it belongs as much to the repertory of campus lecturers as community activists. And it comes in wildly different packages.

A book popular with some in the "Afrocentric" movement, "The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man's Racism, Sexism, and Aggression" by Michael Bradley, argues that white people are so vicious because they, unlike the rest of mankind, are descended from the brutish Neanderthals.

More to the point, it speculates that the Jews may have been the " 'purest' and oldest Neanderthal-Caucasoids," the iciest of the ice people; hence (he explains) the singularly odious character of ancient Jewish culture.

Crackpot as it sounds, the book has lately been reissued with endorsements from two members of the Africana Studies Department of the City College of New York, as well as an introduction by Dr. John Henrik Clarke, professor emeritus of Hunter College and the great paterfamilias of the Afrocentric movement.

Dr. Clarke has recently attacked multiculturalism as the product of what he called the "Jewish educational Mafia." And while Dr. Leonard Jeffries's views on supposed Jewish complicity in the subjection of blacks captured headlines, his intellectual cohorts such as Conrad Muhammad and Khallid Muhammad address community gatherings and college students across the country purveying a similar doctrine.

College speakers and publications have played a disturbing role in legitimating the new creed. Last year, U.C.L.A.'s black newspaper, Nommo, defended the importance of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious Czarist canard that portrays a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. (Those who took issue were rebuked with an article headlined: "Anti-Semitic? Ridiculous -- Chill.")

Speaking at Harvard University earlier this year, Conrad Muhammad, the New York representative of the Nation of Islam, neatly annexed environmentalism to anti-Semitism when he blamed the Jews for despoiling the environment and destroying the ozone layer.

But the bible of the new anti-Semitism is "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," an official publication of the Nation of Islam that boasts 1,275 footnotes in the course of 334 pages.

Sober and scholarly looking, it may well be one of the most influential books published in the black community in last 12 months. It is available in black-oriented shops in cities across the nation, even those that specialize in Kente cloth and beads rather than books. It can also can be ordered over the phone, by dialing 1-800-48-TRUTH. Meanwhile, the book's conclusions are, in many circles, increasingly treated as damning historical fact.

The book, one of the most sophisticated instances of hate literature yet compiled, was prepared by the historical research department of the Nation of Islam. It charges that the Jews were "key operatives"in the historic crime of slavery, playing an "inordinate" and "disproportionate" role and "carv [ ing ] out for themselves a monumental culpability in slavery -- and the black holocaust." Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.

To be sure, the book massively misrepresents the historical record, largely through a process of cunningly selective quotation of often reputable sources. But its authors could be confident that few of its readers would go to the trouble of actually hunting down the works cited. For if readers actually did so, they might discover a rather different picture.

They might find out -- from the book's own vaunted authorities -- that, for example, of all the African slaves imported into the New World, American Jewish merchants accounted for less than 2 percent, a finding sharply at odds with the Nation's of Islam's claim of Jewish "predominance" in this traffic.

They might find out that in the domestic trade it appears that all of the Jewish slave traders combined bought and sold fewer slaves than the single gentile firm of Franklin and Armfield. In short, they might learn what the historian Harold Brackman has documented at length -- that the book's repeated insistence that the Jews dominated the slave trade depends on an unscrupulous distortion of the historic record. But the most ominous words in the book are found on the cover: "Volume One." More have been promised, to carry on the saga of Jewish iniquity to the present day.

However shoddy the scholarship of works like "The Secret Relationship," underlying it is something even more troubling: the tacit conviction that culpability is heritable. For it suggests a doctrine of racial continuity, in which the racial evil of a people is merely manifest (rather than constituted) by their historical misdeeds. The reported misdeeds are thus the signs of an essential nature that is evil.

How does this theology of guilt surface in our everyday moral discourse? In New York, earlier this spring, a forum was held at the Church of St. Paul and Andrew to provide an occasion for blacks and Jews to engage in dialogue on such issues as slavery and social injustice. Both Jewish and black panelists found common ground, and common causes. But a tone-setting contingent of blacks in the audience took strong issue with the proceedings. Outraged, they demanded to know why the Jews, those historic malefactors, had not apologized to the "descendants of African kings and queens."

