Connect with us


The ‘New York Times’s hypocrisy on anti-Semitism



The New York Timess hypocrisy on anti-Semitism

Giving BDS groups and novelist Alice Walker an undeserved pass for targeting Jews creates an atmosphere where Jew-hatred is normalized.

 In the wake of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the nation was united in its revulsion against the worst act of anti-Semitic violence in American history. The slaughter of 11 Jews who had gathered for a Shabbat-morning service was a reminder of the consequences of unhinged hate directed at Jews.

At the time, mainstream outlets like The New York Times spoke out in editorials against “The Hate Poisoning America.” As with so much other post-Pittsburgh commentary, the main focus of their criticism was not so much the “maniacs” like the shooter, who “have always existed in the dark crevices of American life,” which the Times conceded will not be stopped from “developing poisonous ideas” by any amount of public condemnation. Rather, they were more interested in condemning U.S. President Donald Trump for coarsening public discourse and whose rebukes to bigotry had been either insufficient or inconsistent.

Whatever one might think of their attempt to link Trump to the horror in Pittsburgh, there is something to be said for a policy of zero tolerance for hate. But the Times doesn’t seem capable of living up to its own standard.

After the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville in August 2017, Trump infamously remarked that “there were fine people on both sides.” While the president seemed to be conflating those who opposed the removal of Confederate statues with the Nazis, the words became emblematic of an inappropriate moral relativism.

While the Times knows the difference between the Nazis and their opponents, it has taken the same stand with respect to an anti-Semitic movement whose purpose is the elimination of Israel. And it has been willing to highlight anti-Semitic texts as recommended reading simply because they are embraced by a famous author it chose to honor.

On Dec. 18, the Times editorial column blasted anti-BDS laws that have been passed by 26 states and similar legislation currently being considered by the Senate as violating the First Amendment. This is untrue since the laws in question merely ban discriminatory commercial conduct, and not speech. Just as other laws prohibit businesses from engaging in practices that discriminate against minorities, the anti-BDS legislation penalizes those who discriminate against the one Jewish state on the planet and its citizens, an act of blatant anti-Semitism.

Yet as far as the Times is concerned, BDS is just something that decent people can agree to disagree about. They’re able to sustain that stand by performing the same kind of verbal gymnastics that produced Trump’s Charlottesville gaffe: by confusing what is at stake in the debate about the BDS movement. They claim it is merely a nonviolent form of protest against the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the existence of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. But as anyone can see by perusing the websites of pro-BDS groups, their goal is not adjusting Israel’s borders or changing its policies. What they want is no Israel at all.

BDS is part of an effort to deny to Jews rights that no one thinks of denying to anyone else. Israel is, like all democracies, an imperfect nation. But the attempt to conflate disagreements about the peace process with a movement that wishes to destroy the Jewish state is as dishonest about a form of hate as they thought Trump was being about Charlottesville.

Only days earlier, the Times gave us another example of how anti-Semitism is normalized at the newspaper. The Dec. 16 issue of its Book Review featured an interview with novelist Alice Walker for its regular “By the Book” column. The author of The Color Purple, and other volumes of prose and poetry, was asked to list the books on her nightstand. Among her answers was And the Truth Shall Set You Free by David Icke.

Walker lauded Ickes by saying that in his books, “there is the whole of existence, on this planet and several others, to think about.”

The Times failed to point out in either a rejoinder or an addendum to the interview was that Ickes is a well-known conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite who, among other libels, claims that The Protocol of the Elders of Zion was factual and blames the Jews for most of the world’s ills.

This was nothing new for Walker, who has previously praised Icke and spouted anti-Semitic comments of her own. But as with the BDS movement, the Times saw no problem with publishing her comments as they would any other in a column where such recommendations provide a boost for any book listed. Tellingly, Walker later defended her comments by saying her opponents were trying to suppress criticism of Israel.

The point here is not to say that the editors of Times are anti-Semites. But that in the course of just two days, they gave us two egregious examples of how anti-Semitism can be rationalized and normalized.

This illustrates exactly the sort of problem the newspaper pointed out after Pittsburgh.

At that time, the Times and other outlets were eager to say that those who help to create an atmosphere in which hate becomes normal must in some way be held responsible for those who then go ahead and act on hate. But when they and others treat a movement that is steeped in hatred of Jews as espousing a legitimate point of view—it should be noted that unlike some critics of anti-BDS laws, their editorial did not once condemn BDS—they are doing the same thing. The same is true of their treating Walker’s plug for anti-Semitic trash as a legitimate literary recommendation.

Those who give passes to anti-Semites are giving hate an undeserved seal of approval and must be held accountable for the anti-Jewish violence that is an inextricable part of the movement to destroy Israel or to demonize Jews in general. You don’t have to support Trump or Netanyahu to understand that this is exactly what the Times has done.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS — Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.



