David Horowitz And The
Mechanics Of The Zionist
Exploitation Of Blacks

By Curt Maynard

I recently read David Horowitz's autobiography Radical Son. Horowitz was a well- known Marxist journalist in the 1970s supposedly transformed into a less well-known modern day neo-conservative converso. He once wrote for the Ramparts, a liberal Marxist rag that touted every single degenerate cause in the late sixties and early seventies, actively supported the Black Panther Party, and rubbed shoulders with the likes of Huey Newton, Elaine Brown, Angela Davis, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and Abby Hoffman. Horowitz's Radical Son is really nothing more than the author's weak attempt to explain how it is that he so easily converted to neo-conservatism from a radical 1970s Jewish liberal. The book is little more than liberal propaganda of the crudest nature from beginning to end. According to Horowitz he finally "saw the light," he came to see that Marxist groups like the Black Panthers weren't ideologically motivated at all, that they were instead composed of "thugs," and that they used the cause to forward their own agendas, mostly of a self absorbed criminal nature. For most people the idea that the Panther's were a criminal organization isn't anything new, but Horowitz wants the reader to sympathize with him, so he reinvents the Panther's just as he did in the seventies in an effort to confuse the simpleminded reader. This is an interesting process and extremely difficult to identify unless one is familiar with kosher revisionism.
First off Horowitz wants the reader to believe that the he, David Horowitz was never motivated by anything except the most altruistic and benevolent of causes ­ Marxism ­ true Marxism, brotherhood, equality and tolerance and all that rhetoric. Unfortunately, according to Horowitz, he was stymied at every opportunity by less ideologically motivated sell-outs who took advantage of Horowitz's devotion to the cause and naivety. Horowitz is tricky though ­ he does this in such a way as not to expose himself for what he really was, a fanatical anti-Gentile Jew that exploited the Black Panther's to advance Jewish interests ­ Zionist interests for those still not inclined to see that Zionism is nothing more than Jewry's latest "ism."
He wants the reader to believe that he admired Huey Newton, the one time leader of the Black Panthers, who was gunned down on an Oakland street corner in the late eighties; the result of a bad drug deal. Horowitz wants the reader to believe that Newton guided and/or mentored Horowitz rather than the other way around. He does this by constantly inserting insinuations in the text that suggest he felt ecstatic every time Newton treated him as an equal and/or accepted some of his advice. He gives himself away though by telling the reader that it was he that raised considerable sums of money for the Panthers from his wealthy Jewish friends. In fact, Radical Son names so many Jews within its pages that it reads like the guest list at a New York City Bar Mitzvah. Horowitz exposes other interesting facts about Huey Newton that suggest Newton was "bought and paid for," in a sense, by divulging the fact that another extremely wealthy and well connected Jew by the name of Burt Schneider financed Newton's lavish lifestyle, which included paying for Newton's drug habit, which was quite considerable if Horowitz is to be believed, as well as a house in an upper scale neighborhood.
In one exchange between Newton and Horowitz, the author suggests that he felt morally obligated to correct an erroneous belief that had developed in the Panther party; yep, you guessed it, anti-Semitism. According to Horowitz, some Panther's had come to accept this racist idea because of Stokely Carmichael and his less than revolutionary belief that Jews within the movement were acting as a Fifth Column and weren't particularly interested in the black cause; sound familiar? Of course Horowitz carefully sets up his narrative in such a way that the naïve reader will reject the possibility that what Carmichael believed might have had some basis in reality; Horowitz does this by admission and denial ­ a common tactic employed in kosher revisionism. According to Horowitz, after a time he felt honored to be thought of as an equal by Newton and for that reason he was "emboldened," to speak his mind:
"Talking to Huey as a kind of equal. emboldened me to raise yet another difficult issue. A strain of anti-Semitism had developed in the Party during the years he [Newton] was in prison. Of course, the Panthers were not alone among black radicals in their attacks on Jews. In 1966, Stokely Carmichael and the leaders of the SNCC had expelled whites from the civil rights organization, accusing them of being a fifth column inside the movement. Since Jews were a near majority of the whites in these organizations, and had played a strategic role in organizing and funding the struggle, it was clear to everyone that they were the primary target of the assault. This was underscored by the support that Carmichael and the black left gave to the Arab states during their 1967 attack on Israel.[1]"
In the above paragraph Horowitz absolutely reveals himself to be the liar he is, but it goes unnoticed by the vast majority of readers because most people aren't aware of the fact that Israel preemptively attacked the Arab states on June 5, 1967, not the other way around. This is what I would refer to as "kosher revisionism," and it is quite common in the world today, as a matter a fact, it's the norm. Historical revisionism has developed a bad name primarily because kosher revisionism rules the airwaves, radio and television; ethnic Jews have a near monopoly on the media in all its forms, and for that reason, lies like Horowitz's go unnoticed by most people. Horowitz predictably sets up his "admission," i.e. that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement by first prostrating himself in such a way as to fool the reader into believing that he, Horowitz, was only able to influence Newton, because Newton, the black man in the relationship, felt that Horowitz was an equal. Many people will laugh at the very idea that a Jew would consider any black to be an equal ­ as a rule, Jews loathe blacks more than they do whites, but they find that exploiting blacks is advantageous to the advancement of their agenda, and it is for this reason, and no other, that they associate with blacks.
Many blacks know this; perhaps that is why the unapologetic and openly pro-white Larry Darby polled as many black votes as he did in the recent June 5, 2006 democratic primary election for Alabama Attorney General; because he is vociferously critical of organized Jewry. An excellent book on the reality of the Jewish/Black relationship is The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, put out by the Nation of Islam, a group Horowitz absolutely despises as shown by the fact that he allegedly considered the Nation to be more violent than the Black Panther's, a total joke really, and one that no knowledgeable person could possibly accept. Horowitz again "creates," this impossibility by revealing that he promised a property owner that a building the owner was to sell to the Black Panther's wouldn't be used by any violent black groups like the "Nation of Islam."[2]
In this case, Horowitz kosher revisionism borders on the absurd, yet most readers won't pick it up, again because the predominantly Jewish media has so effectively smeared the Nation of Islam, that most Americans know very little about them, other than they are supposedly anti-Semitic and violent. The truth is that the Nation understands the nature of the Zionist and hasn't shied away from talking about them, or documenting factual stories that relate the actual relationship that Jews have with blacks; which is now and has always been exploitative. In this vein, Horowitz again attempts to create a sympathetic response from the reader by alluding to the idea that he, and Jews in general, were actually the ones that had been exploited by the Panthers. He again divulges important admissions in respect to Jews and the civil rights movement, and then denies that these Jews were motivated by anything but altruism ­ and again he endeavors to reinforce his earlier lie at the expense of the Arabs:
"I began to review events of the past to which I had paid little attention before, like the expulsion of the Jews from the civil rights movement in 1966. Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities ­ and wherever else they had power. More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3% of the population. It was an unprecedented show of solidarity from one people to another. Jews had put their resources and lives on the line to support the black struggle for civil rights, and indeed two of their sons ­ Schwerner and Goodman ­ had been murdered for their efforts. But even while these tragic events were still fresh, the black leaders of the movement had unceremoniously expelled the Jews from their ranks. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing Zionism as racism.[3]"
Here again Horowitz reveals what a propagandist he is, as mentioned previously the Israeli's preemptively attacked the Arab states in 1967, not the other way around, thus in no sense could the Arabs be considered "aggressors." Once again Horowitz admits to the fact that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement, a fact that many liberal college professors are still afraid to acknowledge to this day. Earlier Horowitz attempted to convince the reader that he felt honored to be thought of as an equal by Huey Newton, but in the above paragraph he reveals something he had carefully hidden up to this point in his biography and that is the fact that Jews single handedly funded the black civil rights movement, that they essentially developed all its strategies and that they utilized their media to advance its causes, ideas that organized Jewry has collectively denied for more than forty years. Now I ask the reader - does this sound like a relationship founded on the concept of equality?
The truth is Horowitz was never a Marxist, a socialist or otherwise, except in name, and only where it might have been beneficial to Jewish Supremacism, Horowitz clearly reveals this when he classifies Natan Sharansky as a persecuted Russian dissident,[4] rather than what Sharansky really is, a fanatical Zionist, hater of Gentiles, purveyor of holocaust lies, and Israeli Cultural Minister. No doubt Horowitz's attempts to delude certain Panther's in the 1970s wasn't entirely successful, that is why he focused on the corrupt drug addict Huey Newton, who he knew was weak and would be willing to compromise in all the necessary ways.
One last telling example of Horowitz's Zionist, rather than socialist leanings, is his insistence that Huey allow him to write a "position paper," for the Black Panther party on the Arab/Israeli relationship, which only reinforces the fact that Horowitz, even in the early 1970s, was focused on issues that were good for Jews, rather than what would advance the allegedly revolutionary plans of the Black Panthers and the so called Black civil-rights movement. Horowitz wasn't stupid however, he knew he had to dress up his propaganda in such a way as not to give away what his intentions really were, so he employed his considerable writing skills and inserted the following rhetoric in the paper:
"Though the ultimate survival of Jews and Palestinians, as of all peoples, depends on the revolutionary overthrow world imperialism and Capitalism[5]"
Although in the 1970s this wasn't a strange position for a supposed liberal and revolutionary to take, it is ironic that today Horowitz is a vociferous defender of both, at least when it concerns the racist state of Israel and its imperialist expansionism. In the end, Horowitz's relationship with Huey Newton was based upon mutual need, Newton was never ideologically motivated, he was a violent pimp that bathed in the persona of a revolutionary and Horowitz was a Zionist propagandist that played the role of a concerned Jewish liberal, and who required a front man and found it in Huey Newton.
<>[1] Pg. 227.
<>[2] Pg. 231.
<>[3] Pg. 275-276.
<>[4] Pg. 277.
<>[5] Pg. 228.



This Site Served by TheHostPros