Original live talk shows. Live broadcasting and podcasting of  talk radio programs and video shows.
Live Talk Radio Main Station ScheduleBecome A Talk Show HostNew Indie MusicBe A Talk Show Guest
Trusted News Trader
© Where truth comes into play
The New York Times & the Jews -- GOEBBELS RELOADED!! :D *PIC*

Anyone who thinks the New York Times is a Jewish mouthpiece that serves the interests of the Jews or Israel doesn't read it. It's easier to jump on the bandwagon with the biggest & loudest lies belching forth than to do a little investigating for the facts.  Facts don't matter anymore -- it's who has the best propaganda machine AND who has the POWER.  If Goebbels came back today, he'd believe he was released from Purgatory into Heaven for The Third Reich Reloaded...

The New York Times and the Jews


The New York Times narcissistically regards itself as the patron saint of minorities. The paper shifts into attack mode whenever it sees the slightest and most ephemeral whiff of prejudice against blacks, women, or immigrants — especially Muslims. Private golf clubs, college sports teams, corporations, the Patriot Act, all have been tarred by the Times in their quest to abolish prejudice.

Yet the New York Times seems to take the opposite approach when dealing with one particular minority: Jews. The Times' method of dealing with anti—Semitism ranges across a very narrow and disheartening spectrum: indifference, whitewashing, defense and promotion of its practitioners, and finally, and most repugnantly, the paper itself seems to occasionally engage in anti—Semitism...

The Times is now publicly—owned, but is led by Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger, Junior, a descendant of the controlling family, who not only is apathetic about his heritage (except the career boost he got from inheriting his position), but takes pride in announcing that he was raised as and considers himself an Episcopalian. However, he has inherited his relatives' indifference to the plight of Jews...

The Times preens as a protector of minorities around the world. Some of those minority groups are quite large indeed: blacks, Muslims, women. There is one very small minority (less than 0.2% of the world's population) that is regularly attacked and for whom calls for genocide are routinely made. Yet The Times not only ignores attacks against Jews, its negligence and occasional outright support aids and abets them...


Part 2


The New York Times garners a strong measure of loyalty from American Jews. A large part of this loyalty clearly stems from a perception that the paper is an ally in their age—old quest to abolish prejudice. Indeed, the paper routinely marshals its considerable resources to not just defend minorities across the spectrum — blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and especially Muslims these days — but to embolden and empower them. However, the Times seems to have one large blind spot for the cares and concerns and feelings of one minority group that paradoxically forms a core part of their readership: Jews themselves...

Instead a questionable pattern emerges:

   1) the paper offers support, praise and prizes for people who 'indulge in anti—Semitism';

   2) the paper has warned anti—Semitic hate groups of imminent investigations and raids;

   3) the paper, which refused to run the Danish Mohammed cartoons for fear of offending Muslims, has run a series of ads and cartoons laden with anti—Semitic imagery;

   4) the paper casts doubt about the veracity, loyalty and honesty of Jews; or, refuses to combat anti—Semitism as other major papers and media outlets have;

   5) the paper dismisses fears of a genocide by using the service of an 'expert' who repeatedly has been accused of anti—Semitism...

The Times offers support and succor to people that engage in anti—Semitism...

The New York Times aids and abets anti—Semitic hate groups...

The Times has cast doubt on the honesty and loyalty of Jews...

A common anti—Semitic trope is that somehow American Jews led America into the Iraq war (despite the fact that American Jews opposed the war to a higher extent than any other group). The charge became common currency among anti—Semitic hate groups, and apparently, the New York Times.

A Wall Street Journal column 'From Left to Right, anti—Semitic claims abound in U.S. Press' noted Maureen Dowd picking up on the examples used American Nazi leader David Duke.

David Duke:

   "Well, you must understand that the chief architects of the war were Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Daniel Feith [sic], Mr. [David] Wurmser, Elliot Abrams...."

And here is Dowd's take on the war:

   "Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol [are]... the clique of conservatives who are driving this war."

No mention of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney? They are the leaders of America and the decision—makers regarding the Iraq war. However, they are not of Jewish heritage. Instead, Dowd mentions three people — identifiably Jewish — two of whom had absolutely no role in the government. Perle is a free—lance think tanker, Kristol the publisher of the magazine The Weekly Standard. What did they have in common?

The same tendency to 'out' Jews was on display in Frances Fukuyama's article 'After Neoconservatism'. The article traced the development of neoconservatism, a political philosophy that some insist led us into Iraq. Fukuyama needlessly noted that the roots of neoconservatism lie in a group of 'largely Jewish intellectuals' and later noted that the ideology was carried on by students of the 'German Jewish' political theorist Leo Strauss.' In a world of ideas, concepts and philosophies stand on their own, regardless of their provenance. That is the nature of academia (where Fukuyamaworks). Tagging political beliefs as coming from the Jews, is redolent of the way Hitler and others discussed 'Jewish Bolshevikism'...

The New York Times stands almost alone in its dismissal of claims that Muslims are threatening Jews with genocide...

While other newspapers and magazines across the political spectrum are suitable alarmed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad's stated goal of destroying Israel, the Times itself is rather blase about the issue. Despite Iran's lead role in international terrorism, its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, its role in the killing Americans over the last 20 years and the hostage crisis 30 years ago, and numerous statements from its leaders over the years (a former President openly gloated that Israel could be destroyed with one nuclear bomb and the current leader echoes this when he talks of 'Rotten Israel will be annihilated by one storm"), the Times doesn't seem to see a problem with an Iran possessing nuclear weapons...

While Jews consider the paper an ally in their battle against prejudice, they seem to ignore the paper's treatment of their own community. Anti—Semitism is an awkward subject for many people, Jews included, to consider. Many might regard those who touch upon it as hyper—sensitive and too focused on their own well—being.

However, American Jews celebrate and support the self—regard that other groups display when they campaign to be fairly treated. Such self—regard is a fundamental principle of self—preservation. If blacks or Hispanics were treated the way Jews have periodically been treated by the New York Times, some Jewish readers would be outraged. So why the apathy regarding principles that Jews have always held dear: civility, justice, and equal treatment?


Goebbels Reloaded...

Messages In This Thread

The New York Times & the Jews -- GOEBBELS RELOADED!! :D *PIC*
TIME Magazine Savages Israel -- Again
Fair Use Notice -- Terms of Usage

Host Your Own Talk Show on BBS Radio
©2005-2019 BBS Network, Inc. | BBS Radio® | BBS Talk Radio™ | BBS® ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - If it's not mainstream it's on BBS Radio. We do talk shows right!