Can’t take even the first baby steps toward admitting you were wrong and pledging better behavior, can you London_Larouche? Instead, let’s attack others and prevaricate.**
You’re the one who acknowledged that this crap is passed around white supremacist sites and that gee, one can’t expect Jews to come clean about how they run the Media, so one must pilfer whatever racists post to suit your fancy on the issue**
You didn’t just garner information; you reproduced whole sentences and phrases. Work posted on the Net is assumed under law to be copyright protected. You can’t just grab what you want without permission (though the bug-eyed racist who came up with this might indeed be delighted to see his “work” spread more fully). Most importantly, that your “facts” contain errors as has been pointed out to you in this thread and elsewhere. That doesn’t seem to matter to you, as long as you have a basis with which to slander Jews as a group.
And don’t yelp about how you’re ready to hear the “facts”, O Tireless Seeker After Truth. If you’re going to spew bigoted garbage, you’re the one that’ll have to produce hard facts to make it stick, not cut-and-paste from the Loony Bedsheet-Wearers-Of-The-Month Club.
**
Just can’t stop lying, can you?**
Yes, it’s all about London_Larouche, poor intimidated youth, who learned that one must never never back away from a fight for Truth, Justice, and the Right To Spew Racist Swill. Very stirring (anyone available to hum “Land of Hope And Glory” in the background?).
Once again, LL, I think you’ve managed to escape the clutches of the Cabal™. They’re laughing too hard to take any meaningful action.
It tells me you are not reading/and or not reasoning.
Izzy, in addition to exposing the LL plagiarizing from a racist website, has continued to note his espousing of bigoted views. Mojo and others have noted his bigotedness as well.
You have a guy, who in addition to his long history of promoting a Jew-baiting stereotype, insists here that he must copy arguments from a racist website because, oooo, Jews will hide the information from you. He makes allegations designed to promoted hostility towards Jews, refuses to back them up with facts, ignores corrections of his errors, and repeats his bigotry without regarding to the pain it causes members of that ethnic group. All that adds up to the very definition of an anti-Semitic bigot.
You don’t have to be a tattooed skinhead beating up Jews to be anti-Semitic. Spewing swill on an Internet message board will do very nicely.
Educate yourself. Because frankly, you disappoint me greatly. I’d expected better from you.
And Gary, regarding your own self-deluded ostrich act - go read the thread. Don’t expect me constantly to be doing your homework for you.
Gary: “I don’t suppose there’s any chance of Jack actually bothering to show where the info L_C posted is wrong, is there?”
Well, I for one, would be willing to concede, for argument’s sake, that the information isn’t wrong. But what’s the point of it?
The thing about Jewish influence is that you’ll find it everywhere you look, on every side of the spectrum. People wishing to blame leftwing social movements on Jewish influence will find prominent Jews. People wishing to blame corrupt corporate practices on Jewish influence will find prominent Jews. People wishing to complain that academia is “anti-American” or “communist” can find plenty of prominent Jews to blame. People who despair over bad medical care can find prominent Jewish doctors or health administrators to scapegoat.
Does a Jew own CNN? Does a Jew own Fox? And if, as I am fairly certain, the answer is no, do these news organs, which provided somewhat to extremely cheerleaderish coverage prior to and during the war, take their cue from the Jewish-owned New York Times–one of the few important American media that didn’t cheerlead for the war?
I think that the US’s large Jewish population is part of the reason why the US is so close to Israel. But that doesn’t explain why Israel is now in the hands of Sharon, or why Bush has gone from an isolationist to a hawkish crusader, or why Americans are not very interested in reading about world affairs, or why the Middle East is of such great interest to Western nations in the first place. And I also see none of the latter as tied to Jewish ownership/editorship of some important newspapers.
Well Mandelstam, I would not make any such concessions about a massive laundry list of allegations derived from a racist website. Your standards of proof seem to have suffered a dramatic decline. Would you concede similar accuracy in a similar list without checking when posted by, say, december, if garnered from a JDL website (not that I’ve ever seen december do such a thing. He’s has his problems treading on bigoted ground as noted earlier, but he’s to my knowledge never pulled a stunt like London_Larouche’s).
We have Izzy earlier in this thread, responding to the claim about the “Jewish-controlled” Washington Post:
**
Check out Mojo’s post atop the last page also.
Hoping Gary pulled his head back up out of the sand (or out of whatever orifice he had inserted it in) long enough to comprehend that.
It doesn’t entirely surprise me that LL’s got some of you snowed. His posts, when not focusing on his favorite MidEast obsession, are often literate, reasoned and sometimes even witty. He seems like a regular guy when he’s not being an offensive bigot. If this seems like an impossible contradiction, consider a more renowned bigot who goes well beyond our LL in both degree of sickness and skill of execution - David Duke. There have been reporters who went in to interview Duke prepared to loathe him, and came away impressed by his superficial charm and ready patter. This explains a lot about Duke’s longevity and near-political success.
Judging by words and actions is far more meaningful.
Because it’s a topic that should at least be addressed when considering the American public opinion on Israel? L_C raises it as an obvious discussion point, and has since been smeared by slime such as manni for mentioning it. Then Izzy chimes in condemning him for having got his initially raised quotes from a biased source.
