Much of your arguments are, as you like to say, “strawmen”.

But let’s look at some of the salient points:

Jeffries
"There was a conspiracy planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood, with people named Greenberg and Weisberg and Triglani and whatnot. Russian Jewry had control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a system of destruction for the Black people."

But in books like “An Empire of their Own” which documents the Jewish cornering of the entertainment business in Hollywood, pretty much the same thing was shown. And this book, to my knowledge, was written by a Jew.

But putting things into context, given the fact that the Jews themselves were victims of virulent racism and religious bigotry in the US, which itself was a holdover from the very long bigotry against Jews in Europe going back to the Roman Empire, and given the nature of US racism and theory of whiteness itself, it is understandable that Jewish filmmakers would capitalise on the stereotyping of Africans and African-Americans in early Hollywood. Also there is still much debate about just how many Jews, including those who would have been otherwise well-meaning, subscribed to the Hamitic myth as it was applied to African people.

Their links with the Mafia should not be news either; that was almost a matter of natural course in the 1920s to the 60s (some may say even now) – remember the name Bugsy Siegel? Further in books like “Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity Determines Success in the new Global Economy” by Joel Kotkin, it is shown that Jews, like may other ethnic and linguistic groups, organised trans-national cultural links usually tied to some symbolic or real homeland or cultural foundation. These links – like say, fraternities such as the Freemasons – provided real monetary, spiritual and sometimes even armed support that spanned the globe (I kinda like that one, wish we could get a clue, Drop Squad anyone?). Often people would be members of lodges like the Masons, Rosicrucians, or organisations like the Mafia and still have even deeper ethno-cultural links with their kin. What’s so newsworthy about that?

That which occurred in Europe, the European Nazi Holocaust of the European Jew has to do with white on white crime.

Well it was. What’s wrong with that statement? The Nazi atrocities against the Jews was indeed “white-on-white” crime

It has nothing to do with African people, Asian people, Native American people."

Well I’ll take issue with that. It had a lot to do with us and Asian people and not just b/c there were Africans who perished in the death camps along with Jews, gypsies and Russians. The Nazi theories of racial superiority grew out of a wider racialism of Europe and Euro-America going back to the 18th C at the very least.

Jews are a race of skunks and animals that stole Africa from the Black Man

When was this statement made and in what context? I mean, by itself it is indeed an unfortunate statement to make (although the charge that they “stole” Africa from Africans is itself not untrue. It’s just that, of course, it was also stolen by the Arabs, Romans, English, Belgians, Spanish, French and in some cases given away by the Africans themselves.

Sorry, but his endorsement of Bradley and Jeffries is enough for me.

“Strawmen”

If they only claimed rich Jews, and rich Africans and other exploiters of human kind, we would befine, but you know well they didn't

Using that logic, I take it that all Americans invaded Iraq and all Americans ousted Jacobo Arbenz in 1954.

Additionally, Jeffries, Martin and Dr Clarke in numerous lectures, some of which I have on tape, always pointed out that rich or prominent Jews/Xians, etc were the ones in question. It doesn’t surprise me that this topic was isolated and pounced upon by US media but I don’t see why this is being done here.

I'm sure you have the sources to back the claim

Well you can start with the book “The Jewish Onslaught” by Martin…….oh wait, that’s right, HE wrote it so that cannot be factual, ok, forget that. Had some good reprinting of letters written by Jewish and Xian academics and editors in it though.

Something you would state, but something that was not enphasized in any place I have seen Martin mentioned

Well he did, ok? A little less googling and a little more digging might turn up something. In “Onslaught” itself he says: It may be that the Jewish establishment has concluded that a prostrate African-American population, to be oppressed or paternalised as the times warrant, will continue to be its insurance against a Euro-American reversion to European anti-Jewish activity.

I also think you need to find out exactly what Jeffries and Diop was saying with regards to this “Ice People/Sun People” AKA “Northern Cradle/Southern Cradle” theory before you pontificate. They never dismissed the existence of violence in tropical regions, what they were dealing with was the centrality of violence and xenophobia which was by no means universal. Again, I cite Carroll’s study, which was from a totally different perspective as was the works of James Parkes or Bronislaw Geremek. I understand you are a military man, if so, you and I share something in common. Years ago when I was studying and comparing different forms of warfare I was greatly surprised to learn that in places like pre-colonial Africa and in North America, wars were fought but the intention was to kill as little of the enemy as possible. In the Collier’s Encyclopedia (of all places) it is recounted how during the Zulu wars against the British, when the Zulus realised that a British unit they had surrounded, had run out of ammunition, a party was allowed to pass through UNHARMED to go for fresh stocks of ammo and food.

Now Otorongo, tell the class what would have happened if the situation was reversed.

Then in Ancient Egypt, although iron was known, it was not used extensively in weaponry, if at all. As such their weapons were inferior to those used by many of their enemies. The point is that the rationale for using the best materials for war and killing was not the same everywhere.

The claim that Europeans brought homosexuality is a joke. It existed in Africa before Colonialism

I’m sure you will furnish a link for this one. I have looked for evidence – cause I remember that was one of the accusations against Shaka as well as one of the excuses used by the feminists in the 80s to justify lesbianism – and found quite the opposite. I do know that at various celebratory times there was/is an element of transvestism – here in Trinidad, the African celebration of Carnival just ended and one of the central themes in traditional ‘Mas was role-reversal including men wearing women’s clothing (Dame Lorraine and the wearing of nighties on J’Ourvert morning). Now although a number of homosexuals would take advantage of that opportunity, it had nothing to do with being homosexual itself and was a survival of traditional African mas celebrations in Africa (which would be beginning right about now until May).

And no, I didn’t forget Leopold, but I was referring to the atrocities committed in the later half of the 20th C. The argument that “hating the children who may be innocent” is as general and nonsensical as, well, hating the children who may be innocent. So what about the “children” who not only benefited from their parents and grandparent’s thievery and murder but participated in it when they came of age? As for the oft-used argument by you that “people who are a generation or more removed” etc, shows you know nothing about African cultural thought (or even Jewish cultural thought, to name but one) and I have no time to explain it to you.

…..the Jewish slave traders, the Idi Amins, The conservative Israeli fantaics, are not representatives of the all.

NOW you’re making some kind of sense. Why not we focus on that and how they poison things for everyone else?