Conspiracy Theory

The clock is ticking on climate change… alarmists



The clock is ticking on climate change alarmists

The world is going to end in ten years. The world has been ten years away from ending for the last four decades. And yet, here we are.

I’m not one of those who denies we need to be better stewards of this world. We are trashing the planet that God gave us, oftentimes in ways that no longer make sense. Whether or not these actions are actively changing the climate is for smarter people than me to debate, but I’ve suffered through too many doomsday predictions to give any credence to hypothetical timetables. Invariably, these doomsdayers have been proven wrong as their predictions fail miserably.

Those who say we need to take radical action to preserve the environment are making empty, political threats whether they realize it or not. Most are indoctrinated. Some are fully aware they’re using the politics of climate change to advance their economic and power-grabbing agenda.

Those who say we need to find solutions to improve conditions in the world for humans, animals, and plants are correct. There are old practices that need to change, new practices that need to be adopted, and problems that need to be solved. We need to address these issues in a systematic way. But not because of climate change. Not because of the doomsdayers.

Advancing human society, protecting vulnerable aspects of the environment, and making the world a cleaner place for all to live are righteous goals that are being subverted by climate change alarmists. Instead of a systematic, pragmatic approach to improving conditions, they want to force-feed sweeping authoritarian changes into the world. The indoctrinated masses are behind the climate change puppetmasters like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Before I get into the real agenda of the climate change puppetmasters, let’s look at actual solutions for protecting the environment that should be implemented through the proper course of an advancing society.

Clean energy that makes sense

I am very much in favor of expanding research into renewable energy sources that will EVENTUALLY replace fossil fuels when it makes fiscal sense. Today, that’s not the case. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric energy collection are all still terribly inefficient. Moreover, they require resources such as large swaths of land for wind, expensive projects for geothermal and hydroelectric, and rare components for solar that could be used better.

We know we can collect and store energy. We just haven’t figured out how to do it efficiently yet. Trying to force the issue before it’s time is silly. The problems of finite fossil fuels have been identified and we must move towards solutions that will ween us off their use. But we must do so in a way that makes sense. We must be practical. Setting arbitrary time limits based on false doomsday predictions is idiotic.

Instead of expensive projects to prematurely collect renewable energy inefficiently, we should be focusing on improving the collection process. Why are we building massive wind farms and solar arrays using stage-one technology? We know we can do it better if we have the patience to let the technology blossom. But the technology isn’t ready. It’s too expensive. It’s inefficient at best, ineffective at worst. Much of the renewable energy infrastructure will have to be replaced once better technology is discovered and developed.

Pushing for mass clean energy initiatives now is like picking fruit before it’s ripe. We need to let the technology guide the politics, not the other way around.

Potable water is shockingly ignored

The biggest environmental problem we face is the one few climate activists ever address. Clean drinking water is genuinely difficult to find in many populated areas of the world. If there’s a reason to sound an environmental alarm, this is the one. Unfortunately, the alarm bells over fossil fuels, cows, and carbon emissions drown out the real challenges people are facing today with potable water.

Eliminating plastic straws will not give water to those who need it in Africa. Replacing ten million SUVs with Priuses will not end the drought in southeast Asia. It’s the ultimate con-job that climate alarmists point to people needing water as a reason for their alarms while they do absolutely nothing to help these people get the water they need. Keep in mind, the problem with potable water existed long before climate change became an issue, which is why the alarmists do nothing to address the issue.

More people will die today from lack of potable water than any of the alleged climate change catastrophes that happen this year. Yet the problem is ignored. It’s just not politically expedient for the doomsdayers to address an issue that preexisted their doomsday claims.

Again, we must turn to technology. But this time it’s not a matter of technology needing to be created through research. The technology exists. Instead, we need to apply funding to make the technology readily available to those who need it. The money spent promoting climate change propaganda would go a long way towards a desalination and filtration infrastructure that would bring clean drinking water to the billions who need it. The solutions are staring us in the face, but we’re too busy trying to cut carbon emissions.

Cleaner world through federalism

I’ve long called for the Environmental Protection Agency to be abolished. It’s a regulatory nightmare that stands in the way of progress so virtue-signalling bureaucrats can say they’re doing something. Instead of an EPA, we need to turn to local communities. States, counties, cities, and communities can go a long way towards cleaning up the mess we humans are making of this world if the challenge is presented at those levels rather than at a national level.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on an environmental nanny, we should empower and encourage communities to go to work for themselves. Imagine if the money spent on studies about the delta smelt’s habitat was instead spent on building local efforts to promote recycling. We could kill two birds with one stone by helping homeless people. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the city is paying homeless people to pick up trash.

Let’s eliminate the federal virtue-signaling agency and replace it with localized efforts. Empower the lower governments to experiment with ways to make our nation cleaner. This would yield real results instead of obtuse and unnecessary regulations.

