(Namahottie has left the chat )
Where does he reference them being Jewish? Oh, wait. I forgot the rule I just referenced.
1 Like
So in each instance the anti-Semitism is inferred, not demonstrated.
Hey, at least things were polite and not confrontational! 
I think the issue on the left is that many are frustrated with the Palestine/Israel situation. Many have been wound up by their media (social or otherwise) into taking semantic detours into anti-Semitism as ways to express their frustration for what they see as injustice in Israel.
There is still a rise in anti-Semitism on the left, but I will cede that how far the left is willing to go is undecided (ie, actions speak louder than words). That question is not answered in their favor by events in Jersey City, however.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/13/rise-anti-semitism-left/
For the Covington kids, that the black hebrews were calling “faggots” while the indian scammer was drumming in their face, Cnn had the main article on the front page dedicated to those racist students harassing a noble native american.
For a shooting in a Jewish market perpetrated by people who targeted that location specifically for the people who frequent it, Cnn has a side bar banner that can be found by scrolling down.
1 Like
On the front page, right? I saw via mobile site.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that some Americans believe that Jews will willingly profess Christ as their messiah at the time of the rapture. I do not think this is a Southern attribute, though: it’s an attribute of some evangelicals no matter where they live (even Australia).
Among Southerners, I think support for Israel is strong because Southerners recognize that Israel is an American-like democracy and as such a real ally in the ME. I think the strongest support by the South for Israel is because it’s a very small, scrappy nation that’s never been afraid of standing up for itself, no matter what it takes. That’s very admirable.
I don’t know where the anti-semitism of the right is geographically concentrated, if at all. It seems to be most prevalent in the alt-right, who adopted the identitarian rhetoric and ideas from the left and repurposed them for a different racist, anti-semitic and odious cause.
1 Like
I don’t know either. I know that there are perhaps 10,000 white nationalists in the US (if that), but I suspect they’re about equally distributed among the far right and the far left.
Connections to the KKK and their ilk are likely by old-school, blue dog Southern Democrats, however, and their Pacific Northwest analogues.
Sadly, I think the real story here is a little tough to admit. African Americans have largely been given a free pass to be racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semetic, and no one is willing to call it out in MSM (which is why this story won’t get non-stop national coverage).
From obvious hate-crimes that are not catorgized as hate crimes, to non-stop homophobia and sexism in music. This is just a truth that we choose to ignore. The black israelites are the perfect example of ignoring behavior that was obviously dangerous and wrong.
5 Likes
Didn’t the NY Times admit as much last year? Something like they weren’t reporting many attacks because they ‘didn’t fit any pattern’ (not a direct quote)?
1 Like
If they did then it would be for your own good, you know. 
/s
1 Like
Found it. Not a link to the article itself but Shapiro is generally as close to factual as you can be on such matters, unless he’s clearly offering his opinion.
“… the Times cares about anti-Semitism only when it can be used as a political weapon. The Times admitted in November that it had neglected to cover anti-Semitic hate crimes in New York City specifically because such anti-Semitism “refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy,” explaining that “when a Hasidic man or woman is attacked by anyone in New York City, mainstream progressive advocacy groups do not typically send out emails calling for concern and fellowship and candlelight vigils in Union Square.””
No easy narrative, no story.
All the news that’s fit to spin.
2 Likes
Shapiro would take any opportunity to malign the NYT, but it’s always offered up a large amount of pro-Israel commentary as anyone who reads it will know. Unfortunately for Shapiro they’re on the left, so like many other people, he feels totally justified attacking them as anti-Semitic or whatever other label seems convenient. Simply not prostrating oneself in support of Israel seems to be getting to be enough for that. He’s a liar.
1 Like
Yup: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/nyregion/jewish-bias-safety-nyc.html
They don’t have a great record on the issue: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/the-new-york-times-anti-semitism-is-shocking-but-not-surprising/
The Times ardently defended Representative Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) against charges of anti-Semitism, even suggesting that her anti-Semitic attribution of American support for Israel to Jewish money was an important consciousness-raising exercise. Their headline: “Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is Aipac Too Powerful?”
I think the NYT must be surviving on sales to airlines in airports, where you can usually pick up a copy if you’re boarding into or out of the US.
It’s like CNN that way.
PS Was just reading a NYT story from 1862, where US Grant was slandered by the NYT as a drunk and a malingerer because his army had been ambushed at the Battle of Pittsburgh Landing in Tennessee. Grant wasn’t used to such vicious slander, and it caused him a lot of grief. The good 'ol NYT has changed nary a stripe since. All the borderline treason that’s fit to print. 
Grant wasn’t a malingerer, but he was a high functioning alcoholic.
Grant was an alcoholic, but he had on staff John Rawlins, a virulent temperance man assigned to Grant for that purpose and who swore that Grant never drank during battle and never touched alcohol at Pittsburgh Landing. Grant had problems with alcohol, yes, but not at the time in question.
Grant’s biggest problem was that many green soldiers from Ohio and Illinois, men who’d learned to load their muskets only a day or two earlier, ran pell mell for the Tennessee river when attacked on the first morning of Shiloh. The men who ran for their lives lied to their own local newspapermen that Grant had been drunk, had thus been caught by surprise, and had badly endangered them.
The NYT was in thrall with George McClellan (the Hillary! of the Civil War) at the time, who was still jealous that Grant had captured Fort Donelson a month prior. So in order to promote McClellan the NYT picked up stories from Ohio and Illinois and slandered Grant, who was neither drunk nor irresponsible (although he was arguably overconfident).
Does this sound familiar, with events of today echoing back 157 years?
What part of what he said was untrue? Was the quote inaccurate? Was it taken out of context?