The Black-Jewish Alliance and the Stanley Levison Question

How critical was he as a player in the hidden Jewish side of the civil rights movement?

In my review of Ken Burns' Holocaust propadocumentary nearly two months ago I included this photo, without any explanation:

In light of the latest, high-profile cracks in the black-Jewish alliance, related to the antisemitism of “The Artist Formerly Known As Kanye West” Ye and hooper/conspiracy theorist Kyrie Irving, I think it’s worth delving deeply into this, if only as explanation for those who aren’t acquainted with Levison, but more broadly it is a window into the evolution of Jewish activism in those times. Btw, I did an article here on the Irving business last month, and touched briefly on the Ye affair as a post-publishing postscript in my article on Samuel the Bankman Fried more recently.

As usual, I think the best way to introduce Levison is with his wiki, which is thankfully concise for such a richly important figure:

“Stanley David Levison (May 2, 1912 – September 12, 1979) was an American businessman and lawyer who became a lifelong activist in progressive causes. He is best known as an advisor to and close friend of Martin Luther King Jr., for whom he helped write speeches, raise funds, and organize events. Levison was born in New York City on May 2, 1912, to a Jewish family. Levison attended the University of Michigan, Columbia University, and the New School for Social Research. He received two law degrees from St. John's University. While serving as treasurer of the American Jewish Congress in Manhattan, he aided in the defense of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. During this period, he worked for a variety of liberal causes. Levison was instrumental in all the activities of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the organization established by Dr. King and other Southern black preachers to further the cause of civil rights. He had initially been introduced to King by Bayard Rustin, a Quaker, in New York City in 1956. Though King had offered to pay Levison in exchange for his help, Levison refused on every occasion, as he believed ‘the liberation struggle is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience.’

“Levison professionalized the fundraising of the organization and took on many of the publicity tasks, in addition to serving as Dr. King's literary agent. He was also a close adviser to Dr. King and a ghostwriter for him. Levison co-wrote with Clarence Benjamin Jones one of the drafts for Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech presented at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963. Some of Levison's conversations with Dr. King are reproduced verbatim from FBI wiretaps in Taylor Branch's biography of Dr. King, Parting the waters : America in the King years, 1954-63. Levison himself initiated the end of his public association with Dr. King in 1963, following the revelation to Dr. King's circle that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and then President John F. Kennedy had pressured Dr. King in person to break with Levison (and Jack O'Dell). But Levison continued to advise Dr. King privately until Dr. King's assassination in April 1968, and afterwards Levison continued to work with Dr. King's wife Coretta Scott King. The Poor People's Campaign in Washington, DC that took place from May 12, 1968 – June 24, 1968 was based on Levison's proposal. Andrew Young stated, ‘Stan Levison was one of the closest friends Martin King and I ever had. Of all the unknown supporters of the civil rights movement, he was perhaps the most important.’ Coretta Scott King said, ‘Stanley Levison was more than one of my husband's most loyal and supportive friends. He was [a] trusted and dedicated adviser, a role he continued to play in support of my work at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Social Change’.”

One of the first things to clarify there is the reference to Bayard Rustin as simply a Quaker, when he was much more. He was a black New Yorker, a “fellow traveler” Marxist, a labor activist, a homosexual, and an important figure in this era who, for example, had personal meetings with President Johnson.

And the Rosenberg case was a critical aspect of a critical time in 20th century Jewish leftism, the transition from political Marxism in the first half of the century (the tip of the spear on that being support for the USSR and functional communism generally) to cultural Marxism in the second half, which was kicked off by the disillusionment arising from the red scare in the US and Stalin’s last purges which targeted Jews, both occurring at the same time, the very centerpoint of the century, 1948-53. The first phase of cultural Marxism and the building of the paradigm of oppressed victim groups was civil rights.

In this sense Levison and Rustin were riding that same wave, transitioning from political Marxists to cultural Marxists. But Rustin was on the front lines as a black and homosexual, a member of what are in the 21st century the two leading victim groups of Jewish proxywarriors, while Levison the Jew was operating behind the scenes as a string-puller.

Btw, this bit from Rustin’s wiki makes clear his hard-alignment with Jewish socio-political philosophies over his entire activist life:

“Later in life, while still devoted to securing workers' rights, Rustin joined other union leaders in aligning with ideological neoconservatism, and (after his death) President Ronald Reagan praised him… Commentary editor-in-chief Norman Podhoretz had commissioned the article from Rustin, and the two men remained intellectually and personally aligned for the next 20 years. Podhoretz and the magazine promoted the neoconservative movement, which had implications for civil rights initiatives as well as other economic aspects of the society. In 1985, Rustin publicly praised Podhoretz for his refusal to ‘pander to minority groups’ and for opposing affirmative action quotas in hiring as well as black studies programs in colleges. Because of these positions, Rustin was criticized as a ‘sell-out’ by many of his former colleagues in the civil rights movement, especially those connected to grassroots organizing. They charged that he was lured by the material comforts that came with a less radical and more professional type of activism.”

No further comment necessary, at least for anyone who understands what neoconservatism is and Podheretz’ role in its rise.

First, let’s build some context around the civil rights era and the development of the black-Jewish alliance (BJA). That started in the deep south in 1913 when Leo Frank, a New York Jew and the president of the Atlanta branch of the B’nai B’rith, was tried and convicted of the murder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old girl under his employ at his pencil factory. Less than a month later B’nai B’rith formed its Anti-Defamation League, the same organization which has been sparring with Ye and Kyrie today, and they became involved in the Frank case. After failed appeals, in 1915 they apparently managed to get the governor of Georgia to commute Frank’s death sentence, and the outraged citizenry broke into the jail, dragged Frank to Phagan’s home town and lynched him, the only Jew ever lynched in US history, while the governor was on the midnight train out of Georgia, not to return for over a decade.*

The other thing that arose out of the Frank conviction is too-briefly mentioned in the wiki for the NAACP:

“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 that ‘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’."

Schiff was the George Soros on steroids of his day, the head of Kuhn Loeb bank, perhaps the most powerful figure on Wall St. and the biggest Jewish financier socio-political activist oligarch, who also went to war against hated mother Russia, financing half the Japanese borrowed cost of their successful 1904-05 war with Russia, and funding at least the provisional government after the 1917 February revolution; his funding of the Jew-heavy Bolsheviks after the October revolution is a matter of great dispute. Btw, Soros reportedly contributed $33M to BLM in 2014 during the events in Missouri, apparently his centennial celebration of the birth of the BJA. Wise was a major figure in the Burns holopropadoc, the favorite rabbi of presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, and he and Schiff were major players in the US regarding the Zionism in Palestine movement. Spingarn and his brother Arthur would go on to hold the presidency of the NAACP for 50 years through 1965, when the organization extended its Jewish leadership for another decade until it got its first black president in 1975.

When the culture wars really started in the US after World War I, the “Negro Problem” became part of that. I see the deep state battle then being waged as between the WASP Rockefellerists, the Zionists/Jews, and blacks themselves, with the faces on that being W. E. B. DuBois (the black frontman for the Jews in the NAACP), Margaret Sanger (the leading figure for the Rockefellerists, eventually with her Negro Project), and Marcus Garvey (the leading black nationalist). The general approaches in the south were the NAACP’s/Jews’ forced integration, the Rockefellerists’ eugenics and so reduction in the size of the problem, and Garvey’s complete segregation, pan-Africanism and back-to-Africa movement.

The civil rights era itself started in 1944, with the publication of An American Dilemma:

“An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy is a 1944 study of race relations authored by Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal and funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York. The foundation chose Myrdal because it thought that as a non-American, he could offer a more unbiased opinion. Myrdal's volume, at nearly 1,500 pages, painstakingly detailed what he saw as obstacles to full participation in American society that American blacks faced as of the 1940s. American political scientist, diplomat, and author, Ralph Bunche—who was the first African American to receive a Nobel Prize—served as Gunnar Myrdal's main researcher and writer at the start of the project in the fall of 1938.”

What’s clear here is that this wasn’t really Myrdal’s work product (which he essentially abandoned during WWII), and in fact there was significant contribution to its production from intelligence sources within the OSS and OWI to Louis Wirth, the Jewish Father of American Social Engineering from the Univ of Chicago. The civil rights era lasted for 25 years, to 1969 after the black power movement radicalization/militarization when the FBI murdered the Black Panthers’ leading light Fred Hampton in Chicago, on the heels of the killings of Malcolm X and ML King. By then the blacks had served their purposes for the deep state’s rising faction of that day, the Jewish/Zionists, and cultural Marxism/New Leftism had moved on to opposing the Vietnam war (mostly meaning the draft), feminism and eventually gay liberation. Blacks would have to wait in line for another 40 years until the deep state decided the masking of police militarization resulting from 9/11 and the neocon wars in this century could be achieved with BLM - the problem isn’t militarized police, it’s that damned white racism again!

The high point in the civil rights era was of course the Civil Rights Act passed into law in 1964, and of course King and the SCLC played a very major role in achieving that. Which gets us to Levison. The primary motivation of the Jews in the BJA had evolved from punishment of the white south for their unforgivable act of antisemitism (Jews apparently don’t ever rape and murder little girls) to creating full rights and entitlement under law for all victim groups (meaning anyone who isn’t a straight white male of Euro-Christian heritage), including themselves. The CRA would go on to play a major role in law regarding feminism and homosexual normalization, even though the NOW decade ‘70s ERA had failed to be enacted, a bridge too far as America grew weary of the New Left’s divisive social revolutions.

While the NAACP had been the major player in black movements for a half century by that point, the relatively new SCLC and its frontman King had become the visible leadership over the prior decade, and Levison was there the whole time, consulting and advising, strategizing, raising money, writing speeches, the true factotum behind the scenes. But those fingers in every slice of the pie became threatened in 1963, when Levison’s openly communist past became a major issue for JFK and RFK in supporting King’s efforts at the height of the cold war. Levison then took a much-reduced public profile related to King but stayed on deep background until King’s death five years later.

That included the post-CRA period when King went north to oppose urban segregation resulting from the development of ethnic neighborhoods (1966) and to openly oppose the Vietnam War (1967), both of which I believe resulted in his death in 1968. King had stepped out of his region and area of expertise to become a warrior in the broader culture wars of the era, essentially on behalf of or in support of the Jews and their New Left activism. And that’s when the deep state, still led by the WASP Rockefellerist faction if wobbling at that point, decided to shut him down, I believe by using their operational arm of the FBI.

By this point Jewish support for the black movement had significantly become New Left radicalized - think David Horowitz and his Ramparts Magazine’s support of the Panthers (the real authors of Soul on Ice?) - and so when the FBI erased Hampton a year later it was all over. As E. Michael Jones put it in his chapter on the Panthers in his essential book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, “Unlike the Black Nationalists, David Horowitz tells us, ‘the Panthers quoted Marx and actively sought alliances with the white left’. Horowitz doesn’t say so explicitly, at this point at least, but the so-called ‘white left’ in the bay area and elsewhere was overwhelmingly Jewish. The saga of the rise and fall of the Black Panthers was the same old Black-Jewish Alliance story in a new more violent, overtly revolutionary key.” [Earlier in the book Jones addresses the NAACP as the birthplace of the BJA in a chapter titled Marcus Garvey.]

The next phase of deep state management of the “Negro Problem” would become the CIA’s introduction of blaxploitation, most notably using Gordon Parks, a black photographer at CIA-connected Time/Life who had been involved in bringing down the Panthers, and who then directed Shaft for (Jewish) Hollywood, followed by his son’s masterpiece Superfly - the crippling maxicoated pimp paradigm for the black male had arrived! Back of the bus, nigga, and don’t ring the bell for 40 years! Don’t worry, we’ll get you some crack and gangsta rap in only about 15 years…

The Levison question here is about his role with King in this, after being distanced by RFK and JFK, then the political leadership of what was then the Catholic faction of the deep state. Unfortunately it's hard to get at that, because so much of what has been written about the Levison-King relationship focuses on the communist question and the Hoover/FBI wiretapping and related activities. And almost everything on Levison seems to have been written by his co-ethnics, which isn't any surprise, and some “fellow travelers” regarding King and civil rights.

Perhaps the most prominent book on this subject is Ben Kamin's Dangerous Friendship: Stanley Levison, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Kennedy Brothers; Kamin was not only a Jewish journalist/author but an unorthodox rabbi of some note, and had some sort of sex or harassment scandal related to that. I haven't read the book but he did pen an article in the Forward in 2014, when the book was published:

“In his short lifetime, King collected a cadre of loyal and fervent friends and colleagues. The majority of them, including the reverends Ralph David Abernathy, Andrew Young, John Lewis and Jesse Jackson, were African Americans. A notable exception to this list was a white, Jewish attorney and businessman named Stanley David Levison. In recent years, a flow of released documents, some available through the Freedom of Information Act, are revealing not only Levison’s remarkable influence on King, but also the unrelenting surveillance and wiretapping of both men by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

“Hoover’s obsession with Levison was driven by his conviction that Levison was an unrepentant Communist; the resulting scrutiny of King and others close to him inadvertently disclosed King’s lively sexual adventures, which only intensified the FBI’s loathing of and concentration on the preacher — and caused both President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to regard King with significant suspicion. Despite some 70,000 documents filed, redacted and sealed, the government of the United States never produced a shred of evidence that Levison was still a member of the Communist Party USA by the time he first met King, in 1956.

“On the afternoon of June 22, 1963, President Kennedy, anxious about Southern support for his 1964 re-election, called King to the White House. The president pulled the preacher into the open air of the Rose Garden (even Kennedy was worried about hidden microphones). Kennedy stunned King by stating that his administration could not support a civil rights bill if Communists tainted King’s movement. ‘Get rid of Levison’, he ordered.”

I find the “white, Jewish” bit interesting, because ethnic Jews as a semitic people are categorized as caucasian, which kind of suggests the Jewish part related to faith - but Levison wasn’t religious. But regarding the commie thing, the wording is carefully selected here, because what seems to matter is the technicality that Levison wasn’t a communist activist, or at least not an active member of the CPUSA, when he first met King in 1956 - there is no question at all that he was in the years leading up to this fateful meeting. More on that:

“Levison was indeed a fundraiser and publicist for the Communist Party USA in the late 1940s, but he had gradually severed his ties with the party as the harsh reality of the Soviet Union became more evident. Meanwhile, no connection has ever been established between MLK and the Communist Party USA, even though the implication of it by the FBI seriously complicated the relationship between King and the Kennedy brothers both before and after Kennedy’s presidency.”

Now, this is basically deception. Levison was clearly important within the CPUSA well into the ‘50s. What happened then seems to be a very typical transition among leftist activist Jews of that time, the abandonment of political Marxism for cultural Marxism following the twin purges of leftist Jews in the US and USSR around 1950, always attributed to the emergence of “the crimes of Stalin” or Stalinism. At that point the Jewish purposes behind Marxism had failed, the previously-friendly USSR had turned on them and in the US there was no chance of the revolution happening, while the creation of Israel had somewhat reduced the perceived need for a subversively-controlled “Jewish state” elsewhere, even after the (pre-Holocaustism) Holocaust. And it didn’t really matter if King the rube from Alabama was communist if he was being heavily influenced by formerly communist activists like Levison and Rustin - there was still socially-disruptive revolutionary intent surrounding King.

Kamin continues:

“The predicament was that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover harassed the Jewish attorney relentlessly, adamant that Levison was the radioactive link between King and communism. An uncommon alliance between a Jew and an African-American thus became a dangerous friendship — and remains, sorrowfully, a mystery

“In his lifetime, Levison quietly forged a link between the civil rights crusade and the labor movement. It remains the hallmark partnership of American social justice. He was a Marxist who owned some of the original and largest car dealerships in the United States, maintained huge investments in corporate real estate and was referred to by Hoover as ‘the Mr. X’ who infiltrated and saturated King’s work with Communists.

“Hoover and others who were cynically interested in monitoring or even shutting down King’s efforts — including, for a time, Robert F. Kennedy — just weren’t able to prove any ongoing connection between Levison and the Communist Party USA, even though they wiretapped, tracked and subpoenaed Levison while he counseled, raised funds for, ghostwrote articles and speeches for, did the accounting of and sometimes bailed out King between 1955 and 1968, when the preacher was murdered. This remains one of the greatest examples of callous government overreach in the 20th century.”

That characterization of this being “one of the greatest examples of callous government overreach in the 20th century” is highly debatable, at least if you’re not a Jew I suppose, but it pales in comparison to what the government under so much Jewish control has done in this century. What we do get here is more on the extent of Levison’s activities regarding King during this entire period. Then Kamin comes clean on Levison’s communism, in a typically Jewish left way:

“There is no doubt that Levison, a onetime treasurer of the American Jewish Congress, had been a full-blooded Marxist for much of his life. He was a man of moral seriousness and authentic activism. He was not unlike many American Jews of that era, some of whom were blacklisted, defamed or downright ruined because of their constitutionally protected political beliefs.”

So there again we have the alluding to the red scare. What I find amusing is the reference to “constitutionally protected political beliefs” - let’s recall that communism was pushing international revolution, the (often violent) overthrow of existing states, which in the US means that constitution, and that constitution does not protect the right of destruction of the state so described within it by revolutionary means. You can believe what you want, you can discuss it in the public town square, but if you become part of an organized activist movement working for the undemocratic removal of that constitution (and all the rights contained in it), you are not protected by it.

Kamin concludes:

“His name is occasionally whispered at conclaves of aging black civil rights leaders: ‘Yes, Stanley — remember how much Martin loved him and depended upon him?’ They recall the ‘Bloody Sunday’ march across the bridge at Selma, the manner in which King improvised the unforgettable closing of the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech (the original draft co-written by Levison and Clarence Jones) and how they were proved wrong when they begged King not to publicly dissent on the Vietnam War, as he did in 1967.