Now why is that? What has been said here that deserves this sort of vitriolic response?
If so, check my location, to the left of this post. I know what anti-Semitism can do, Jack. And I’d be the first to flame London_Calling to a scorched stump if I were convinced he’s trying to discredit Jews.
He’s trying to make a point, namely that Jewish ownership of US media companies might influence American foreign policy regarding Israel. Now, I do not agree with this point, and others as well as myself have stated that L_C is going about this the wrong way. But the mere fact that he copied a few facts from an objectionable website doesn’t make him an anti-Semite. As Mandelstam says, the information that L_C copied isn’t necessarily wrong (although there seems to be debate about the ethnicity of two people on that list, granted).
Jack, I specifically said, “for argument’s sake” I assume that when you review that statement with a cooler head you’ll rembember what that means.
To me the flaw of such arguments is the specious empiricism on which they are based. It makes very little difference to me whether, for example, Graham, if she is the granddaughter of a Jew, is or considers herself a practicing Jew. (For that matter, although it’s a trivial enough point, isn’t the present Sulzberger scion called “Junior”? And what practicing Jew does that?)
As one who questions the the underlying logic of pointing to Jewish ownership of this or that as, in itself, evidence for anything substantive, I think my “standard of proof” on this issue is actually quite high. And, although I prefer to hear London_Calling speak for himself, I think it’s possible to fall into this kind of reasoning without anti-semitic intent: i.e., to see what appears to be a plausible explanation for something that deeply offends someone (American support for Israel’s unjust policy towards the Palestinians) without thinking it through. I can understand your emotions, but are you willing to admit that there is a serious problem in Israel, that Sharon is making it worse, that Bush is not helping matters?
I have to go to work now, but I seriously hope that you can take a step back, re-read some things with a cooler head, and wait for a reply.
The reason this idea is found on racist websites is simply because it has historically been given merit by the more objectionable right-wing groups here in the US. They have counterparts in other countries…to what extend I don’t know, politics makes strange bedfellows and all that. But the belief has spread.
The problem is that you have no relevant facts with which to argue Jewish media ownership/influence as it pertains to any issue, but you still understand it to be the “correct position.” There are volumes left unsaid. If similar behavior is enough to launch a Pit thread against december, I see no reason to consider yourself above reproach.
To review:
from Collounsbury’s OP: “However, the underlying articles—blogger tripe really—are themselves inane over-generalizations. Really inane and utterly unsupported over-generalizations not even worthy to have wasted the electrons it took for me to read them. Sort of Sunday afternoon bar talk. Inane and stupid, on the level of Men / Mars, Women / Venus level of idiot-boy ‘just-so-stories to make me feel better about my preconceived ideas’.”
From London_Calling: “The recent thread about French school girls was intentionally designed to incite race hate (a criminal offence, AFAIK), the title and content of innumerable OP’s are plain lies, others misrepresent with the intention of misleading; racist, race-hate inciter, liar and misrepresentor of facts. I don’t see liberals defecating all over this board – the purpose of which is still, apparently, to fight ignorance - in quite the same manner.”
I believe we’re only following your own example. So prove your thesis already, or retire it to pile of inane, unsupported tripe where it belongs.
I remember once being asked a question about ‘which states allow convicted felons to vote’, and I did a search, clicked on one, recognized the info contained matched what I personally knew to be true, and posted it.
Apparently, it was a socialist web site. First response, of course was to laugh it off. But the info was true. had I looked more closely at the cite address I’d have selected another of the dozen or so places that gave the same info, but, :shrug: . Of course, posting the exact same info from more reputable cites later didn’t stop some folks from continuing to use that one against me for quite some time.
If, as you claim, he’s a bigot, surely in the interveneing years, you’d be able to come up with some other threads where it’s evidenced. at over a thousand posts a year, if this was his world view, it’d come out more frequently, one would suppose. Or maybe I’m just not understanding your gripe (other than the whole name thing, which I personally find childish in most cases. I’ve misspelled folks’ names lots of times, but not intentionally)
I agree, however, that the asssumption that ethnicity/religion of the owners of a media source by itself is only evidence that those particular people have that ethnicity/religion. (IOW it’s insufficient to demonstrate/explain/prove bias, control/influence on public policy etc.)
Gary, must run, but I think that you too are missing something. (Phew: it’s hard to be in the middle of this one.) I didn’t mean, “what’s the point” of alleging the information–I meant what’s the logic or the argument behind the point? And do you think that logic really holds up, especially after all that’s been said in this thread?
Now London_Calling has barely had time to digest all of this stuff and, on top of it, there are a lot of emotions running high here and that never helps people to process their thoughts. But please consider for yourself how offensive it feels to Jews when people start to look at complex social problems–and I’ve named several above–and then spot a pattern of this or that powerful Jew.
I was not justifying the vitriolic responses to London_Calling whom I respect very much and who I have repeatedly said is not IMO at all an anti-semite. If you find the argument that Jewish ownership of some media compelling then go ahead and make that case. But, whether or not you do, don’t be surprised to find people reacting to the assertion emotionally when no real case as such is being made.
