The following is an excerpt of E. Michael Jones’ article, ‘Soros or Cyrus? The Violent Legacy of the Black/Jewish Alliance‘ from the December 2015 (v.35, #1) issue of the monthly magazine, Culture Wars. The full article can be read by purchasing the issue here: http://www.culturewars.com/BackIssues/35.htm. For Culture Wars subscription info, please visit: http://www.culturewars.com/subscribe.htm.
Just a side note, but my Gradfather played lead trumpet on the original Shaft soundtrack with Isaac Hayes.
by E. Michael Jones for Culture Wars Magazine
[N]o one could understand racial conflict in the United States if he accepted the premises of the conventional black/white narrative. The key to understanding what was really going on was the Black/Jewish Alliance…
…For 60 years—from 1909 with the founding of the NAACP to 1969, when the FBI shut down the Black Panthers—influential Jews in organizations as diverse as the NAACP and the Communist Party tried to turn the Negro into a revolutionary. They created a monster instead. This is precisely what Tom Watson predicted in the aftermath of the Leo Frank trial:
“The National Pencil Factory, owned by Frank’s people, fought our Child Labor bill fiercely and helped to kill it—and in God’s mysterious way, it cost the Superintendent his life.”3 In closing ranks behind Frank, the nation’s wealthy Jews had “blown the breath of life into the Monster of Race Hatred; and this Frankenstein, whom you created at such enormous expense, WILL HUNT YOU DOWN!”’4
In the aftermath of Ferguson, it looked as if Tom Watson’s warning was coming true. As a result of the Frank case, the Jews declared war on the South. The same influential Jews who had taken up the banner of Leo Frank went on to create the Anti-Defamation League. But more importantly for our purposes, they infected the Negro with the virus of revolution. The Negroes of the South Side of Chicago now act the way they do because of an idea that was planted in their mind by Jewish revolutionaries. The rap music which inspired Ivori to get pregnant and Caroline to kill a number of her customers was one more manifestation of the behavior which goes along with the Jewish revolutionary spirit that took over the Black mind during the course of the 20th century.
The main vehicle for this transformation in the black mind (from rural sharecropper to urban revolutionary) was the civil rights movement, which was the most successful part of the Black-Jewish Alliance, which was the 60-year-long attempt on the part of Jews at organizations like the NAACP and the Communist Party to turn Negroes into revolutionaries.
In his book on the Black-Jewish Alliance, What Went Wrong?, Murray Friedman explains how “Jewish science” was the basis for the Supreme Court’s Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision. The Jews at the NAACP were intimately involved in the Brown decision. According to Murray Friedman,
“Felix Frankfurter, Chief Justice on the Court which handed down Brown, was a German-speaking Jew from Vienna who had served on the NAACP’s legal committee. Jack Greenberg of the NAACP, Friedman tells us, “drew the assignment to find experts in the Midwest for the landmark case Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.”5 Kenneth B. Clark, the black psychologist whose study of black and white dolls indicated that students were harmed by segregated classrooms was cited in Brown, had been funded by the AJC [American Jewish Committee]. Clark’s study led the court to conclude that “the average black American had been scarred by self-hatred,” and that “segregation . . . inflicted vast psychic damage on both white and black children.”’6
AJC-sponsored studies provided the theoretical underpinning of Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In fact, AJC-sponsored psychological studies festoon the decision from one footnote to another. Friedman concludes after the fact that “Clark’s research . . . was flawed,”7 but 50 years after the fact the point was moot. Flawed or not, the Jewish-sponsored research that made up the theoretical underpinning for the Brown decision had gotten the job done. Brown created both an atmosphere conducive to revolution and a weapon that could be used against the South for what it had done to Leo Frank. “The Court’s May 17, 1954 decision,” as Friedman put it, “would spur the civil rights revolution that followed [my emphasis].”8 Murray Friedman always uses the word “revolution” in describing the civil rights movement.
