WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES (Please see post #65)

ping

I believe that someone really dislikes B.J.Clinton, possibly as much as I hate the traitor!

Great job, Mia. Thank you

Mia T. bump.

Why do United States Jews side with people who would kill other Jews? It makes no sense.

thanx :)

Arthur Hays Sulzberger... found that his old fears of divided loyalty led him, to quote journalist Peter Grose, "to minimize, if not ultimately deny, his Jewish identity."
... Sulzberger, as high brow among American Jews as Bernard Baruch or Walter Lippmann, was an ultra-assimilationist, a civilized man who simply wanted to avoid being categorized as a Jew....
Lippmann, one of the great figures in American journalism in this century, frequently criticized Jews as "rich, vulgar and pretentious." He suggested that Harvard limit the enrollment of Jews. He dismissed Hitler's antisemitism as "unimportant," adding that the German leader was "the authentic voice of a genuinely civilized people." From 1933, when Hitler came to power, until 1945, when Hitler was destroyed, Lippmann never wrote a word about the Holocaust, never once mentioned the death camps.
In The Times, the murder of millions of Jews was treated as minor-league stuff, kept at a proper distance from the authentic news of the time. For example, on July 2, 1944, The Times published what it called "authoritative information" to the effect that 400,000 Hungarian Jews had been deported to their deaths, and another 350,000 were earmarked for similar action. This news was published as four inches of copy on page 12. The Times was making a statement with editorial judgments of this sort, and other editors, other reporters, other news organizations, all took their cues from The Times. Everyone knew that its foreign coverage set the standard. A perception then spread that if the Jewish-owned Times covered the Holocaust in this skimpy manner, then so could they, with impunity. The Times's foreign editor during the war was Ted Bernstein, described by a colleague as "a brilliant Jew running away from his roots."
Was it then any surprise that Jewish news, other than the Holocaust, was also shortchanged in The Times; that bylines, such as A.H. Raskin and A.M. Rosenthal appeared, rather than Abraham Raskin and Abraham Rosenthal?

The Journalism of The Holocaust
by Marvin Kalb
delivered at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
February 27, 1996

Perhaps this is why clinton anti-Semitism never bothered Sulzberger. If anything, it was probably a plus for this Jew-hater.

Yitzhak Shamir Validated: THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"

clintonism and the theology of contempt

by Mia T, November 2000 (sometime before the-first-Tuesday-after-the-first-Monday)

hillary talks: On Ethnic Slurs (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

"I view Hillary Clinton as a great danger to Jews if she is elected.": former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir
Jewish Press, July 2000

I... underestimated the propensity of my people for narrow-mindedness and self-destruction (the Jewish vote for Mrs. Clinton was about 70%)....

Some anti-Semitism is irrational, founded in ignorance, as in Hillary's case....

But other forms of anti-Semitism can be earned, giving folks legitimate grievances against a people because they do crazy things like EXTEND HILLARY CLINTON'S POLITICAL LIFE!

This is not to cast the entire blame on Jewish New Yorkers; they alone couldn't have elected her. In my initial optimism, I equally underestimated the urban pseudo-intellectual's high-mindedness, as well as the Everyman's yearning for celebrity in his midst.: Julia Gorin, Getting used to Hillary
Jewish World Review
Nov. 27, 2000 / 29 Mar-Cheshvan, 5761

Let us hope that the rabbi's question was merely rhetorical. . . Let us hope that Rabbi Potasnik, and by extension, New York Jews, are not as credulous and obsequious and passive as they appear. . .

The simple answer to the rabbi's question is that the corrupt, self-serving, anti-Semitic, power-hungry harpy cannot be trusted.

Weren't we to never forget?

The Holocaust must remain, for Jew and Gentile alike, a constant reminder that mass credulity and obsequiousness and passivity are necessary for the demagogue to prevail.

To remember that six million Jews died in the Holocaust is to understand that centuries of anti-Semitic attitudes made this horror possible. We must ask ourselves what role our society played through the centuries that in any way contributed to the atmosphere that made such a genocide even thinkable.

Which brings me to the clintons and clintonism. . .

Senator Patrick Moynihan proffered one of the more incisive operant definitions of clintonism -- "defining deviancy down."

Defining deviancy down, indeed.

clintonism has made personal and public perversions, personal and public predations, not merely thinkable, not merely acceptable, but de rigueur. Watch us spin.

clintonism is the theology of contempt. Not only toward "f***ing Jew-bastards," or "dumb n***ers" or "extra-chromosome right-wingers" but toward any of us whose ideas are different from those of the clintons, Gore, and their acolytes.

So the real question to be answered is this:

"What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would want to continue

with its theology of contempt?

What fair-minded, clear-thinking person would vote for hillary clinton or Al Gore?"

Thank you, Dear Mia, for 2005. May your 2006 see you even more creative, innovative, industrious, productive and passionate in your pursuits.

Happy New Year & love and fellowship -- B A

Elie Wiesel makes a distinction between "information" and "knowledge."⁶ Information is data; it is devoid of an ethical component; it is neutral. Knowledge is a higher form of information. Knowledge is information that had been internalized and given a moral dimension.

At a minimum, The Times' failure -- whether concerning clinton endorsements, or classified leaks or the Holocaust -- is a failure to make this distinction. More likely though, it is a failure that is not nearly so benign.

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Mia T, December 29, 2005

This distinction was presciently if implicitly made by Woody Allen in 1971 in the opening scene of Bananas. As The New York Times, itself, describes it:

It opens with Howard Cosell and the staff of A.B.C.'s Wide World of Sports enthusiastically covering the Assassination of the Week, that of the President of the Latin-American republic of San Marcos, whose expiration, on cue, highlights the week of festivities begun with the sacking of the United States Embassy.

Woody Allen Leads a 'Bananas' Revolution
By VINCENT CANBY
The New York Times
Published: April 29, 1971

Thanks Brian. The best of everything to you in the new year, too. :)

thanx :)

bump