The truth about climate change alarmists

Climate change actions such as the Green New Deal are all about transforming the economic and governmental systems of this nation and the world. Climate change itself is simply the engine these Marxists are using to get the masses riled up.

It’s a powerful vehicle for them because we have years of indoctrination in schools, propaganda in the media, and an array of false (political) science studies that have been tilted for nefarious reasons. They use fear to promote their agenda, and frankly I’m extremely concerned we may be beyond the point of no return. Too many Americans have fallen for the ruse. But the clock is ticking. As long as we continue fighting their agenda, the false claims will be proven to be nothing more than doomsday political machinations of forces bent on our nation’s destruction.

There are two types of climate change alarmists: The indoctrinated Americans, such as those in the #ClimateStrike, and the authoritarian puppetmasters using climate change as a pedestal to push their political agenda. They must be exposed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Are things really as bad as the media would have us believe?



Are things really as bad as the media would have us believe

The short answer is, “No.”

The longer answer was tackled by editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward and John Stossel. Fear sells when it comes to mainstream media and progressive politics. They need a populace who believes things are getting worse in order to promote their agenda of authoritarian policies that will allegedly make things better.

“Fearmongering” is often invoked by the left to condemn the right, but in reality the left have been so adept at fearmongering that we have an entire generation who believe the world is going to end if we keep eating meat. They believe the economy is bad even though every economic indicator is great. They believe we need to be told how to live by our government instead of being allowed to live freely in an open and responsible society.

Whenever you’re told by the mainstream media how unhappy you are, question it. They don’t know. They have an agenda to push and a narrative to sell. Otherwise, they’d report the truth that things aren’t bad and are getting better.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Does the leftist media rely on hateclicks?



Does the leftist media rely on hateclicks

Almost every sector in the economy seems to be doing well, except one: media. Many failed media organizations, slightly outside of the traditional mainstream established corporate media are struggling to pay the bills. Leftist outlets like The Weekly Standard and Think Progress have shut down due to the struggle. Buzzfeed has scaled back operations. Even ESPN has cut fat. Vox Media, a corporate outlet backed by NBC Universal, unsuccessfully went after Steven Crowder because of the success of independent media. The barrier to entries in media are low as technology increasingly reduces the intercessors between information and consumers of information. With an increasing number of intermediaries, people do not need to get their information from CNN or the NY Times.

A second premise I must insert is the prominence of leftist media to publish content that seems intentionally unpopular. There are several examples to pull from. The leftist outlets that trashed Dave Chappelle’s Sticks and Stones were ratioed hard on Twitter. Going after a comedy legend is perhaps one of the most benign examples. Social justice video clickbait farm, Now This, recently published a language policing video on “you guys” being politically incorrect and exclusive. The video was lampooned by the internet, but that video got views. The trash reviews on Sticks and Stones got clicks and were captured aggregated by Rotten Tomatoes. Clicks pay the bills; that’s why it’s called clickbait. But Buzzfeed’s listicles require so little talent anyone could produce them. The clickbait game has evolved, and out of this evolution is Hateclicks, a headline so universally despised outside the left side of the Overton Window that people click, thus providing the ad revenue to maintain these websites. It’s a bold strategy.

But to play devil’s advocate, the leftist media in incredibly lacking in the area of self-awareness. Pink News, a gay outlet, produced a video promoting pederasty, which was later removed. The removal of this video indicates it wasn’t about the hateclicks it undoubtedly received. Instead, this video was a bit of a Freudian slip. This Rainbow Jihad outlet refused to check themselves before they wrecked themselves on social media promoting pederasty. This wasn’t a drunken take, this was a video production. This wasn’t a contrarian opinion, this was groundwork for shaping society. The leftist media has taken an extremely friendly stance towards pedophilia, and after redefining gender to their own preferences, the next frontier seems to be pedophilia.

These opposing views can be married into how we observe the leftist media. For even Bernie Sanders realized his campaign for socialism could only survive by accepting conventional market forces. Such stunning lack of self-awareness, in the media, can be rewarded with revenue. That revenue serves as dopamine as the Leftist media sprints into the abyss of socialism and debauchery. It’s important to note that in their isolated urbanized communities, these elites think Twitter is real life. However, they are unmoved by being ratioed with rare exceptions.

Final Thoughts

Hateclicks are an increasingly vital revenue tactic for the Leftist media and it doesn’t seem to be going obsolete any time soon, as the leftist media is more interested in pushing an agenda rather than being popular to us lesser folks online. The amount of people who want to hear this propaganda is a different question. I do not make any recommendations to resist clicking and giving these companies ad revenue. It’s good to know what their saying when they strawman themselves. Beside, many of these organizations are unionizing which will ultimately hurt them, as the case with Think Progress.

The leftist media is, in many ways, suffocating itself out of existence, and hateclicks are merely unicorn blood delaying their demise.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading