The NYT finally writes about anti-Semitism in the Women’s March

Eleven days after the Tablet article about the turmoil around the Women’s March (WM), reporting largely about the anti-Semitism of its leaders, the New York Times finally wrote about the issue (click on screenshot below). I can’t help but think that the paper’s hand was forced, as this story certainly deserved some coverage before, as these accusations have been going around for a long time. (Bari Weiss did write an op-ed about it in August.) My guess, which is pure speculation, is that the paper didn’t want to report anti-Semitism among a group of people they see as progressive, and that this stand derives from the paper’s new “woke” direction.

Anyway, read it, though the Tablet article is more comprehensive.

So what did the Times reveal that Tablet did not? Not much, really. They certainly did not overturn reports that the Women’s March leaders behaved as anti-Semites towards white Jewish women who, in fact, got the March started. Look at these statements by WM co-Presidents Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez, both admirers of the odious Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan:

Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez say they categorically condemn anti-Semitism, and that when they asked Ms. [Vanessa] Wruble to leave the group, it had nothing to do with her being Jewish. But they acknowledged that the role of Jewish women was discussed in that first meeting.

“Since that conversation, we’ve all learned a lot about how while white Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy, ALL Jews are targeted by it,” Ms. Mallory said in a statement to The New York Times.

And this:

Ms. [Vanessa] Wruble, a central organizer of the march, says she agrees that white women, including Jews, should grapple with their racial privilege. She put out a call for women of color to join the planning team and was connected with Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez. At that first meeting, Ms. Wruble said, they seemed to want to educate her about a dark side of Jewish history, and told her that Jewish people played a large role in the slave trade and the prison industry.

Now that second statement doesn’t make sense at all. How can Jews uphold white supremacy and, at the same time, be its targets? This shows the WM’s dilemma about Jews, which afflicts much of the Progressive Left. On the one hand Jews are marginalized and oppressed—the targets of killing and hatred throughout the world. On the other hand, Jews are seen as pawns of Israel—”Zionists”—and therefore oppressors of Muslims, who are considered people of color, even though they aren’t. The solution has been to place Jews along with whites in the victimhood hierarchy—that is, at the bottom. They are on the same level as the most oppressive group: old white men.

I’m absolutely convinced that the Mallory, Perez, and Linda Sarsour, three of the four WM co-Presidents, are anti-Semites who pretend to defend Jews to hide their real agenda. And that agenda—the extirpation of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian state—is the somewhat hidden objective of many Leftists. It’s hidden because it’s a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

(From the NYT): From left, Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, Bob Bland and Carmen Perez, four organizers of the Women’s March. Credit: Todd Heisler/The New York Times

The dilemma:

The allegations of anti-Semitism are particularly painful because Women’s March organizers made a commitment from the beginning to work across racial and religious lines, and to be led by what they considered the most “marginalized” women.

Now Women’s March activists are grappling with how they treat Jews — and whether they should be counted as privileged white Americans or “marginalized” minorities, especially in the aftermath of the October mass shooting in Pittsburgh, when 11 people were gunned down at their synagogue.

This is the problem you encounter when you set up an “intersectionalist” victimhood hierarchy. Where do you put Jews? How about gay males? Sometimes there’s just no Intersection!

But can’t all the women march together, as they should have, for equal treatment and opportunities for ALL women? Now there’s going to be two Women’s Marches in New York this year, showing the schism on the Left:

The rift is now so dire that there will be two marches on the same day next month on the streets of New York: one led by the Women’s March group, which is billed as being led by women of color, and another by a group affiliated with March On that is stressing its denunciation of anti-Semitism.

Many people have previously noticed the ties between the WM and Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, a group headed by a racist and homophobic, anti-Semite with misogynistic views. Now it appears fairly clear that the Nation of Islam provided security to the Wm, though its muscle group the Fruit of Islam. That’s one clarification that the NYT has made:

Behind the scenes, Ms. Wruble said she felt cast aside.

She said she was told by one of the march leaders that “we really couldn’t center Jewish women in this or we might turn off groups like Black Lives Matter.” While Black Lives Matter is a diffuse movement, some activists have issued statements expressing solidarity with Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

At one point, Ms. Wruble said she asked about security for the march and was told by the leaders that the Nation of Islam would be providing it.

“I said, ‘You are going to open up the march to intense criticism,’” Ms. Wruble said, warning that it would be a red flag for Jews. She said they dismissed her concerns in a heated email exchange and accused her of unfairly maligning the Nation of Islam.

Perez, Mallor, and Sarsour pay lip-service by obliquely criticizing Farrakhan’s “other views” (i.e., his Jew hatred, though they don’t allude to his views of women as second class citizens):

In an interview, Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez said that they work in communities where Mr. Farrakhan is respected for his role in rehabilitating incarcerated men. They attended the 20th anniversary of the Million Man March in 2015, which Mr. Farrakhan planned.

But they said they did not subscribe to his views about Jewish people and never mentioned the slave trade in that first meeting with Ms. Wruble.

“It never happened,” Ms. Perez said.

If anybody other than Farrakhan “rehabilitated incarcerated men” but spewed hatred toward gays, Jews, and even women as well, he would be demonized, not praised. But, hey, Farrakhan is a man of color and helps the WM out with security. And I’m sure that, despite their protestations, Mallory, Perez, and Sarsour are on board with his anti-Semitism.

And an oblique admission by Mallory (my emphasis):

Ms. Mallory and Ms. Perez began berating Ms. Wruble, according to Evvie Harmon, a white woman who helped organize the march, and who attended the meeting at Ms. Mallory’s apartment complex.

“They were talking about, ‘You people this,’ and ‘You people that’ and the kicker was, ‘You people hold all the wealth.’ I was like, ‘Oh my God, they are talking about her being Jewish,’” said Ms. Harmon, whose account was first published by Tablet. “The greatest regret of my life was not standing up and saying ‘This is wrong.’”

Ms. Mallory denied that she disparaged Ms. Wruble’s Jewish heritage in that meeting, but acknowledged telling white women there that she did not trust them.

“They are not trustworthy,” she said, adding that Ms. Wruble gossiped behind the backs of the other march leaders instead of confronting them when she had an issue. “Every single one of us has heard things that offended us. We still do the work.”

Note that the Times is simply following up on the Tablet report, when they should have done their own investigation in the first place. After all, the Women’s March was a big deal: a huge march that got national attention for a progressive cause.



A while back the Women’s March’s PR firm said it had some issues with the Tablet article, and emailed journalists who tweeted that article that it would give them a “fact check”—but only if they deleted their tweets. Journalists refused to do that (see my post about this mess here). Well, now the Tablet has published a few “corrections,” some of which must have come from the firm. But these updates don’t do a bit to undercut the thrust of the original Tablet article. Here are the corrections now appended to the Tablet article:

There are four corrections. The first is no big deal, and some of it hasn’t been confirmed. But it’s even worse than first reported, because there’s now another trademark dispute about the “Women’s March, Inc.” name.

The second correction, about a $1,700 difference in the reported sponsorship (and an error in who was the sponsor) is small potatoes.

The third is more serious, and I’m not sure what it means. Tablet should have reported the nature of their contacts correctly, though I’m not sure what it means for Tablet to have contacted the women at the first WM meeting but not reported what they said. Does this mean they denied what happened at the meeting, or simply said “no comment”? At any rate, the verification of anti-Semitism at the first meeting from Cassady Fendlay, the Women’s March communications director, is absolutely damning for the March. Fenlay been a fervent (though somewhat incoherent) defender of the WM as well as an attacker of Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing, actors who once supported the WM but then divorced themselves from it because of its anti-Semitism. Fendlay’s affirmation of what happened makes the Tablet report much stronger.

Finally, the last “correction” is unimportant; it’s a correction of chronology.

If these corrections are the best that the Women’s March PR firm can do in defending its client, then the Tablet report remains correct: the leaders of the March are Jew-haters. And that means that no genuinely progressive women should be marching under their direction.

h/t: Greg Mayer



  1. Linda Calhoun
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Why the hell do you need a “hierarchy” at all?


    • Mikeyc
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      Why a hierarchy? When playing in the Oppression Olympics, seeding is everything

    • ploubere
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Because of money: who controls donations to the cause.

  2. dd
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    A friend commented to me that the Times released this article precisely the way a company releases bad earnings that it wants to hide: waits until what it thinks may be an inconspicuous moment.

    BTW, didn’t the White House do the same thing with a big item about 2 weeks ago? Maybe about global warming?

    The issue of hierarchies and intersectionality will be a huge problem. For me, a really big confirmation of this was New Year’s Eve in Cologne, 2015. That was the night that hundreds of women were molested by men of a certain religion. Both the German government and the mainstream media played it down until the event blew up via a social media.