I specifically noted that it could have come from any number of sites. I picked the one I did because it had everything you posted. I don’t see that there is much difference between that one and the other ones you link to - see below.
Well it’s not just a copyright issue. To my mind, the significance of the close word match was in that it established that these articles were in fact your source. By presenting the facts without attribution, you presented them in the guise of stuff that you personally had researched. Had you acknowledged that you had merely gone out and copied some stuff from some supremacist website, your readership would have been in a better position to assess the credibility of your information, and many would have found it wanting. By suppressing your source, you were deliberately misleading your readership as to the validity of your info.
I don’t think you are helping yourself here. The link at the bottom of that page goes here. I don’t see that they are any better than Vanguard.
The same goes for your other cites.
Here again is the implication that you have some knowledge about the matter, and based on that are posting these facts. There is too much info for you to check it all, but on the whole you’ve checked it to some extent and it seems current and accurate. It now seem that you don’t know the slightest bit about the whole matter, and were simply blindly copying some racist jive.
Well I’ve already disputed some of it. But as you yourself have noted - when it was relevant to your own defense - it is not exactly easy to find accurate unbiased information about these matters. So why not let’s stick to the way things normally work in these forums. You want to establish some facts - you find information. Not that you post from some racist sources and then put the burden on others to disprove it.
Good point of course, if you are interested in good points (you may also have left out the Gannett empire). But the standard response to this is that there are Jews who control all these companies as well.
See here’s how it works, in the minds of many soft-core anti-Semites. The Whites are decent, hardworking, productive people, but they are straightforward and guileless. The Jews, by contrast, are intelligent, but they are crafty and devious. Whites want to treat Jews decently, so they reward them for their intelligence by giving them positions of power in their countries, businesses and institutions. Little do they know that the wily Jews are thinking of their own interests first, and use the power that Whites have given them to promote their own Jewish interests, even when these undermine the interests of their well-meaning but unsuspecting White hosts.
So all it really takes is one Jew. A lot of big media companies have owners, Chairman, CEOs, editors, news directors and whatnot. If any of these guys is a Jew, than that’s the guy really running things, influencing things in the direction of his Jewish interests.
Rupert Murdoch is not a Jew, and he is thought to be more ideologically involved with his news output than many other magnates in similar positions. By rights, there should be a noticeable difference in the slant of his coverage of Israeli issues. But if anything, his empire is more pro-Israeli than most of the “Jewish owned” press. A discrepancy. But no problem. Murdoch’s assistants are Jewish - they are the real powers in his empire, skewing things in a favorable direction for Israel. Same goes for CNN - owned by TimeWarner, formerly headed by Gerald Levin the Jew, and the same for any number of other media outlets.
And if you combine this with an expansive definition of who is Jewish, you get Jewish control of everything. (You would never believe who turns out to be Jewish on these websites - John Wilkes Booth, Lenin, Michael Skakel - name a Bad Guy and he’s Jewish).
This is behind the Dalyell comments that got this whole ball rolling. Identify three guys as Jewish (only one of whom actually is) and then decide that these three guys control British foreign policy. And this is behind similar comments about control of US foreign policy, as I note earlier. Deputy defense secretary and head of some military policy board are Jewish - they are the ones who wield the real power in the US government, and they are influencing US policy in favor of Jewish interests. The president, Defense Secretary, NSA head, Secretary of State? They are honorable but guileless Gentiles, who don’t realize that the devious Jews are advising them to act against their own interests.
Whether this worldview is the influence in any given case is a judgment call, as I noted earlier. My personal view, again - and note to Coldfire here - is that such is the case here. But I can’t be sure. Frankly, I think the accusations against Dex fit perfectly into the mindset that I described above. As do references to my own “brotherly solidarity”.
I do support London_Calling with regards to one specific issue. That being the point raised by Mandelstam and Coldfire that not all Jews think alike. Of course this is true. There are exceptions to everything. But enough of them do think alike on this particular issue that if they would exert the degree of control that anti-semites think they do, it could influence media coverage of the issues.
So my position is that it is not anti-semitic or racist to assume that Jewish control of the media would influence media coverage about Israel. My position is that the evidence for Jewish control and for actual influence is so weak that a person who persists in believing it is most likely of the mindset described above. JMHO. YMMV.
(BTW, Mandelstam, you are making a mistake in constantly referring to the war in Iraq as a Jewish issue where ostensible Jewish influence might be felt in favor of the war. Fact is that polls showed that Jewish support for the war was not different than non-Jewish support. This is skewed by the fact that Jews tend to be liberals, who tended to oppose the war. Still, as compared to the overall public, Jewish influence would not be a factor here, even if it existed. By contrast, Jewish support for Israel is likely significantly higher than non-Jewish support).
Not sure just what your point is with this. But for amusement value, I direct you to your post here.
Well if he was some sort of Nazi out to gas all the Jews one might suppose it would come out more frequently. OTOH, the mindset that I’ve described comes up exactly with regards to this issue. I can’t think of any other way to test it.
I make no apologies for the somewhat camp pose, he says bravely …