Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is the New York Times Good for the Jews?
The New York Times (a former newspaper … hmmm, where have I heard that phrase before?) in the case of Walter Duranty, could find nothing wrong in Stalin’s Russia. Even the Holodomor and the great purge show trials of high Stalinism escaped his twisted perception. Instead, he won a Pulitzer prize.
Yes, it seems that Marxism can do no wrong as far as the Times is concerned. Of course, Karl Marx himself, who Juncker has proclaimed “just a philosopher” might have had a bit of a negative attitude toward the Jews.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Yet, the New York Times, like an old prostitute who now claims perfect chastity, wishes us to judge whether Jared Kushner and Ivanka Kushner are “good for the Jews.” The very phrasing is offensive. If I had been writing for the Times in 1962 and had written an article “Are Jack and Jackie Kennedy good for the Catholics” with the same questioning, suggestive tone, there would have been no end to the rage. However, the Times is capable of the most grotesque and tasteless journalism (Duranty) without anyone questioning the “paper of record.”
The obvious answer to the question that the title of this post posits is that the New York Times is one of the most fundamentally anti-semitic rags in the world. The New York Times is poison for the Jews. Of course, they are the Times so no one may question them, or so they imagine. More and more people see the Times for what it is. A paper for wealthy socialists who justify their perverse view of the world by buying all the journalism that they can fit into this noxious sewer and claim it to be the gold standard of truth.
It is the gold standard of perversity.
Published in General
And the owners of the Times are Jews!
No wonder Dr. Paul Rahe calls it “Pravda on the Hudson”.
I just read the article, Jim. It’s both disgusting and frightening. And that they don’t see the anti-Semitism in it–I don’t know what to say. It does not bode well for any of us.
Perversity, but it struck me as being like an old prostitute who is now a “sex-positive” pundit. That which was once clandestine is now blatant.
A Major Media Conglomerate, which has not had much interest in truth for decades now, is bad for everyone. That includes Jews, so yes, not good for them either.
It does present the brighter side of reality as required by Wall Street, so it is good for the Investment Class, if economics means day to day projections and not long term.
The Left, whether they realize it or not, is gearing our society up to accept Marxism or Maoism in the form of “progressive-ism.”
Any lies that need to be told to have this happen will be told by all those who are herding our populace into accepting this.
Whenever I come across someone who is bitter and angry at the whole world, I always suspect a dysfunctional childhood. :-)
It sounds like Karl Marx would fit that description and that his parents were the originators of that disdain:
If not pulled away through marriage, people usually leave the faith of their childhood out of some kind of anger.
There is an entirely different etymology of anti-semiticism among European Jews as opposed to non-Jews. I don’t understand it, but I do believe it is the result of centuries of oppression and persecution. Self-loathing often results.
Oh, they realize it. That’s the game plan.
And the Times would become the real Pravda, owned and operated by the State. Do they want that to happen?
State ownership, state control, it’s all good for the Sulzbergers. So long as the State is run by Democrats, of course, so they work towards that assiduously.
It seems to me that part of the philosophy of being a “good secular Jew” is to be so enlightened that you denounce your own historic religion and homeland. This somehow demonstrates your tolerance for other cultures of the World. Paradoxically, this just gives the other cultures of the World more reasons why the Jews should be wiped out.
The NYT is a status symbol for upper middle class people who live in liberal enclaves. It both encourages its readers prejudices and strokes their sense of superiority to those who do not covet the same status symbols. It poses as cosmopolitan, but paradoxically it’s insular, small-minded, pseudo-intellectually provincial. It’s a safe-space for intellectual snowflakes. It’s a water-cooler for liberals who are hostile and feel threatened by the outside world which does not agree with them. It’s their gathering point where they try to understand that mysterious outside world that is not as enlightened and as evolved as they are. What its coverage often shows is how little they understand about the outside world. The Times is an indicator of the isolation and bewilderment that liberals feel when they look outside the bubble.
The isolation of liberals from the rest of the country is bad for liberals. Jews are often liberals. To that extent that the Times reinforces that sense of isolation, the Times is bad for the Jews.
Donald Trump must be the worst, most incompetent authoritarian dictator evah to allow the NYTimes to diss his daughter and son-in-law that way. Where is the suppression of the free press, Mr. President??!
You’re so right! Trump has been a major disappointment as a dictator. What would Stalin or Saddam have done with Jim Accosta?
Whatever they’d have done, I’m sure Accosted would have sued them for it.
Steven,
Why you have the answer incorporated in your question. Acosta would disappear off the face of the earth never to be seen or heard from again. Perhaps he’d be part of the concrete foundation of a bridge support somewhere. Well, that would be the first time he had ever done anything useful so one could consider it a plus for his career.
Regards,
Jim
The NYT is a publicly traded company (ticker NYT). The largest shareholder is/was Carlos Slim a Mexican Oligarch. Insiders hold just 14%.
I think at the time the Kennedy’s were good for Catholics. They brought an air of high class to a group that was generally considered lower class at the time. They mainstreamed Catholicism and took away some fear of immigrant “Papists”.
As for “good for the Jews”, yikes! Religious people are lot more diverse these days than back in the 1960’s. You have a range from “Jewish in name only” to orthodox observers. I believe that Jared K. has been very good for orthodox Jews. He has been a great advocate for Israel and has helped broker a peace deal with Saudi Arabia that could provide a “lasting” peace in the Holy Land. If you believe that a healthy and secure Israel is good for Jewish folks, then you should believe that Jarad and Ivanka are good for Jewish folks. Overall, shame on the NYT for asking such an offensive/elitist question. Mark Levin is a strong critic of the NYT.
In Levinese, the New York Slimes.
@jamesgawron, I’d like to give you six likes for your comment!