    Soon after Angel Merkel was harnaguing Mark Zuckenberg to start the censorship of people who criticized her immigration policies…..

  3. dd
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    A note: Dr. Coyne you state that the Women’s March was a big deal. Indeed it was….but it was far, far more than a big deal.

    I know people who marched in it, and for many women, it has become a seminal event in their lives. This was not just another big demonstration, but a turning point. And yes, the left-wing press is terrified to criticize it.

    • Mikeyc
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      I agree about how important it was to many people. The fact that so many women were elected last November is testament to the movement it represents. All the more reason for the WM to remove those hateful women at the top before it loses all momentum. Those three will be the death of the March, if it isn’t already too late.

      • Posted December 24, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

        Some of the elected women are hateful as well, and have already starred in posts on this very site.

  4. Andrew
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    It’s interesting how the article barely mentions Linda Sarsour, arguably the most anti-Semitic of the ring leaders, not to mention she is outspokenly pro-Hamas, pro-Sharia law and an advocate of Muslim non-integration.

    • yazikus
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      PCC(E) has written about Sarsour at length more than once.

      • Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:02 am | Permalink

        I think he’s talking about the NYT article and he’s right: it barely mentions Sarsour. I suspect the NYT doesn’t want to go after her.

        • yazikus
          Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

          Ah – I see! Apologies to the poster.

  5. Historian
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    “How can Jews uphold white supremacy and, at the same time, be its targets?”

    The statement from which you derived your question talked about the “dark side” of Jewish history. Sadly, there are incidents in Jewish history where some Jews were advocates of white supremacy and were slaveowners. During the Civil War era some southern Jews (my guess is most) supported slavery and the Confederacy. The most notable example is Judah P. Benjamin. He was a U.S. senator and then held several positions in Jefferson Davis’ cabinet. He was also very pro-slavery. As Wikipedia puts it: “Benjamin’s view that slavery should continue was based in his belief that citizens had a right to their property as guaranteed by the Constitution.” Of course, Benjamin held slaves.

    Jews in America have always tried to assimilate (except for the ultra-orthodox). This means that they adopted the values of the larger society, which in the pre-Civil War South meant support of slavery. This should not be surprising. Nor should it be surprising that at some points they were targets of white supremacists, who were also anti-Semites and never considered Jews as “white.” The reconstituted Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s is an example.

    The argument made today that Jews should be excluded from the Women’s March because some Jews in the past supported white supremacy is totally bogus. This would mean that all white people should be excluded. Perhaps this is what some of the organizers hope for and its realization would accelerate the demise of this organization.

    • Mikeyc
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      One can find representatives of every faith, creed, race, and nationalality who supported slavery. It doesn’t follow that all (or any other) member s did as well. This is the root of group hatred and the wellspring of much of the world’s problems.

      I *know* you aren’t advocating it, Historian – you are only pointing to an example of a Jewish supporter of slavery, and that’s fair. I’m suggesting that the original claim is an example the kind of vile hatred that haunts us.

      • Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:35 am | Permalink

        In fact, in some cases black slaves were owned by black people.

        • BJ
          Posted December 24, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

          And who do you think sold all those black slaves from Africa? The slave traders didn’t just come in and steal them. They bought them, many from kingdoms built entirely on selling those from their lowest caste.

          • Mikeyc
            Posted December 24, 2018 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

            Africans then had their own slave trade. Slaves are still sold there today.

            • BJ
              Posted December 24, 2018 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

              Indeed. It was first the British who decided to stop the slave trade, actually using their navy to patrol the seas and arrest traders. I can kind of understand how, in the US, white people are considered responsible for slavery here (though they shouldn’t be considered solely responsible because, again, those people were already slaves, sold by their own countries to the US traders, so those who sold them are equally responsible), but now that philosophy has spread around the entire Western world. It’s strange, considering slavery was a thing among nearly every people throughout history, and the Western countries were the ones to finally try and stomp it out for good. The only places where it still exists with impunity are in Africa and the Middle East.

    • Davide Spinello
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

      Dear Historian,

      Your nuance is always inspiring: if I may, I would like to humbly complete your wonderful comment by reminding everyone how bad the right is. History will remember you as a key figure in fighting white supremacy by posting asymmetrical exegeses aimed at sanitizing any lunacy on the left while reminding how conservatives and jews are historically indistinguishable from white supremacists. Please ignore the haters that will consider your views odiously duplicitous, well packed, anti-empirical ideological regurgitations: their ignorance and implicit bias prevent them from seeing that you are serving a higher cause. And besides you are punching down, therefore it is nobel.