“They talk about those gilded days, and how this one cajoled Martin and that one disappointed him. But they make no further mention of Levison, and one cannot help but wonder why. One cannot help but ponder the fact that Levison was the only white man in that small coterie of advisers and counselors and attorneys who truly influenced King and kept his movement afloat.

“The Jewish embrace of the civil rights movement can no longer be just a historical wave to the many rabbis who marched with King; it certainly must include the martyrdom of Jewish idealists murdered in Mississippi and elsewhere. Its history remains an incomplete sentence without the name of one Stanley David Levison.”

Again we see the extent of influence, and the reference to Levison as white and the only one in the inner circle.

But we also see the call for Jews to take their public bows for their huge role in civil rights - no doubt the ethnically-cleansed version of that. And the implication is that Levison is underacknowledged, including among blacks, simply because he was a “white” - and a communist.

The above image comes from an article in the Jerusalem Post in 2006 titled Essay: The inconvenient man by Samuel Freedman, who was a professor of journalism at Columbia University and a regular columnist for the JerPo, which starts with this:

“No time of the year encourages more self-congratulation among American Jews than does midwinter. On the third Monday of each January, the United States celebrates the federal holiday commemorating the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The entirety of February is formally designated Black History Month. Both events serve as occasions for Jews to rhapsodize about their role, both actual and exaggerated, in the Civil Rights Movement. From temple to synagogue, JCC to Hillel center to Jewish museum, communal institutions sponsor conferences, speeches and ceremonies to recall the alliance between Jews and African-Americans. The standard heroes of this narrative start with Abraham Joshua Heschel, the theologian and social activist who indeed marched beside King on many occasions, as well as labor-union leader David Dubinsky and pulpit rabbis including Arthur Lelyveld and Jacob Rothschild. To believe all the sentimental back-slapping, one might imagine that all six million of America's Jews were assembled there in front of the Lincoln Memorial when King delivered his ‘I Have A Dream’ address in August 1963. Never mind that history tells us that some 250,000 spectators heard King, and that the vast majority were black and Christian. Nostalgia and revisionism surrender to no logic, especially in a nation where all but the most rabid right-winger these days likes to claim King in death as he never was claimed in life. All this ballyhoo ignores the one American Jew who most deserves to be remembered - Stanley David Levison, the inconvenient man.”

He continues on the huge role of Levison behind King:

“For more than a decade, from the immediate aftermath of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1956 to King's assassination in 1968, Levison was, as historian Taylor Branch puts it in his authoritative account, Parting The Waters, ‘King's closest white friend, and the most reliable colleague of his life.’ ALMOST FROM the day Levison first heard the young Baptist minister preach at a rally in Baltimore, he served as fund-raiser, strategist, ghost-writer, confidant, and even, in one of the ultimate acts of the Yiddishe kup, income-tax accountant. Levison helped devise the idea for the coalition of black clerics that became the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; he assisted King in drafting his address accepting the Nobel Peace Prize; he played an instrumental advisory role in King's pivotal decision to publicly oppose the Vietnam War - a stance that cracked the political and moral partnership between King and president Lyndon Johnson. The finest books about King and his movement, those by Branch, David Garrow and Nick Kotz, make ample reference to Levison.”

So there we have again the role of Levison related to King coming out publicly and firmly against the Vietnam war in 1967, which Kamin had described as opposed to the desires of the black leaders around King. My view of the then-emerging anti-war movement was that it was mostly about the draft and not the other horrible consequences of the war, that the war had dragged on to where college deferments were wearing out, and the draft itself was becoming more democratized. That meant risk to so many young Jews, and at least in part explains the disproportionate role of Jews in the leadership of the campus-based movement - Jews didn’t want to go fight and die for Euro-Christian America’s war on (Jewish) Marxism.

More, where the spectre of communism surfaces:

“To the larger American public, however, he has essentially vanished. The reason for his invisibility is the same reason he can be so precisely described by historians: As a suspected Communist, Levison was under incessant surveillance by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI for decades. Hoover's campaign of rumor, innuendo and character assassination against King basically relied on two prongs. One was his wiretapping of King during extramarital sexual assignations. The other was his unfounded contention that Stanley Levison was the link between King and international Communism. To this day, one can find fevered imaginings of Levison's purported perfidy brandished on Web sites with the titles "Martin Luther King, Jr… [?] Traitor' and "Abolish the King holiday." THE TRUTH is that Levison typified an American Jewish leftie of his era - very much including the fact that he made his money as a capitalist, practicing law, investing in real estate, and operating a Ford dealership. The truth also is that, so far as the historical record reveals, Levison was not a communist agent or party member while closely tied to King. Prior to meeting King, Levison had devoted his passions (and thousands of dollars) to such causes as the Rosenberg case, goals that involved the Communist Party, various front groups, and a large number of liberal, idealistic individuals, however naive we may judge them in hindsight. As historians such as Kotz, Branch and Garrow have parsed the record, Levison had parted ways with the party or its fellow-traveling spinoffs by the time he first encountered King. The civil rights movement, after all, was gathering momentum at exactly the time the Soviet empire was alienating American Marxists both with Nikita Krushchev's ‘secret speech' about Stalinist excesses and the Russian invasion putting down the Hungarian Revolution. The scales fell from many eyes besides Levison's.”

So we see it all there - principled Marxist Jews being fuctional capitalists (including selling cars for Antisemitic Motor Co.!), the technicality point on the complete abandonment of Soviet-supporting communism mere moments before meeting future superstar King, the game-changing “crimes of Stalin” that incentivized the flip to cultural Marxist activism (claimed not to be a “fellow-traveling spinoff”). More:

“None of these facts evidently mattered two years later, when Hoover learned of Levison's advisory role with King. Stimulated by Hoover's leaks, Robert Kennedy as attorney-general ordered wiretaps of Levison's home and office, and president John F. Kennedy personally took King aside to warn him about continued association with Levison. The civil rights leader did cut official ties to Levison, but kept him as a confidential aide. Lyndon Johnson, during his years in the White House, deftly finessed Hoover, pumping him for (dis)information about King while not following JFK's cowardly example in acting on it.”

So now we see “a moment of clarity” from a Zionist source, the hate for the “coward” JFK and the positive treatment of the philosemitic LBJ. Since I’m currently reading Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment on the JFK assassination and Israel/the Mossad, allow me to throw in a quote sourced from that, from Cong. Paul Findley:

“During John Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency, a group of New York Jews had privately offered to meet his campaign expenses if he would let them set his Middle East policy. He did not agree. As president, he provided only limited support to Israel. On the other hand, Lyndon Johnson had demonstrated his strong support for Israel throughout his political career, the government of Israel , therefore, had every reason to believe that its interests would be better advanced with Johnson as president. And indeed they were. After Kennedy’s death the United States, for the first time, began large-scale shipments of arms to Israel…”

Here’s a taste of Findley from his wiki:

“A year after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Findley published an article saying that this attack would never have occurred were it not for the United States' uncritical support of Israel. Findley claimed that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was launched primarily to benefit Israel, at the behest of the Israel lobby in the United States. Findley was a frequent critic of U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel. Findley was the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby in which he stated that the pro-Israel lobby, notably AIPAC, has undue influence over the United States Congress. He referred to the lobby as ‘the 700-pound gorilla in Washington’.”

It goes on with the Jewish-owned media’s response to Findley’s claims:

“A review of the book in The Washington Post stated: ‘Stripped of all the maudlin martyrdom, former congressman Paul Findley's message is straightforward and valid: Israeli influence in the United States, including in the inner sanctums of government, is very strong.’ The New York Times review by Adam Clymer described the book as ‘an angry, one-sided book that seems often to be little more than a stringing together of stray incidents ... [it] does not really accept the idea that people of any political point of view are entitled to organize, support their friends and try to defeat the people they think are their enemies’. The review describes the book as ‘the typical reaction of a Congressman who is offended at being challenged seriously for his seat, especially if the upstart should go so far as to beat him’.”

You have to give WaPo some credit there, but the NYT’s view is utterly appalling, defending the actions of “dual loyalists” - think supporters of Putin’s Russia in this century and the idea of they being “entitled to organize, support their friends and try to defeat the people they think are their enemies”. And of course the issue isn’t Israel, it’s Zionist Jews in the US - without the 6-7M American Jews Israel would have had no influence over the US government at all, none.

Anyway, the bit on JFK’s campaign there comes from Charles Bartlett, I believe, a journalist and friend of the Kennedys who talked to JFK after he’d gone to see the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations in NYC and been given the deal. This is the largest campaign contribution arm of the Jewish/Israel lobby, and is, as I have read, where Rahm Emanuel took Obama by the hand in 2008 to cut his deal for the mountain of shekels that so enabled his victory.

Back to the article, Freeman mentions David Garrow in that piece, who is a leftist and wrote several books on King and the movement, including Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Biography, and The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. He also wrote an article in The Atlantic in 2002 titled The FBI and Martin Luther King, which starts with this:

“On October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Kennedy believed that one of King's closest advisers was a top-level member of the American Communist Party, and that King had repeatedly misled Administration officials about his ongoing close ties with the man. Kennedy acted reluctantly, and his order remained secret until May of 1968, just a few weeks after King's assassination and a few days before Kennedy's own. But the FBI onslaught against King that followed Kennedy's authorization remains notorious, and the stains on the reputations of everyone involved are indelible.”

You can perceive the tone of this piece already, and a bit later he gets to the Jew in the middle of this stew:

“The crucial figure was Stanley David Levison, a white New York lawyer and businessman who first met Martin Luther King in 1956, just as the young minister was being catapulted to national fame as a result of his role in the remarkable bus boycott against racially segregated seating in Montgomery, Alabama. The FBI knew, in copious firsthand detail from the Childs brothers, that Levison had secretly served as one of the top two financiers for the Communist Party USA in the years just before he met King. The Childs brothers' direct, personal contact with Levison from the mid-1940s to 1956 was sufficient to leave no doubt whatsoever that their reports about his role were accurate and truthful. Their proximity to Levison also gave them direct knowledge of his disappearance from CPUSA financial affairs in the years after 1956.

“In the months immediately following Levison's visible departure from CPUSA activities, his selfless assistance to King soon established him as the young minister's most influential white counselor. But when the FBI tardily learned of Levison's closeness to King in early 1962, the Bureau understandably hypothesized that someone with Levison's secret (though thoroughly documented) record of invaluable service to the CPUSA might very well not have turned up at Martin Luther King's elbow by happenstance. With the FBI suggesting that Levison's seeming departure from the CPUSA was in all likelihood a ruse, Robert Kennedy and his aides felt they had little choice but to assume the worst and act as defensively as possible. The Kennedy Administration kept itself at arm's length from King, and events quickly spiraled, with the federal government undertaking extensive electronic surveillance of King himself.”

So here we have more clarity on the extent and timeframe of Levison’s CPUSA involvement, apparently ending mere months before he met King and attached himself to the future great man. The article then goes into detail on what the FBI gleaned from the Child brothers, including this bit:

“Jack Childs had served as primary ‘leg man’, or assistant, to William Weiner, the CPUSA's chief financier, from 1945 to 1948. In May of 1952 he recalled for agents how Weiner had garnered secret contributions and handled the Party's extensive cash repositories. Among the top contributors, Jack said, were Stanley and Roy Levison, twin brothers who owned a Ford dealership in northern New Jersey that contributed well over $10,000 a year to the CPUSA.”

Another revealing bit in this comes later:

“Minutes after Jack and Miller parted in the lobby, Stanley Levison visited Miller's hotel room, where the FBI had planted a recording device. Among other subjects, according to an FBI paraphrasing of their conversation, Levison and Miller ‘discussed anti-Semitism in Russia and the satellite countries.’

“They stated that a couple of the Russian leaders had been accused of anti-Semitism, but that this was only a rumor. Stanley stated that he was a lawyer and that the evidence in the matter would not be admissible in any court. Stanley said that the trouble involved Jewish capitalists. Stanley said that Israel had moved over to the West and now was a real danger spot; that Zionism had become a major menace, and that Israel is now an enemy state—a Fascist state just like Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia had been. Stanley said that a year ago Israel pretended to have a foot in each camp.

“A few moments later ‘Stanley said that the anti-Semitism situation was not as bad as the 'pact' (possibly the Hitler-Stalin Pact) which could not be discussed with people’.”

This was in 1953, and it shows the evolving position of Jewish left activists related to both the USSR and Israel, the growing awareness of what they would come to view as the real “crimes of Stalin” - antisemitism. Hard alignment with Israel would not occur until 1967, the psychology-altering Six Day War and the birth of neoconservatism out of the Jewish left, also related to the emerging anti-war movement on the Dem left.

Much later in the piece Garrow gets into details on Levison:

“Stanley Levison was forty-four years old when he first met the twenty-seven-year-old Martin Luther King Jr., in 1956. Stanley and Roy had grown up in Far Rockaway; Stanley attended the University of Michigan before obtaining two law degrees from St. John's University, in Queens, in 1938 and 1939. Medically deferred from military service, he spent the war years managing New York tool-and-die firms—Unique Specialties Corporation and Colonial Tool and Machine—before buying the New Jersey Ford dealership in 1945 and then overseeing a host of import-export, property-management, and industrial-production companies whose overlapping relationships and countless financial transfers proved so complicated as to preclude any complete FBI analysis of Levison's little empire.

“When Ella Baker and her fellow African-American civil-rights activist Bayard Rustin introduced Levison to King, a special relationship quickly blossomed; from the late 1950s until King's death, in 1968, it was without a doubt King's closest friendship with a white person. In December of 1956 and January of 1957 Levison served as Rustin's primary sounding board as Rustin drew up the founding-agenda documents for what came to be called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Like Rustin, Levison, and Baker, King and a network of his southern African-American ministerial colleagues hoped that the SCLC could leverage the success of the Montgomery bus boycott into a South-wide attack on segregation and racial discrimination.

“By April of 1957 Levison, like Rustin, was counseling King about the first major national address that King would deliver—from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, on May 17. Over the ensuing months Levison negotiated a book contract for King's own account of the Montgomery boycott, Stride Toward Freedom, and then offered King line-by-line criticism and assistance in editing and polishing the book's text. Levison also took charge of other tasks, ranging from writing King's fundraising letters to preparing his tax returns.”

So here we see the role of NYC fellow travelers Rustin and Levison with King and the SCLC, Rustin himself already a black proxywarrior of a different sort, which would continue and evolve through the 1980s when he came out of the closet as a neocon. Later on Garrow gets to the break:

“Levison's break with the CPUSA was unknown to Burke Marshall, to Robert Kennedy, and to President John F. Kennedy when all three men reiterated to King in mid-June of 1963 that he must separate himself from Levison and O'Dell. Within days another leak to a newspaper revealing O'Dell's continued presence at the SCLC led King to announce O'Dell's resignation. Soon after that Levison himself, fully aware of the alarm that the Kennedys were voicing about him to King, told King that with Congress about to begin consideration of the Kennedys' landmark civil-rights bill, he and King had no choice but to put an end to direct contact with each other. ‘I induced him to break,’ Levison told the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1976. ‘The movement needed the Kennedys too much. I said it would not be in the interests of the movement to hold on to me if the Kennedys had doubts.’

“Yet King remained reluctant to lose Levison's assistance and counsel, and thus he detailed a mutual friend, the young African-American attorney Clarence B. Jones, of New York, to serve as a telephonic intermediary between himself and Levison. Marshall and Robert Kennedy picked up on the ruse almost immediately, and within days Kennedy had authorized the wiretapping of Jones's home and office. Kennedy considered adding a tap on King as well, but decided to hold off.”

Btw, Jones is important regarding King’s “Dream” speech, because he is credited as its draft co-author along with Levison, and because he lived well beyond King and Levison and into the MLK Legend period it is he who has mostly told the legend story on that, which I suspect marginalizes Levison while boosting King and himself.

This piece is mostly about the FBI and the Childs brothers, but Garrow concludes with Levison and then the piece as follows:

“Stanley Levison died in September of 1979, without ever honestly acknowledging just how far his political journey had gone. Levison was never forthcoming about what he had been before 1957, just as the FBI was never forthcoming about what he no longer was after 1957. Levison died without ever learning that it was his old CPUSA comrades Jack and Morris Childs who had precipitated the FBI's surveillance of his friendship with King.”

“The firsthand information they provided to the FBI about Stanley Levison's secret financial work for the CPUSA in the years before Levison became Martin Luther King's most important political counselor changed American history in a profound way. If the Childs brothers had never signed on with the FBI, or if Jack had not heard about his old comrade Levison's newfound friendship with Martin Luther King, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations would most likely have embraced both King and the entire southern black freedom struggle far more warmly than they did.”

So the idea here is that communism was the problem, political Marxism the only problem related to Levison’s Jewish socio-political activism. Not remotely a surprise, given that cultural Marxism has been as successful in the US as political Marxism was a failure.

Btw, he is never directly identified as Jewish in this long piece, the only appearance of that world other than the “Jewish capitalists” bit related to the USSR quoted above is this: “During one electronically preserved conversation Levison explained ‘the Party's success in infiltrating’ the American Jewish Congress, in which Levison had become an officer for the West Side of Manhattan chapter. As a result, Levison said, the chapter was publicly criticizing the McCarran-Walter immigration law and the Red-baiting Senator Joseph McCarthy, of Wisconsin, in full accord with the CPUSA's political agenda.”

Finally the last couple pieces I will (briefly) cite here, first is from (Marty Baron’s) Washington Post from 2017, which was about a then-recent release of more FBI documents on King, which relies significantly on Garrow. Here’s a quote by him:

“I think the number one takeaway historically is how, even in March of 1968, the FBI continues to be bizarrely preoccupied with how important the Communist Party USA is. . . . The Communist Party, by 1968, is of no importance to anything. These incredibly exaggerated statements of communist influence are exactly what the FBI wants to hear.”