During the summer of 1956 Bayard Rustin, a black homosexual and a Communist, introduced Martin Luther King, Jr. to Stanley Levison, a “political radical who had worked on behalf of the convicted atom spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg” who was also “a financial pillar of the Communist Party and other radical causes.”9 Levison would go on to become “enormously influential behind the scenes and throughout King’s career.”10 Friedman claims that Levison became “King’s closest white friend and most reliable colleague for the remainder of his life” and “would epitomize the black-Jewish alliance’s new look.”11 Stanley Levison was the man who “labored behind the scenes in New York” to provide the $200,000 a year the SCLC needed for its operations in the South.12 Eventually, Rustin and Levison were joined by two more members of the black-Jewish alliance–Jack O’Dell, a black communist, and Harry Wachtel. Together they came up with a list of 9,000 donors who were willing to make semiannual contributions to the SCLC to fund its operations.13
In the spring of 1961, Farmer and CORE called for a series of interracial “freedom rides” on public buses throughout the South, and the Jewish Freedom Riders headed South to spread revolution. Friedman estimates that “Jews probably made up two thirds of the white Freedom Riders into the South in the summer of 1961 and about one third to one half of the Mississippi Summer volunteers three years later.”14
“Eventually,” Friedman concludes, “virtually every segment of the Jewish community enlisted in the civil rights struggle. . . . Nothing would be the same again in the South, but a true revolution was under way”15 (my emphasis).
Before long, the tail began to wag the dog. In order to keep the money coming in, Martin Luther King had to take his revolutionary movement to the cities of the north. In a move that would mark the beginning of the end of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King launched his ill-fated campaign to reform “segregated” housing in Chicago.
After months of preliminary work, Martin Luther King arrived in Chicago to kick off his housing drive in June 1966. Chicago had been a racial battlefield since the Chicago Housing Authority, the Quakers, B’nai B’rith/ADL, and Louis Wirth redoubled their efforts to complete the social engineering of Chicago’s ethnic neighborhoods that had begun during World War II.
But things started to go wrong from the beginning, and they never ended up going right. When King stepped out of his car to lead a march through “segregated” Marquette Park, he was greeted by a hail of rocks and bottles, one of which hit him on the head and staggered him to his knees. The Lithuanians who would later set fire to the marchers’ cars and chase Jesse Jackson down 63rd St. were outraged by the fact that people from another part of the country would come into their neighborhood and tell them to sell their homes. That wasn’t precisely King’s message, but the simple fact of the matter was that no one, not even the Chicago Tribune, knew exactly what King’s message was. According to an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, the message of the “paid professional agitators” who made up the march was “give up your homes and get
out so that we can take over.”16
King was befuddled, as Mayor Daley indicated, because he didn’t understand Chicago. Dorothy Tillman, one of King’s lieutenants, only strengthened this suspicion when she said, in effect, Chicago was different than what they had expected. “Down South,” the SCLC’s Dorothy Tillman opined, “you were black or white. You wasn’t Irish or Polish or all of this.”17
When Daley suggested in April 1966 that King go home to Georgia, seven Negro committeemen seconded his suggestion. King’s Jewish backers had a sense of foreboding about Chicago as well. Both Bayard Rustin and Stanley Levison “sensed disaster.”18 Friedman claims that “Levison sought to restrain his friend but failed to do so.”19 The main problem was King’s unfamiliarity with the situation in Chicago. King’s knowledge of the housing situation in Chicago was based largely on his reading of Lorraine Hansberry’s play A Raisin in the Sun. When King vowed that “he would lead a rent strike unless the city’s landlords improved their properties immediately”20 he failed to understand that many of the landlords were black, and that Hansberry Enterprises, run by Lorraine Hansberry’s father and then her brothers, was one of the biggest slum landlords in Chicago. King was caught up in a world he did not understand, and his ill-fated Chicago campaign soon turned into the disaster that Levison and Rustin feared it would become. The “beloved community” that King and others in the black-Jewish alliance had tried to create during the ‘50s and early ‘60s had died two years before he did.
Gloria joins the Black Panthers
Caroline Peoples was too young to remember anything associated with the civil rights movement in Chicago, but Gloria Hardy remembers meeting Martin Luther King when he came to Chicago in 1966. Gloria was 17 years old at the time. Gloria Hardy joined the Black Panthers after Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. The regime had promoted revolution when it suited them. In 1967 Sargent Shriver, as head of the Office of Economic Opportunity, had given the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago gang which was one of the predecessors of the Gangster Disciples, a grant for over $900,000 to engage in, well, gang-related activity, which is to say criminal behavior, which at the time was a convenient way of driving Catholics out of the ethnic neighborhoods they had established on the South Side of Chicago.
When the regime realized that the civil rights movement had morphed into a monster, the FBI was sent in to kill the Black Panthers. They created a COINTELPRO operation to take out the Chicago branch, then headed by Fred Hampton. The image that succeeded the Black Panther as revolutionary in the Negro mind was the pimp. In his article “The Myth of the Great Black Pimp,” (8/21/01) Adissa Banjoko sees a connection between the revolutionary Black Panthers of the ‘60s and the pimps of the ‘70s. The latter succeeded the former as ghetto role model. When the Negro got scared, he became a pimp, or, as Banjoko put it,
“Black America was tired of fighting with their white oppressors and on top of that were SCARED to fight back. The F.B.I.’s COINTELPRO orchestrated assassination and imprisonment of our most courageous soldiers like Bobby Hutton, Fred Hampton, Geronimo Pratt and others left us “shook” as a people.”
The pimp is a classic example of one of the groups which make up what Karl Marx termed the Lumpenproletariat, a group of people who are good for nothing but making trouble. The Lumpenproletariat was incapable of becoming what Marx considered true revolutionaries because they lacked the necessary discipline. By the late ‘60s, when the Jews had backed out of the Black-Jewish alliance and when the threat of Black Revolution had become too real for the regime which had promoted it to destroy the South and Catholic neighborhoods in places like Chicago, the FBI was called in to destroy the Black Panthers. After that, Hollywood was called in to ratchet the revolution back to its Lumpenproletariat origins and promote the pimp as the ideal Negro.
When the pimp as a cultural phenomenon appeared in the ‘70s it was a tacit, if cryptic, admission that the revolution had failed. When the Black Panthers got shut down in 1969, Gordon Parks noted their demise from his vantage point as a famous Negro photographer and reporter for Time/Life on Black issues.
In Chicago, before dawn, came the most celebrated shoot-up of the ongoing warfare. In December 1969, 14 cops shot up a Black Panther’s apartment. When the melee ended, the Chicago’s party leader, Fred Hampton, and Mark Clark had been gunned to death. Hampton, asleep when the attack came, never got out of his blood drenched bed. . . . To more and more young blacks, the romantic appeal of their bold image was becoming irresistible. The Panthers had dared to use the word “revolution” because they wanted the system destroyed, not repaired. And they had lost faith in the ability of the system to repair itself.21
In 1970 Gordon Parks left Life to become the director of Shaft. In his memoir, Parks hints that his access to Hollywood was dependent on his article on the Black Panthers: “Before I could pursue my newfound interest in the movies, I was called back by Life to cover the Black Panthers.”22 Betray the Black Panthers is what Parks meant to say.
The creation of the pimp as black cultural hero coincided with the eradication of the Black Panthers in late ’69 early ’70. The real change came in 1971 when Parks launched the film genre known as Blaxpoitation. Parks was a photographer with Life Magazine, who had worked for the OWI during the war. After the war, Time/Life became a CIA front. The CIA liaison at Time/Life was a man by the name of C.D. Jackson. Gordon Parks was the man Time/Life and the CIA used to “penetrate” black organizations which the regime considered subversive, something he brings up in his memoir A Hungry Heart:
“Life magazine had tried to penetrate the Black Muslim world for three years, but without any success. The mosque’s doors remained closed to its White reporters and photographers. Occasionally they were allowed into the large New York and Chicago rallies after being ruthlessly searched from head to toe. Since I was Black, my objectivity toward such an assignment must have been questioned by the editors. I did not push for an assignment for an opposite reason. The Muslims and Panthers regarded the magazine as an enemy, and I was working inside the enemy’s camp. Nonetheless, all else having failed, Life asked me if I would like to try. I was unsure of myself, but I agreed to try.”23
Shortly after leaving Time/Life, Parks met with Jim Aubrey whom he describes as “the tough inflexible boss at MGM Studio,” who “handed me my second Hollywood film. Titled Shaft, it was the story of a virile, suave, black Harlem detective.” Gene Young, Parks’ third wife, sums up Parks’ career as a Hollywood director by saying, “He did what people paid him to do.”
When I mention Jim Aubrey’s name, Gene Young blurts out that he was probably a CIA agent. Parks makes clear in his memoir that the point of the film was to provide Black youth with a role model: “It was a film that could give black youth their first cinematic hero comparable to James Cagney or Humphrey Bogart, but not the least of the persuasion was the salary I was to receive.”
Parks leaves unmentioned the type of behavior which Shaft and Superfly were to inspire as the new role models for “black youth.” He also never mentions the disruption this behavior was to cause in the black community by further weakening the already weak black family. He also never mentions the effect that emulation of these cinematic heroes is going to have on the black women, who were on the receiving end of the pimp culture he was paid to promote. If Parks were willing to betray black organizations like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, why not the black community as a whole? Why not steer it down the path of self-destruction, as long as he was paid well to do it?
Shaft was a big success. According to Parks’ account, it
“opened on July 2, 1971, to lines around the block and audiences who stood up screaming at its conclusion. It was a particular hit with young Blacks, who for the first time, had a Black hero to identify with. On reviewer called Shaft, “the ultimate in suave Black detectives.”’24
Shaft was breaking attendance records all over the country, but it was especially popular in Chicago, where one theater, the Roosevelt, took in a million dollars during its run there. Needless to say, the Hollywood moguls were pleased that social engineering was proving to be so lucrative. “Joel,” Parks tells us, was “all happiness” when he “came to my office. . . . Now Hollywood had the green light for black suspense films. . . .”25 Jim Aubrey was happy too. Parks went on to collaborate with Aubrey on two more films—The Super Cops and Shaft’s Big Score—but for some reason not on the other Ernest Tidyman novel in the Shaft series, Shaft among the Jews.
Aubrey then upped the ante by handing Parks the screenplay for Superfly, a film in which the new role model for young blacks is the pimp, not the detective. In the end, Parks did not direct Superfly. During the summer of 1971, when Shaft was becoming a box office hit throughout the world, Parks passed the baton to his son, Gordon Parks, Jr. “I was on a week’s leave from Hollywood when he [Aubrey] handed me a screenplay titled ‘Superfly.’” For some reason Parks could not bring himself to direct this film, but for some reason he couldn’t quite pass up the opportunity either. So, rather than turn down the film project altogether, Parks “took a deep breath” and “wrote out a big check and thrust it into his [son’s] pocket.”26 Superfly became the Blaxpoitation hit of 1972. Before Shaft and Superfly, the ideal Negro was a revolutionary, of the sort symbolized best by the Black Panthers. After Blaxploitation, the ideal Negro was a pimp.
Blaxploitation was Jewish revenge against the anti-Jewish resentment which had spread throughout the civil rights movement during the late ‘60s and found its culmination when Stokely Carmichael expelled the Jews from SNCC. Harold Cruse’s book The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville teacher strike, which broke out in 1967, were two more reasons for Jewish resentment against the ungrateful shvartzas who had received so much Jewish money when Martin Luther King had been running the civil rights movement. In many respects, the rise of the Black Panther as the premier black power organization came about because the Panthers were willing, if not avid, to accept Jewish/Hollywood money. One of their biggest sources of funds, as David Horowitz has pointed out, was Bert Schneider, the producer of Easy Rider.
The success of Blaxploitation films meant that Hollywood had reasserted its control over the black mind after the anti-Jewish uprising at the end of the civil rights movement. Blaxploitation meant the end of whatever black solidarity the civil rights and black power movements created. It also took everyone’s mind off the fact that up until Blaxploitation, pimping, like pornography, was largely a Jewish business. By glamorizing the pimp, Hollywood created an internal front in the black community that has perdured until the present. The valorization of the pimp meant that it was perfectly acceptable for black men to exploit the weaker elements of their community in a way congruent with Capitalism, but at the same time, it prohibited criticism of the Jewish financial exploitation of the Black community that had been a staple of black nationalist critique from Marcus Garvey up to Minister Farrakhan. Blaxploitation allowed Hollywood to exact revenge on uppity niggas like Stokely Carmichael and make money in the process. No wonder Joel was “all happiness.” That paradigm shift would also have serious implications for black women, as Gloria Hardy was to find out.
Gloria’s involvement with the Black Panthers ended when the Chicago Police attacked Black Panther headquarters in Chicago and murdered Fred Hampton in December 1969. Feeling that her life was in danger, Gloria left the Black Panthers and got married. Before long she noticed that her husband began wearing the pimp clothes that Ron Neal made popular in Superfly, clothes which have since been satirized in movies like Undercover Brother and I’m Gonna Get You, Sucka. He also began asking her to engage in the sexual activity he was seeing in the movies. Since Deep Throat came out around this time, he began pestering her for oral sex. He wanted oral sex from Gloria and when she wouldn’t give it to him, he went out and paid for it. This change in behavior eventually led to Gloria’s divorcing her husband in 1977.
The full article can be read by purchasing the issue here: http://www.culturewars.com/BackIssues/35.htm.