      • Historian
        Posted December 24, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

        Thank you, Davide. I was counting on hearing from you. Once again, you have exhibited why you are my favorite troll: your ability to distort is so ingrained that I doubt that you even understand this. By the way, do you troll on any other sites? I would love to read more wisdom that comes from such an imaginative mind that apparently has nothing better do (do you ever leave your basement?) than honor me with your blather.

        Finally, do you intend to honor me with a nomination for the Nobel Prize? Or did you mean noble? Oh, well, trolls are not required to understand English.

        Love ‘ya, bro!

      • Posted December 24, 2018 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        Knock it off, Spinello. Make an argument and stop spewing snark without saying anything substantive.

    • BJ
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

      Not only does every single ethnicity, faith, whatever type of person have some sort of role in the history of slavery, but the point is that Sarsour and her followers claim that the Jews created and ran the slave trade. You’re trying to create a slightly sanitized version of things here. When they say “the dark side of Jewish history,” they’re not talking about what you say, and I think you know that. They’re talking about conspiracy theories.

      • Historian
        Posted December 24, 2018 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        I was simply pointing out that southern Jews adopted the culture in which they lived, which is hardly surprising. And, yes, many different kinds of people were engaged in the slave trade. So, some Jews, as some people of all cultures, participated in acts we would consider reprehensible today.

        In case I didn’t make myself clear: the historical facts I pointed out are irrelevant to how Jews feel today. Also, northern Jews strongly supported the Union. To raise the case of southern Jews from more than a century and a half ago is an indication of latent or perhaps overt antisemitism. Interestingly, they don’t care to mention the murders of Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman in Mississippi in 1964.

        • BJ
          Posted December 24, 2018 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

          “To raise the case of southern Jews from more than a century and a half ago is an indication of latent or perhaps overt antisemitism.”

          Even that is not really what they’re raising. According to The Nation of Islam, and according to the report in Tablet, these women believe that the slave trade was a Jewish conspiracy.

        • BJ
          Posted December 24, 2018 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

          “”A Jewish conspiracy” as in created and controlled by Jews, not fabricated by them. Obviously 🙂

  6. Brujo Feo
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    “Farrakhan is a man of color.”

    As a linguist and somewhat of an armchair philologist, I cringe every time I hear that locution. Say “people of color,” and you’re “woke AF,” but say “colored people,” and you the racist white debbil his very own bad self.

    Intersectionality, here we come.

    • Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      It’s interesting that the NAACP keeps its name as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, when that term is more or less verboten.

  7. Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    What I see here is an organization with a good and important cause, and supported by tens of millions of people, that was hijacked so that the hijackers could attach their racist and antisemitic agenda to a popular issue. I hope that the supporters of women’s rights will see this takeover for what it is, and demand new leadership of WM or direct their energies to new organizations that will promote the cause of women’s rights honestly.

    • Mikeyc
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Also for the cash. They’re taking their hate to the bank. Money is always a player, in the end.

      • Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        It will not surprise me to discover that donations to WM have been looted by Mallory et al including payments to Farrakhan for the “protection” provided by his thugs.

  8. ploubere
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    I don’t think it’s fair to imply that the NY Times purposely decided not to report this because of their political ideology. Although that kind of thing does happen at places such as Fox News, that’s not how newsrooms at reputable publications work.

    My guess is that they didn’t see this story as being ready to report on till now, and perhaps don’t have the resources to investigate it further. When the lawsuits get resolved, then it will be a bigger story. The fact that they’re reporting it now shows that they’re aware of it and not trying to bury it.

    • dd
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      I wish you were right. The NYTimes does precisely what you say it doesn’t do time and again.

      The difference between the Times and Fox is degree, and even Breitbart, of subtlety in how it hangles certain issues….especially now, intersectional ones. It’s something that fascinates me, so I read specifically looking for these discrepancies of commission and omission.

      The best part of the Times continues to be its superb investigative journalism. But when it comes to identity/intersectional issues, it’s not all that far from right-wing publications in how it manipulates.

    • Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      I don’t see the NYT as so reputable, though I did in the past. Remember its ignoring of Sarah Jeong’s racism when it hired her as tech editor. It’s going full-blown Social Justice Warrior-y, and that’s reflected not just in the op-eds, which is ok, but also in the articles they choose to print.