This is important because it’s true - communism as a socio-political threat to the US, political Marxism, was all but dead by 1968, and had been replaced by cultural Marxism, the New Left in full flower by that point. And the 1967 Six Day War had also changed everything for Jews worldwide but most importantly in the US. In fact 1968 would go on to be seen as an incredibly tumultuous year in the US, featuring among so many things the assassinations of both King, perhaps no longer useful except as a martyr, and RFK, then the titular head of the Catholic faction of the deep state and clearly seen as a problem for Israel if elected president, who was killed by a Manchurian-candidated Christian Palestinian who then was said to have done it because RFK was a supporter of Israel, flipping him to a kind of martyr - oh, the irony, and on the first anniversary of the Six Day War!

But how does the FBI go after radical Jewish activism if Holocaustism prohibits that? In the 1960s you could still go after communists!

And at last a contrary view from the Washington Times written by Allan Ryskind, the son of the Brooklyn/Hollywood Jew Morrie Ryskind, who was in turn the son of immigrants from Russia, and who went the socialist-to-neocon route himself (consider the sources - you can’t make this shit up), published in 2019, who defend the wiretaps, starting with citing Garrow:

“A painful historical reckoning of King’s personal conduct (as distinct from his civil rights accomplishments) ‘seems inevitable,’ he writes, but Hoover’s public conduct appears equally notorious. When Attorney General Robert Kennedy authorized the wiretapping, Mr. Garrow argues that he set in motion ‘one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history,’ referring to the tapes and letter sent to King. Left and right agree this was a wicked act that never should have occurred.

“But were the Kennedys and the FBI wrong to tap King and his associates’ phones and to bug their homes and offices, as even some solid conservatives seem to be saying? To tap King was the original sin, suggest the critics, but the reason for the surveillance was wholly justifiable from a national security point of view. We were, after all, in the midst of the Cold War and King was surrounding himself with Kremlin loyalists.

“The FBI began wiretapping King’s home and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference office in Atlanta on Nov. 8, 1963, with Robert Kennedy’s written approval. A major reason, as Mr. Garrow informs us, is that ‘the FBI had insistently told Kennedy that King’s closest and most influential advisor’ was New York attorney and businessman Stanley D. Levison, ‘a ‘secret member‘‘of the Communist Party. Was the FBI wrong?”

Kremlin loyalists? More:

“Using information that the Childs brothers supplied, as well as extensive FBI materials, here’s what Barron writes about Levison. By 1946, he had gained admission ‘into the inner circle of the Communist underground.’ Levison helped establish party business fronts and collected money from party ‘angels’ in Hollywood and on Wall Street. Both he and his twin brother, Roy, were considered such loyal CP members that in the 1950s they were put in charge of the party’s finances.”

After that I just have to get back to Rahm Emanuel and his role in 1992 behind Bill Clinton, from his wiki:

“At the start of then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton's presidential primary campaign, Emanuel was appointed to direct the campaign's finance committee. Emanuel insisted that Clinton schedule time for fund-raising and delay campaigning in New Hampshire. Clinton embarked on an aggressive national fund-raising campaign that allowed the campaign to keep buying television time as attacks on Clinton's character threatened to swamp the campaign during the New Hampshire primary... Emanuel's knowledge of the top donors in the country, and his rapport with ‘heavily Jewish’ donors helped Clinton amass a then-unheard-of sum of $72 million. While working on the Clinton campaign Emanuel was a paid retainer of the investment bank Goldman Sachs.”

So 40 years after the Jew Levison was apparently doing the fundraising for the CPUSA from Wall St. and Hollywood we have the Jew Emanuel doing the fundraising for the Clinton campaign from Wall St. and Hollywood (where his power broker agent brother Ari was no doubt part of it, and he gets us back to Ye today). And the author should know, since his father the fellow traveler was there at the time, and he also wrote a book on it, Hollywood Traitors.

(Btw, in Final Judgment Piper Collins raises the story of a Mossad plot to kill George HW Bush in 1991-92, because “of Bush’s seeming intransigence toward Israel’s demands” which had made him “hated by the Mossad and considered an enemy of Israel”. The lining up of the big Jewish money for Clinton was the other side of what I have long considered a critical moment in the deep state balance between the WASP Rockefellerists (which Bush was so much a part) and the Zionist Jews, who have ruled the deep state ever since.)

But what this parallel 40 years apart should tell us is that communism doesn’t matter, what matters is covert subversive Jewish socio-political activism. 70 years ago it was still political Marxism, 60 years ago it was cultural Marxism starting with civil rights, 50 years ago it was 2nd wave feminism, 40 years ago it was neoliberal economics, 30 years ago it was neoconservative foreign policy, 20 years ago it was homosexual normalization, and 10 years ago it was the rebirth of the black-Jewish alliance in the dubious form of BLM. The tools and laborers change but the architects remain the same.

Levison is just another one of these architects, starting out as a communist moneyman (and successful capitalist) until “the crimes of Stalin” turned him into a jack-of-all-trades cultural Marxist working their first project that had its roots 50 years before with Leo Frank and the NAACP. He died in 1979 so didn’t have time to turn into an '80s neocon, unlike his proxywarrior fellow traveler Rustin, or his younger true fellow traveler David Horowitz, who started out a communist, did his New Left black movement time supporting the Panthers before claiming disillusionment and going full neocon.

As Dr. Jones put it in JRS, completed in 2008, at the end of his chapter on the Panthers, “This moment was short-lived, however, because Horowitz was soon converted to yet another version of Jewish Messianic politics, this time Neoconservatism. Unable to stifle the desire to be a commissar, Horowitz began a new career by attacking professors who criticized Israel or contested the details of the attack on the World Trade Towers, urging students to inform on their professors in a gesture that recalled all of the worst aspects of the Soviet regime. During the fall of 2007 Horowitz traveled from one campus to another trying to drum up support for an attack - with nuclear weapons if necessary - on Iran.”

But all this distraction hasn’t allowed me to really get at what matters to me about Levison and King, if Stanley was the guy who in 1966 after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts steered King north and on his way to doom two years later. Was this part of the crashing and burning of civil rights after it had become no longer useful to the Jews, the activism that Horowitz was also involved in with the promotion and support of the militant Panthers?