And so the organizer of the event, Melanie Kaye Kantrowitz, did. Her voice quavering with emotion, she said: "I think I speak for a lot of people in this room when I say 'I'm sorry.' We're ashamed of it, we hate it, and that's why we organized this event."

Should the Melanie Kantrowitzes of the world, whose ancestors survived pogroms and, latterly, the Nazi Holocaust, be the primary object of our wrath? And what is yielded by this hateful sport of victimology, save the conversion of a tragic past into a game of recrimination? Perhaps that was on the mind of another audience member. "I don't want an apology," a dreadlocked woman told her angrily. "I want reparations. Forty acres and a mule, plus interest."

These are times that try the spirit of liberal outreach. In fact, the Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, himself explained the real agenda behind his campaign, speaking before an audience of 15,000 at the University of Illinois last fall. The purpose of "The Secret Relationship," he said, was to "rearrange a relationship" that "has been detrimental to us."

"Rearrange" is a curiously elliptical term here: if a relation with another group has been detrimental, it only makes sense to sever it as quickly and unequivocally as possible. In short, by "rearrange," he means to convert a relation of friendship, alliance and uplift into one of enmity, distrust and hatred.

But why target the Jews? Using the same historical methodology, after all, the researchers of the book could have produced a damning treatise on the involvement of left-handers in the "black holocaust." The answer requires us to go beyond the usual shibboleths about bigotry and view the matter, from the demagogues' perspective, strategically: as the bid of one black elite to supplant another.

It requires us, in short, to see anti-Semitism as a weapon in the raging battle of who will speak for black America -- those who have sought common cause with others or those who preach a barricaded withdrawal into racial authenticity.

The strategy of these apostles of hate, I believe, is best understood as ethnic isolationism -- they know that the more isolated black America becomes, the greater their power. And what's the most efficient way to begin to sever black America from its allies? Bash the Jews, these demagogues apparently calculate, and you're halfway there.

I myself think that the great French aphorist Rochefoucault put his finger on something germane when he observed, "We can rarely bring ourselves to forgive those who have helped us." For sometimes it seems that the trajectory of black-Jewish relations is a protracted enactment of Rochefoucault's paradox.

Many American Jews are puzzled by the recrudescence of black anti-Semitism, in view of the historic alliance between the two groups. The brutal truth has escaped them: that the new anti-Semitism arises not in spite of the black-Jewish alliance but because of that alliance.

For precisely such trans-ethnic, trans-racial cooperation -- epitomized by the historic partnership between blacks and Jews -- is what poses the greatest threat to the isolationist movement.

In short, for the tacticians of the new anti-Semitism, the original sin of American Jews was their involvement -- truly "inordinate," truly "disproportionate" -- not in slavery, but in the front ranks of the civil rights struggle.

For decent and principled reasons, many black intellectuals are loath to criticize "oppositional" black leaders. Yet it has become increasingly apparent that to continue to maintain a comradely silence may be, in effect, to capitulate to the isolationist agenda, to betray our charge and trust. And, to be sure, many black writers, intellectuals, and religious leaders have taken an unequivocal stand on this issue.

Cornel West aptly describes black anti-Semitism as "the bitter fruit of a profound self-destructive impulse, nurtured on the vines of hopelessness and concealed by empty gestures of black unity."

After 12 years of conservative indifference, those political figures who acquiesced, by malign neglect, to the deepening crisis of black America should not feign surprise that we should prove so vulnerable to the demagogues' rousing messages of hate, their manipulation of the past and present.

Bigotry, as a tragic century has taught us, is an opportunistic infection, attacking most virulently when the body politic is in a weakened state. Yet neither should those who care about black America gloss over what cannot be condoned: that much respect we owe to ourselves. For surely it falls to all of us to recapture the basic insight that Dr. King so insistently expounded. "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality," he told us. "Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly." How easy to forget this -- and how vital to remember.




 News {Founded by Louis Farrakhan}.


Enough! Is EVERY Black Person AN 'Anti-Semite'?

By Tingba Muhammad -Guest Columnist-
Updated Oct 8, 2014 - 1:30:16 PM

( - Over the years Blacks have been bludgeoned by Jews with the false and despicable charge of "anti-Semitism." The strongest advocates of Black freedom such as the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan have borne the brunt of this Jewish abuse, but lately ANY Black person who can complete a full sentence is vulnerable to the charge. U.S. President Barack Obama, possibly the most pro-Israel Black man in America—has been viciously attacked as an “Anti-Semitic Jew-hater.”

A Google search of “Obama and anti-Semitism” returns over five million hits; a search of “Farrakhan and anti-Semitism” returns a tiny fraction of that number—just under 65,000! This shows that it absolutely does not matter what a Black authority says or does—he or she is an anti-Semite.

Of course, neither of these extraordinary Black men is anything close to a Jew-hater, but now both have decided to respond to the charges. President Obama has finally stood up to Israeli oppression of the Palestinians; Minister Farrakhan, on March 14, revealed the EXTENSIVE history of Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust.

Jewish Slave-Dealing in the New World

Jews owned, insured, and financed slave ships and outfitted them with chains and shackles for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. They were auctioneers, commission merchants, brokers, and wholesalers, keeping the slave economy oiled with money, markets, and supplies.

Christopher Columbus—whose Trans-Atlantic exploits initiated the brutal genocide of the Red man and forecasted the African Holocaust—was financed by wealthy Spanish Jews and is claimed by some scholars to be a Jew himself.

Nine out of ten captured Africans were shipped to Brazil. Jewish scholar Dr. Arnold Wiznitzer described the early Jewish presence: “[Jews] dominated the slave trade ... The buyers … at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of this lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices.”

According to Jewish scholar Dr. Harold Brackman, during the 1600s “slave trading in Brazil became a ‘Jewish' mercantile specialty in much the same way it had been in early medieval Europe.” In fact, wrote Jewish scholar Jonathan Schorsch, “Jewish merchants routinely possessed enormous numbers of slaves temporarily before selling them off.” If a slave auction fell on a Jewish holiday it was postponed due to lack of buyers and sellers!

The Jewish Encyclopedia adds that “Jewish commercial activity” in this time included a “monopoly of the slave trade.” Jewish traders bought Africans in lots from the Trans-Atlantic shippers and retailed them to inland plantation owners.

The Jews of Surinam gave their slave plantations Hebrew names such as Machanayim, Nachamu, and Goshen. According to Dr. Marcus Arkin, they used “many thousands” of Black slaves. Rabbi Herbert I. Bloom added that the “slave trade was one of the most important Jewish activities ...” In 1694, Jews owned 9,000 Africans, and by 1791 there were 100 “Jewish mulattoes” in Surinam—the result of the rape of African women by their Jewish enslavers.

The prominent Jewish historian Dr. Cecil Roth wrote that the slave revolts in parts of South America “were largely directed against [Jews], as being the greatest slave-holders of the region.” Jews set up militias with the sole purpose of fighting the Black Maroons, the escaped Africans who were fighting to free their enslaved brethren.

The first Hebrew poem written in the New World was an attack on the Black Maroon leader. The Jewish militias murdered the Maroons and cut off their hands to award as trophies.

The Jews of Barbados, wrote one Jewish scholar, “made a good deal of their money by purchasing and hiring out negroes ...”

All Barbadian Jews—including the rabbi—owned Black slaves. Jews warehoused so many African slaves in Barbados that authorities moved to limit the number of captives they could possess. Jews became the major traders in “refuse slaves”—Africans who were weak and sick from the Middle Passage voyage. Jewish traders “fattened them up” and sold them at a profit.

A major Jewish shipper from France had a monopoly on trade to the notorious slave dungeon at Gorée Island—the Auschwitz of the Black Holocaust. Sugar fueled and expanded the slave trade, and according to Jewish scholars, Jews “acquired large sugarcane plantations and became the leading entrepreneurs in the sugar trade.”

Jewish scholars Isaac and Susan Emmanuel reported that in Curacao, which was a major slave-trading depot, “the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise.”

Jewish Slave-Dealing in the United States

Jews were twice as likely to be slave owners as the average Southerner. Rabbi and historian Bertram Korn, the acknowledged expert on 19th-century Jews, wrote: “It would seem to be realistic to conclude that any Jew who could afford to own slaves and had need for their services would do so ... Jews participated in every aspect and process of the exploitation of the defenseless Blacks.”

The very first Jewish communal settlement in the United States was a Florida sugar plantation supported entirely by the labor of dozens of enslaved Africans.

According to documents, when the earliest settlers in New York decided to enter the slave trade, they contacted “the jobbers and the Jews,” who were the recognized international dealers. The largest shipments of Africans arriving in New York in the first half of the 18th century were commissioned by Jewish merchants.

Jews owned slave pens where they warehoused Africans and sold them wholesale. They smuggled slaves to places where slavery was illegal, rented them when they did not want to buy, and bred African women for sexual purposes. Jews ran jails and imprisoned and punished Black slaves; they served as constables, sheriffs, detectives, and bounty hunters. Jewish peddlers traveling the countryside were known to search for and capture runaway slaves and bring them in for the bounty.

The founders of Richmond, Virginia's Jewish community were all slaveholders. When slavery was outlawed in Georgia, Jews left; they returned only when slavery was reinstated.

In Newport, Rhode Island—the center of the rum and slave trade—every Jewish family owned Black slaves. Their synagogue was built by Black slaves “of some skill.” Of the 22 Newport distilleries serving the triangular slave trade, all were owned by Jews. American rabbis owned and rented slaves. The leading abolitionist organization bitterly complained that Jews “have never taken any steps whatever” against slavery.

The nation's highest paid clergyman, Rabbi Morris Raphall of New York, defended slavery and claimed God Himself had sanctioned it. The one rabbi who forcefully attacked slavery, Baltimore's David Einhorn, was thrown out of his own Jewish congregation and forced to flee the city.

The Jewish writer Mordecai Manuel Noah was such a virulent racist that the very first Black newspaper, Freedom's Journal, was started in 1827 just to combat his racist attacks.

Jews helped to suppress slave uprisings and in 1831, Jews were involved in hunting down the great Nat Turner and his freedom fighters. More than 3,000 Jews fought for the slaveholders in the Civil War, and a Jewish owner of a 140-slave plantation, Judah P. Benjamin, was secretary of state for the Confederacy.

His picture is engraved on Confederate currency. Jewish bankers like the Erlangers financed the Confederacy. Benjamin financed the Ku Klux Klan after the war.

Jews willed Black humans from one Jewish generation to another, and sold Black babies away from their parents. One Jew stipulated in his will that the sale of his slaves should be used for his son's Yale tuition. When their slaves grew elderly and infirm and were unable to work Jews “freed” them, forcing them to fend for themselves in their old age.

The first Jew elected to the U.S. Senate, Florida's David Yulee, was one of the most strident haters of Indians and defenders of slavery in American history. The distressing reality is that nearly all the Jewish slave dealers enjoyed prominent and honored places among their co-religionists. The profits from their slavery-based enterprises helped finance Jewish community development, built synagogues, homes, schools, businesses, and institutions, and in many untold ways enriched their lives and communities. Actually, one is hard-pressed to name a single prominent American Jew in the slavery era who did not own slaves or profit directly from Black African slavery.

In his 1983 book Jews and Judaism in the United States, Rabbi Dr. Marc Lee Raphael, the longtime editor of the most prestigious Jewish historical journal wrote in two paragraphs (p. 14) one of the more definitive statements on Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust: “… Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the “triangular trade” that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa …”

Given the extraordinary history of Jewish involvement in the Black Holocaust, it is a wonder how any Jew could call any Black person “anti-Semitic.” But it gets worse—Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't stop Jewish merchants and traders from their oppressive ways during the Jim Crow and sharecropping era and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan.











The NAACP began as the “Committee for the Advancement of the Negro Race” by abolitionist type White People

But when Jews saw it's potential for THEIR advancement, they took it over and funded it, with hapless Blacks as their front.