    • ploubere
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      Well, that’s simply not how a newsroom such as the New York Times’ works. They have a budget meeting every day to decide on which stories to run, and look over the list of available stories. They decide on which ones to run based on relevance, timeliness and likely interest to the public. Their overriding interest is in which stories will sell the most copies and get the most online hits. It is a business after all. And there are lots of stories, so it takes a certain combination of the above to rise to the top. It also helps if an editor who has an interest in the story sells it to the others, probably because one of his/her reporters is working on it.

      There is undoubtedly political bias on the part of the editors, but it’s not like they choose stories in order to actively push a political or social agenda. Looking at day-to-day coverage doesn’t reveal any pattern of that. Of course you can find stories and opinion pieces you don’t like, because they produce a huge amount of content. You could probably find plenty you agree with as well.

      It’s not a difference in degree from Fox News, where there is a clear political agenda directed from the top, it’s a difference in professionalism. All in all, we’re fortunate to have reliable news sources such as the Times, without which there is no hope for a free and democratic society. And that’s not hyperbole, that’s reality.

  9. Malgorzata
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:50 am | Permalink


  10. dd
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    BTW, that the NYTimes really did not want to run that article is now very clear.

    You can tell what it advocates and does not advocate by when it runs it and especially where it places it and for how long.

    I noticed that the article received semi-prominent homepage placement Sunday evening for a while.

    Well now it’s right underneath an article about how the “Proud Boys” are in disarray. And you have to look for it to really notice it.

    The Times’s political machinations and really, propaganda devices, are so obvious to anyone who wants to see what it does.

    Was it always like this? Or have I just started to notice that in the last few years after a lifetime of reading it?

    • Gabrielle
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      The NY Times is not trying to hide this story. I have a digital subscription and get their headline email alert, and the Women’s March article is the third headline listed, after the Mattis resignation/firing and the recent decline in the stock market. Today’s email alert listed 24 article headlines, to put things in context.

      The Women’s March article is also on the front page of the print edition, and on the ‘Todays Paper’ web page it is located just beneath the article on the Trump/Mattis debacle.

      To me, this does not reek of the Times hiding this article or declining to investigate the subject. I’d rather they take the time to check with sources, interview as many people as possible and try and get sources/interviewees to go on the record, and do as much fact checking as needed. I’d prefer they take their time investigating the leaders of the March, and not rush out an article.

      My one negative I have is that their was no interview with Sarsour or Perez. I suspect the four leaders decided to have Mallory as their spokesperson, as it were. I’d say this backfired, however.

      • dd
        Posted December 24, 2018 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

        I don’t think we will come to an agreement here. But something like an email alert is targeted.

        A publication’s homepage may be its most visited platform of all. And this is what I judge it by.

        There is very little new investigated in that article. It reads more like perfuncetory, “There, we reported it.” And as a friend of mine said, given the importance of what is being discussed, Sunday evening before a big holiday is a mighty unusual time to feature it.

        These ladies are highly influential as was the Women’s March. And these ladies anti-Semitism is pretty close to a piece as that of Richard Spencer’s and many Charlottesville participants.

        • Gabrielle
          Posted December 24, 2018 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

          The image of today’s (Dec. 24th) front page of the print edition, as seen on the NY Times website is right here. The article appears on the left side of the page, about midway down, with the headline in as large a font as the three articles about the government. The NYT is not trying to downplay the article.

          As for email alerts, it is possible that the newspaper is using an algorithm that targets the reader with specific articles, based on prior articles read by that person. But the Times sure sends me plenty of email alerts about subjects I have no particular interest in.

          • BJ
            Posted December 24, 2018 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

            It also took them months to report on this. They only finally reported on any of it after the Tablet article became widely disseminated. We’ve known about this stuff for months now — hell, probably well over a year, maybe even two — and we haven’t heard a peep from NYT.

            • dd
              Posted December 24, 2018 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

              HI Gabrielle, so I just clicked on the link you provide and got this:

              “The New York Times

              We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you. Please report the broken link here.”

              I have commented on this post of Dr. Coyne’s several times, and won’t continue to do so. But I would ask that you take into consideration what I have said and just keep an eye out for it. I will do the same with your recommendations. Thank You.