It seems pretty clear here that Levison was a major player in convincing King to come out openly against the war, though. That combined with the wrath of Hoover over his “communism” seems to have pretty much sealed King’s fate, if you believe like me that King was likely offed by the FBI. But this was also a very contentious period within the deep state, so one can also see King as a Jewish bishop or knight taken off the board by the WASP Rockefellerists. If so, was this a strategic sacrifice by the Jews in their larger battle for control?

Just to make it clear, I was not and am not opposed to civil rights overall, far from it. I do not think one can justify structural segregation and blatant two-tier citizenship in any way… well, in almost any way - I suppose an exception could be made in certain ways for a (chosen?) people who are a clear and present serious danger to the society. But that wasn’t and isn’t blacks.

Rather the matter is distinguishing between the overt “sell” of this kind of activism and the covert Jewish-specific purposes, which for cultural Marxism in general is by all indications a divide-and-conquer strategy attacking the Euro-Christian majority and fracturing the society overall using proxywarriors from that society. We can see this so clearly in BLM, all the social disruption and distraction in 2020 over what was quite likely the accidental if reckless death of one societally-marginal human being that still echoes today. If civil rights and its ramifications was such a wonderful solution to a societal problem 60 years ago, why are we where we are today? Why is there so much anguish over the supposed rebirth of white-on-black racism, the supposed rise in “antisemitism”, the apparently stubborn continuation of “homophobia”, etc., etc.? Does this divide and distract the worn-down country after two decades of middle east war for the benefit of Israel, the Great Recession caused by Wall St. investment bankers, the seemingly-inexplicable fulmination of cold and hot war with the only other true nuclear power in the world?

I will end this with another victim of the ‘60s-’70s deep state competition/conflicts, on the day that King was killed and two months before his own end, ironically running for president on an anti-war platform and as a supporter of King’s movement, and only a few years after playing his now-demonized role with regard to Levison.

*PS: Later yesterday after I published this piece I started listening to a new audiobook I’d purchase a few weeks ago, American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis by Adam Hochschild, which is about socio-political America in the period 1917-21. In one of those interesting coincidences, in the prologue to the book the author mentions/utilizes the Leo Frank case:

“Hysteria against Germans blended seamlessly with long-standing antisemitism. America barred Jews, either explicitly or in practice, from many clubs, businesses and lawfirms, college faculties and more. The novelist Henry James was disgusted by the Jews he saw swarming on New York’s lower east side, reminding him of small strange animals, snakes or worms, who when cut into pieces wriggle away contentedly and live in the snippet as completely as in the whole.

“In 1913 on evidence today considered fraudulent, Leo Frank, a young New York Jew working in Atlanta, had been convicted of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl. Two years later in the middle of the night a mob broke into a prison, seized him and lynched him. Half the three thousand Jews living in Georgia left the state.

“New York was not the deep south, but a family with a name both German and Jewish still felt vulnerable. Several of my father’s cousins would, before long, legally change their last name to one that sounded Anglo. On all sides were rallies, parades and pageants urging people to buy war bonds. The city saw hundreds of thousands of men questioned by vigilanties who fanned out across town intent on rounding up slackers, as they were called, trying to avoid the draft. My father tried desperately to get into the army, hoping that a uniform could protect him and his family.”

He goes on to say it was his father’s severe near-sightedness that disqualified him from service, btw. But this is an interesting use of the Frank case to spin American antisemitism, following the citing of antisemitic acts of that era along the lines of what was said in the Burns holopropadoc. So what does “on evidence today considered fraudulent” mean? I assume it means the “confession” of one of the two key black witnesses who testified at the trial that in fact the other one, Jim Conley, was gulty of the crime, that coming many decades later when the man was essentially on his deathbed, and may have been paid off to make the claim (by the disreputable ADL?) when there were no adverse consequences to be considered. There is also no mention of why Frank was lynched, the commutation by the governor of his capital punishment sentence.

After that we get the author coming as close as he gets to stating he’s Jewish (including the justification of the practice of crypsis). In fact his father comes from an interesting Jewish family, his grandfather was born in Germany and was a founder of the American Metal Company, there were cousins of his father who were mining/metal barons in Chile and Bolivia, and an uncle was a WWI Russian flying ace. Hochschild worked on civil rights in Mississippi in 1964, was part of the anti-war movement, was an editor of Ramparts magazine (the journal of the New Left) and a founder of Mother Jones magazine.

This is the notorious issue showing the editors of Ramparts burning their draft cards, including Jews Sol Stern and Robert Scheer; I can’t tell if Hochschild’s is also there. In another bizarre coincidence, the magazine photographed here, which I found online, was that of a subscriber who was the wife of a good friend and co-worker of my father back then.

An earlier bit that reveals the author’s viewpoint:

“This book is about what’s missing between those two chapters [WWI and the roaring twenties]. It is a story of mass imprisonments, torture, vigilante violence, censorship, killings of black Americans and far more that is not marked by commemorative plaques, museum exhibits, or Ken Burns documentaries. It is a story of how a war, supposedly fought to make the world safe for democracy, became the excuse for a war against democracy at home. The toxic currents of racism, nativism, red-baiting and contempt for the rule of law have long flowed through American life. People of my generation have seen them erupt in McCarthyism, in the rocks and insults hurled at black children entering previously all-white schools, and in the demagoguery of politicians like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and Donald Trump. By the time you listen to this they may well have boiled up again in additional ways.”

It should be clear at this point that we’re not just talking about some kind of generic leftism here, we are seeing Jewish-specific leftism. Btw, the book was published earlier this year, so coming out of the period of the boiling over of anti-Trumpism and BLM - but before Burns’ defining philosemitic Holopropadoc.

I don’t recall looking into the author at the time that I bought the book, but his Jewishness has to be greatly considered when judging the narrative, which is so apparent to me only a chapter into the book. What this reminds me of is Kenneth Ackerman’s Trotsky in New York 1917, which I read early this year, Ackerman also a self-identified Jew addressing a smaller piece of the same era, also a rather admiring look at Jewish radical leftism of a century ago. Perhaps another reminder that it is the victors who write the histories…