Thus it became: The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Jews were not thought of as White at the time).

a African-American Jewish FUNDED civil rights organization formed in 1909



The founding board members

National President, Moorfield Storey.
Chairman of the Executive Committee, William English Walling.
Treasurer, John E. Milholland (right).


Note: no picture is available for Executive Secretary, Frances Blascoer


Inez Milholland daughter of John E. Milholland
Disbursing Treasurer, Oswald Garrison Villard
Director of Publicity and Research, Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois.


The NAACP was incorporated in 1911. The association's charter delineated its mission:



To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens (Jews were not thought of as White at the time); to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

The conference resulted in a more influential and diverse organization, where the leadership was predominantly white and heavily Jewish American. In fact, at its founding, the NAACP had only one African American on its executive board, Du Bois himself. It did not elect a black president until 1975, although executive directors had been African-American. The Jewish community contributed greatly to the NAACP's founding and continued financing. Jewish historian Howard Sachar writes in his book A History of Jews in America of how, "In 1914, Professor Emeritus Joel Spingarn of Columbia University became chairman of the NAACP and recruited for its board such Jewish leaders as Jacob Schiff, Jacob Billikopf, and Rabbi Stephen Wise." Early Jewish-American co-founders included Julius Rosenwald, Lillian Wald, Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch and Wise.






Special Dispatch to the Herald - Westport Inn, N.Y., Aug. 17, 1924.

John E. Milholland, Father of Inez

Race Issue Hits Feminist Party: it crops up at funeral for Late Inez Milholland daughter of NAACP co-founder John E. Milholland


Race antagonism was injected in dramatic manner today into the campaign which the National Woman's Party is to wage for the election of women congressmen who will fight for legal equality of the sexes. After a memorial service for Inez Milholland, who died Nov. 25, 1916, while campaigning for suffrage in the West, the delegates marched out of the little Congregational church at Lewis, 12 miles from here, and to the top of the nearby mountain where the feminist leader is buried.

John E. Milholland, her father, had with him three negroes who are his house guests, Dr. Emmett J. Scott, secretary and treasurer of Howard University at Washington, D.C.; Miss Lucy Slowe, professor of the department of women at Howard University, and Mrs. A. W. Hunton of New York City, representing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. None of them had been asked to participate in the program at the grave and Mr. Milholland in the midst of the services, suddenly felt unable to contain himself.

"Friends of Inez," he said with obvious emotion, "I am her father and I want to say to you what I had intended to say until now, as I stand here beside her grave. I feel duty to speak out. If I did not think her spirit would rise up from the grave and say to me, 'Dad, why were you afraid.'"

"And so I want to remind you that in the first suffrage parade, Inez herself demanded that the colored women be allowed to march, and now today we were told that it would mar the program to have these guests of mine speak. I have nothing to say except that Inez believed in equal rights for everybody."

There was a pause as Mr. Milholland finished and leaders of the party talked together in low tones and a suppressed murmur ran through the throngs of delegates.

Then Dr. Scott was asked to say something. "Inez Milholland had the courage to face the application of democratic principles and was not afraid to follow them to their logical end." began Dr. Scott.

"Those who fight for a fresh idea and for a great ideal do not fear to be counted as a friend of the friendless and a defender of the weak, and she was that and more. Howard University holds dear among its traditions the unflinching faith and courage of the woman who in the moment of her greatest triumph, forgot not justice and fair play."

The party workers admitted that Mr. Milholland's outburst had caused them much uneasiness. Mrs. Gatewold Boyers explained why it was that none of the Negroes had been placed on the program.

"We did not want it to go out," she said, "that we were bringing in the colored people. It would be bad politics. We want to try to elect some women congressmen in the southern states, and after all, this is our convention-not Mr. Milholland's."

Miss Alice Paul of Washington, the vice-president of the party, said:

"This was arranged as a demonstration of women and it was no place for colored people to speak. We have invited them to carry a wreath to the grave and their feelings were not hurt."






The Jews payoff came in the 60s and 70s when Civil rights legislation was passed. This legislation, though won by Blacks, and identified with Blacks, did not specify ANYONE! It simply mandated that EVERYONE would be treated fairly without prejudice.

Thus JEWS AND WOMEN who had also suffered discrimination in employment and money making ventures, were now free to enter any job or business they desired. Numerically, White Women were the big winners in Civil Rights legislation.

But Money-wise, Jews were the big winners.

They had been mostly excluded from the big money businesses like COMMERCIAL BANKING - now that they had to be included, they started to take them over. Today most large commercial Banks and Brokerage houses are Jewish owned or controlled.






And what about the poor hapless Blacks who Fought, Bled, and Died for that legislation?


Affirmative action


Unlike Jews and "White" Women, Blacks did not have the educational background or financial resources to participate in the economy on their own. They needed a way to even the playing field until they could build themselves up. The solution was called "Affirmative action".

When it was created, Jews rejected it! Every major Jewish organization opposed affirmative action. They said that it reminded them of Pogrom's. (A Pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews). They said that it would have the effect of excluding them! Over time, they effectively killed it!

They knew that without that crutch for Blacks, they would have the field all to themselves. And they were right! Jewish wealth EXPLODED! And poor Blacks still have their hands out. That little investment in the NAACP, paid off many times over.









The Zionist Organization of America wants to Amend Civil Rights Act to include religious discrimination


When the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it was seen as the main vehicle for ending racial discrimination against African Americans. Now, two Jewish lawmakers are trying to amend the law, in order to have it include protection for Jewish students on college campuses. In the process, they are taking on a heavy historical question: Are the Jews of America part of a religion, or are they an ethnic group?

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Rep. Brad Sherman of California, both Democrats, seeks to broaden the definitions of groups protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in agencies receiving government funding. The lawmakers believe that the landmark legislation had left open a loophole in its formulation of Title VI protections. It prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin,” but does not mention religion.

“We need to close the loophole that allows students to be harassed and threatened because of their religion,” Specter said in a statement. He added that religious discrimination is already prohibited in other parts of the Civil Rights Act, including those relating to employment and housing.

The driving force behind this proposed legislation is the Zionist Organization of America, and the events triggering it took place at the University of California, Irvine, where tensions between Jewish and pro-Palestinian students have run high.

In 2004, after receiving complaints of harassment from Jewish students at the university, the ZOA made an official appeal to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which is charged with enforcing Title VI. The group claimed that UC, Irvine’s leadership did not properly address these events and that Jewish students should enjoy the protection provided by Title VI, since the university receives government funds.

At the time, the prevailing interpretation of Title VI at the DOE was that it also covered religious groups that share ethnic characteristics. But while the investigation was under way, the OCR changed its position and adopted a narrower interpretation, one that recognizes discrimination based only on race, color or national origin.

“When someone shouts at Jewish students, ‘You’re baby killers,’ or, ‘You’re Nazis,’ this is intimidation that is not covered by the criminal law,” said Morton Klein, national president of the ZOA. “If someone turns to a black person and uses the N word, then it is covered. But if he calls a Jew ‘Nazi,’ it is not.”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does not infringe on free speech on campus, but it does require universities to maintain an environment free of discriminatory harassment. Use of racist language, for example, could be addressed by condemnation by campus leaders or through educational efforts.

In addition to incidents at UC, Irvine, ZOA also pointed to other campuses at which anti-Israel activity has left Jewish students feeling harassed. The Specter-Sherman bill mentions several incidents at other universities, as well, including the University of California’s Berkeley campus, where a student holding a pro-Israel sign was pushed and injured. At the University of North Dakota, anti-Semitic slurs were shouted at a Jewish student.

Amending the Civil Rights Act would also provide other religious groups with protection, which, according to sponsors of the new bill, is needed, as well. The sponsors detailed several cases of discrimination against Muslim, Sikh and Hindu students, including a case in which a Muslim student at the University of Illinois was beaten and had a swastika drawn on her locker, alongside the words “Die Muslims.” In another case, a Sikh seventh-grade student in New Jersey faced repeated taunts and harassment from students who called him “Osama.”

But when dealing with these cases, activists and lawmakers had to struggle with frequent changes in policy at the OCR. After turning down requests for investigation regarding the UC, Irvine, case, the OCR agreed in 2004 to broaden the definition to cover Jewish students, too. Then, with the new administration, the policy was reversed again to exclude Jewish students.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was almost entirely about race,” explained Erwin Chemerinsky, founding Dean of the UC, Irvine law school. Chemerinsky added that even if amended, Title VI would do little to stop religious harassment, since it would only make universities liable in case of “deliberate indifference” and that, he said, “is a hard standard to meet.”

The issue was discussed in a recent phone conversation between Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Sherman, who later told the Forward that he is “more than cautiously optimistic” that the Department of Education will readopt the broader interpretation of Title VI. Sources within the DOE said that it would be releasing a new policy statement in the coming weeks.

Sherman also stressed, however, that even if the department revises its policy to include protection for Jewish students, he still intends to go ahead with the legislation in order to ensure that the interpretation of the Civil Rights Act on this issue is not subject to future administrative changes.

A spokesman for the DOE would not comment on the conversation between Sherman and Duncan. As for the proposed legislation, the spokesman said the department does not have a position on the bill.

Tackling the issue of anti-Jewish discrimination on campus also required the opening of a centuries-long debate over the definition of the “Jewish people.” For Jews to be protected under Title VI, assuming the Civil Rights Act is not amended, activists would have to make the case that Jews are members not of a religion, but rather of an ethnic group, or of a group that shares a national origin.

Sherman said the OCR failed to understand that “there is a Jewish people, not only a Jewish religion.” To prove the point, he argued that Jews can be atheists, while there is no such thing as a Catholic atheist. Furthermore, he said, Jews have a national origin, although thousands of years have passed since they actually shared this common national origin. “The word “Jew” is short for ‘Judean,’” Sherman explained.

In actuality, “Jew” is derived from “Judah,” a son of the biblical patriarch Jacob, and the leader of one of the Tribes of Israel. The tribe later gave its name to the southern portion of the Land of Israel.










UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan for Palestine) November 29, 1947


United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent.

The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states.

In favour: 33

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of

South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10

Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.


Truman Optimistic on Possibilities for Arab-Israel Peace

Jewish Telegraphic Agency

February 28, 1955
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Feb. 27)

“Peace between the Jews and the Arabs is possible and will have to come,” former President Harry S. Truman declared in an interview here with Isaac Hamlin, national secretary of the Histadrut campaign in this country, and Isaac Korn, secretary-general of the smallholders’ cooperative settlement movement in Israel.

“There are no serious reasons why the two cousins, the Jews and the Arabs, should not live in peace and work together for the development of the Middle East,” President Truman declared. He expressed the opinion that Israel’s industrialization and progressive agricultural set-up would help her become the center of the Middle East and that such economic improvements would bring stability to the region.


Oghuz Turks, Seljuq Turks, Kipchak Turks, etc. = Non-Black Arabs

Khazar Kaganate created from the breakup of the Western Turkic Kaganate (659 A.D.) = Kingdom of Khazaria = Jews.





The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler

Arthur Koestler was born in Budapest, studied science and psychology in Vienna, and became a foreign correspondent for various European newspapers. He covered the Spanish Civil War, and later joined the French Foreign Legion, then the British Army. His most famous novel is "The Darkness at Noon". This 1976 book discusses the ancient Khazar Empire that flourished in the Dark Ages, the seventh to the tenth centuries between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, an area called Caucasia where the Aryans originated. They were wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan. Some took refuge in Eastern Europe and had an impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry.

Part One tells of the "Rise and Fall of the Khazars". Their cavalry was the origin of the word "Hussar". They adopted Judaism to avoid becoming a vassal of either the Christian ruler in Constantinople or the Moslem ruler in Babylon. Previously they worshiped pagan gods. Chapter III tells about their state at its peak. Emperor Leo the Khazar ruled Byzantium in 775-780. The invasions by Vikings or Norsemen affected many nations around Khazaria. The Khazar state disappeared by the end of the 13th century (p.132).

Part Two discusses "The Heritage" after the Mongol invasion. Khazar people migrated to the west (eastern Europe), such as in Hungary (p.142). The Black Death also depopulated the former Khazar heartland (p.144). Place names in the Ukraine and Poland are derived from `Khazar' or `Zhid' (p.145). The Polish kingdom attracted immigrants (p.149). Chapter VI discusses the migration of Jews into Europe since Roman times. The Black Death killed many, and led to the persecution of the Jews.

(Please note: this book is cited only because it confirms that the White people (Turkish Khazars) calling themselves Jews/Hebrews have nothing to do with Jews/Hebrews ethnically. Much of the rest, as with the Aryan nonsense, is in error. Please see the Canaan section of this site for the history of the Hebrews and the Khazars.






Donald Sterling





In a newly released audiotape of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s notorious racist remarks to his girlfriend, he seems to justify his views of African-Americans by noting how in Israel “the blacks are just treated like dogs.”

Sterling is heard at a game complaining to his black-Mexican girlfriend, V. Stiviano, after seeing that she’d posted Instagrams of herself with black former basketball star Magic Johnson. “Don’t bring black people” to the Clippers games, he tells her. “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?”

In the new, 15-minute tape released Sunday by the U.S. website Deadspin, Sterling, 80, is heard telling Stiviano, 38, “You think I’m a racist …” which Stiviano denies. He insists that that’s what she thinks, that he has an “evil heart,” to which she replies, “I don’t think so. I think you have an amazing heart, honey, I think the people around you have poison mind, and have a way of thinking.”

At that point Sterling – born to American Jewish immigrant parents as Donald Tokowitz – seemingly tries to defend his views by putting them in an international context, singling out how blacks are treated in Israel.

Sterling: “It’s the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.”

Stiviano: “So you have to treat them like that too?”

Sterling: “The white Jews, there’s white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?”

Stiviano: “Are are the black Jews less than the white Jews?”

Sterling: “A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.”

Stiviano: “And is that right?”

Sterling: “It isn’t a question – we don’t evaluate what’s right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.”

Stiviano: It’s like saying, “Let’s just persecute and kill all of the Jews.”

Sterling: Oh, it’s the same thing, right?

Stiviano: Isn’t it wrong? Wasn’t it wrong then? With the Holocaust? And you’re Jewish, you understand discrimination.

Sterling: You’re a mental case, you’re really a mental case. The Holocaust, we’re comparing with—

Stiviano: Racism! Discrimination.

Sterling: There’s no racism here. If you don’t want to be… walking… into a basketball game with a certain… person, is that racism?


Stiviano is reportedly 31 years old and was born María Vanessa Perez, according to the lawsuit filed by Rochelle Sterling (more on that later). According to the L.A. Times, Stiviano has also gone by Monica Gallegos, Vanessa Perez, and Maria Valdez.

In 2010, she legally changed her name because she said she had not been "fully accepted because of my race." (On the TMZ tapes, Stiviano identifies as black and Mexican. ("You're supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl," says the voice that is almost definitely Sterling). "And you're in love with me, and I'm black and Mexican; whether you like it or not," she replies.

Click here for a special page on Black Mexicans >>


A question comes to mind as we listen to this conversation,

as well as all conversations involving Racism and White superiority.

Donald Sterling is a Fat, Ugly, old White man. Judging from the conversation, he cannot achieve an erection in order to penetrate Stiviano sexually. So logically we have to ask "On what does he base his "Superiority" on? Is it "Obesity"? Why any fool knows that obesity is not a good thing. Is it because he is "Ugly"? Well, they do say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but it seems a stretch to make ugly a feature of Superiority. Or is it because he is "Old"? That could be it, many of histories greatest men were "Old". Finally, it could not possibly be because he is "White"; after all, as we know White skin means Albinism. Which is a disease that limits White peoples ability to survive in the Sun. Ya gotta be Nuts to believe that is Superior in any way. Guess the logic says that White Supremacists are just delusional fools.


























Click for Realhistoryww Home Page