              • BJ
                Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

                You replied to the wrong person, just FYI 🙂

                Might want to post this again as a reply to Gabrielle if you want him/her to see it (I can never figure out if “Gabrielle” is a male or female name because of the “e” at the end. Apologies to Gabrielle).

  11. DrBrydon
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Ms. [Vanessa] Wruble, a central organizer of the march, says she agrees that white women, including Jews, should grapple with their racial privilege.

    The opinion that all people of a racial group share a negative characteristic would normally be called racism, except on the left, where racism = prejudice + power. Presumably, therefore, when Ms. Wruble achieves her desired political status, she will either discard her prejudice, or become racist. The ridiculousness of this is shown by saying that Hitler could only be considered a racist after January 30, 1933.

  12. Posted December 24, 2018 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    “Jews, as white people, uphold white supremacy”; there are graves that say otherwise. But perhaps 1965 doesn’t count

    • Posted December 24, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      What’s 1965?

      • Derek Freyberg
        Posted December 24, 2018 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

        I think Paul refers to the murders of Jewish civil rights activists Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman in Mississippi, and meant to say 1964 – but he can speak for himself if he wants to.

  13. Posted December 24, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    They need a new, more mathematical slogan:

    “More Union, Less Intersection!”

    • rickflick
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      Sounds right.

  14. L Garou
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    Uh-oh, here comes Frankenstein’s monster..

  15. Diana MacPherson
    Posted December 24, 2018 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Such is what happens when one bases anything on identity. Yes there is privilege but let’s not make it the criterion for deciding everything. To berate a while woman for the history of whites is illogical, divisive, and unfair. It divides us when we need to unite. Good grief, am I supposed to regularly berate all the males I know because sexism of the past and present?

    • rickflick
      Posted December 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm | Permalink


  16. Posted December 24, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    What’s 1965?

  17. Posted December 25, 2018 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    It’s worth considering that the “black antisemitism” deployed by the likes of Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez is a sort of career strategy, a power move in the factional struggle for predominance and resources within the American progressive movement, to settle who owes what to whom. It’s a bludgeon to psychologically and ideologically stupefy,disarm and overwhelm the white and Jewish liberals of the Women’s March. Message: it is past time for Jews to join whites in the big tent of collective racial guilt and shame. You owe us too!” I blog about it in “Fox Force Five and the Great ‘Women’s March’ Heist: Antisemitism as Career Strategy,” here:

    As for the claim that Jews had some special role in the slave trade, the key point is that the African slave trade was a global partnership between the African elites who for centuries hunted, captured and exported tens of millions of their own countrymen, and the Middle Eastern, European and North and South American elites who bought them. The Islamic slave trade accounted for almost half the slaves exported out of Africa between 800 and 1900 CE. It would hardly be a surprise if some Jewish elites profited from the slave trade, alongside so many others. But to accuse Jews of some *special* historical guilt that was not shared by African kings and warlords, Arab sheikhs and white plantation owners is the very definition of antisemitism. For those interested in the history of African slavery from the African perspective, I review some of the literature in “My folks sell me and yo folks buy me – Kanye West, ‘Barracoon’ and some history of African slavery,” here:

    • BJ
      Posted December 25, 2018 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      I look forward to reading this later, but sounds good. Thanks for posting it.

      • Posted December 25, 2018 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

        Thanks BJ. Yes do please! Every single visitor makes an appreciable difference at my beleaguered little blog!

        • BJ
          Posted December 25, 2018 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

          From what I’ve read so far, you have a very interesting blog! I’m enjoying your writing style and determination to provide research, sources, quotes, and links.

        • BJ
          Posted December 25, 2018 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

          And I always appreciate someone who’s willing to tackle controversial subjects about which most of common knowledge is faulty at best, and malicious propaganda at worst. I’m really enjoying your work so far. Glad you mentioned it 🙂

          • Posted December 25, 2018 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

            Much appreciated BJ! Please do bookmark the link and share it in your circles. I hope to raise my frequency of posting, that is if I can overcome native laziness and maybe an overfondness for the long essay form.

            • BJ
              Posted December 26, 2018 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

              Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see any rise in your numbers because of me. I have no social media accounts, this is the only site where I post comments, and I know only one or two people in the physical world who might read your blog. Sorry 😦

  18. Pray Hard
    Posted December 25, 2018 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    You’ve come a long way, baby … all the way to Linda Sarsour and the 7th century. Enjoy.

  19. Pray Hard
    Posted December 25, 2018 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Stay guilty, my friends.

%d bloggers like this: