Comments

<i>The New York Times</i> morphs into <i>Der Stürmer</i> — 31 Comments

1. Israel defends itself forcefully and has no time for the talking cure. Same with Trump. Hence they are hated by trash like the Sulzbergers and their minions.

2. The New York Times is a very uncomfortable brand of toilet paper.

3. I guess we can now blame the NYT for creating the climate of hate that led to the synagogue shooting in San Diego today.

4. The New York Times is a very uncomfortable brand of toilet paper.

   But it makes a great bird cage and litter box liner.

5. I have long ago referred to that organization as The New York Slimes (NYSlimes).

   The Washington Compost is not far behind.

   As for academia — I am not leaving anything to my alma mater since that institution has also imbibed the intersectional poison. I have already identified Hillsdale College at the beneficiary for part of my earthly accumulation when I shuffle off this mortal coil.

6. “NYT’s prints this anti-Semitic cartoon and on cue a crazy person shoots up a Jewish synagogue. Isn’t that how the leftists connect their dots?” From a comment at Powerline/

7. That Bibi!
   Is there anything he can’t do???

   He even got that notorious anti-Semite Donald Trump to follow his lead!

   Alternatively, Bibi is being directed by Trump, which is usually the case with a-man-and-his-dog.
   Neither alternative absolves the Times.

8. What I really want to know is: are the Times’s international editors really so stupid that they did not think American audiences would ever see this?

9. The “cartoonist” (I use the word generously) is Antonio Moreira Antunes of Lisbon, noted by Dominic Green in the latter’s essay at the Spectator.

   Antunes’ biographical profile – appearing at a page ironically headed “Cartooning for Peace” – ah, the well-practiced, century-old Leftist usurpation / inversion of language! – follows below (translation added).

   “Antonio Moreira Antunes débute sa carrière en 1974 au sein de La Republica de Lisbonne. Il publie régulièrement dans les journaux et magazines portugais : Diario de Noticias, A Capital, A Vida Mundial, O Jornal et Expresso depuis 1975. Sa caricature la plus célèbre et contestée (Jean-Paul II représenté avec un préservatif sur le nez) a été publiée en 1992 dans Expresso. Antonio est l’un des deux fondateurs du World Press Cartoon et a reçu de nombreux prix internationaux. Il expose très régulièrement.”

   “Antonio Moreira Antunes began his career in 1974 with La Republica of Lisbon. He regularly publishes in Portuguese newspapers and magazines: Diario de Noticias, A Capital, A Vida Mundial, O Jornal and Expresso since 1975. His most famous and contested caricature (John Paul II depicted with a condom on his nose) was published in 1992 in Expresso. Antonio is one of the two founders of the World Press Cartoon and has received numerous international awards. He exhibits very regularly.”

   Aside from the near-certainty that Antunes’ “cartoon” almost certainly reflects the Times deliberately blinkered understanding of the nature of anti-Semitism, and, the ferocity of the paper’s perennial and now-escalating animosity towards Jewish nationalism, statehood, and survival, something else is evident here…

   In light of Neo’s post (“And then they came for the Christians and the white people”) concerning the intriguingly surnamed secular demagogue Tim Wise, I’m struck by the cavalier comment about Antunes’ depiction of Pope John Paul II. (Antunes’ cartoon is at Pinterest; I won’t link to it.)

   Namely, these people are serious, and manifest a striking consistency of hatred.

   The Left is an utterly jealous god, and will have no other gods (or, God) before it.

10. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/27/new-york-times-publishes-brutally-antisemitic-cartoon/

    Posted on April 27, 2019 by sundance

    The rather alarming aspect here is the multiple layers of editorial review and approval this had to pass through. This is not simply an example of bad judgement, this is a clear reflection of the ideology within the publication. Not a single person involved in the process saw a problem with it, until after it was published. Quite remarkable.
    …
    It really is quite stunning actually; regardless of whether you accept the reality of the publication inherently containing an antisemitic bias. Dozens of people involved in the process of constructing the editorial decision, and each of them had to be in alignment with the message. This is not an error of judgement. This is their view…

    Point and counter-point in the comments:

    “Perhaps I have not been infected with enough political correctness, but I do not see any antisemitism here.

    This is voicing an opinion about politics between two nations. Any aspect of religious, ethnic, or racial identity is incidental rather than essential; and perhaps unavoidable when commenting on the politics of Israel.

    Attacking disagreeable concepts through manufactured political correctness instead of debating the merit of its ideas is lazy and generally a last desperate tactic of those who are wrong.

    In this case, attack the idea of the cartoon with facts and logic rather than lazily yelling antisemitism.”

    “Your comment might have validity as a point of view IF … they had not put a yarmulke on the DJT caricature. But that makes it religious, and irredeemable.”

    “I’m going to say I’m cool with this cartoon if tomorrow they have on the dog the face of the Ayatollah and the blind person with hijab is Ilhan Omar. Let’s see what happens.”

    Making somewhat the same point I did earlier (great minds or bias bubble?)

    “It isn’t even a clever cartoon. Just ugly, and stupid, and a throwback to an era that should have remained buried.
    What is the wit? A dachshund on a leash held by a blind man. Has a blind man ever walked a small dog on a leash?
    Why is Netanyahu portrayed as a dog being walked?
    Isn’t the dog on a leash the one that is subservient to the master?”

    “That’s what I thought too. The use of a dog is forced, not natural in this situation. That was how I thought you can tell it’s a specifically added insult to Bibi to portray him as a dog and to pander to Islam.”

    A reminder of past history:

    “The NYT is extremely anti semitic. They refused to report on the Holocaust even after they had the story. They also ignored Stalin’s crusade against the Jews.”

    “…Many pieces of the original National Socialist playbook are still in use by people who should not be given power, including the indoctrination and use of young people for political agitation: “The Hitler wave had even reached children…In 1932, many an astonished grandmother was confronted with a 10-year-old granddaughter insisting: “Grandma, you must vote for Hitler!”

    The link below has the story of “How the Nazis Succeeded in Taking Power in Red Berlin” (“the reddest city in Europe besides Moscow”). Many Nazis including the famous Horst Wessel were socialists (or communists) before turning to “National Socialism” and the horrors that followed.

    https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/how-the-nazis-succeeded-in-taking-power-in-red-berlin-a-866793.html”

11. CTH has a passel of their own commenters from Manju’s club, trying to persuade readers that the cartoon is just Free Speech about political affairs (as also noted above).

    There is nothing anti-semitic or inherently wrong with this drawing. You may disagree with the message or find it offensive, but to retract this if they meant to publish it in the first place, is to self-censor free speech. Free speech protects both offensive and satirical cartoons.

    Some obvious rebuttals:

    “It includes gratuitous images of symbols of Judaism. It’s clearly anti-semitic. Nobody is arresting them or calling for their arrest (except in satire). We are free to call them out for their anti-semitism as well as their hypocrisy.”

    “The NYT can’t go around and scream discrimination against the LGBTQ gang, islamophobia, sexism and promote #metoo and then publish a clearly anti-semetic cartoon. You can’t have it both ways. I’m also for free speech but this is one paper that actually idolizes censorship and now offends many instead.”

    “would it be funny if the dog had a pink “kitty” hat and the walker had a rainbow shirt. I bet they wouldn’t publish such a thing.”

    “There is nothing anti-semitic or inherently wrong with this drawing” ??
    Wow !
    1. This is from the self-proclaimed standard bearer or all that is good, “The New York Times.”
    2. A cartoon of a Muslim woman, depicted as a dog, being led around by Mitt Romney, wearing only his special underwear, would result in Lefty’s bursting a vein in their neck(s).
    3. This cartoon is anti-Jew. It is targeted as hate against an identifiable group. And Muslims, as a group, are not Rover’s best friend, so depicting Netanyahu as a dog, with his nose clearly drawn disproportionately bigger than it really is, constitutes hate, by the New York Times.
    So dispense with the free speech claptrap. Run a counter cartoon tomorrow, Editors of the New York Times. I will draw one for you. In the name of “free speech”, of course.
    I am not a Jew, not a Christian, but the New York Times are trying to jump the whale on this one.

    “Nobody is telling the NYT to take it down- they did of their own volition after they made sure that plenty of people got to see it.

    I too believe in pretty much absolute free speech and while I abhor the illustration, I agree that they have every right to publish it and then they can suffer the consequences of a free market.”

    “The NYT website should force Microsoft’s Newsguard red banner to popup and warn internet readers “Proceed with caution: this website generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability.”

    But of course Microsoft won’t allow that to warn about a leftwing-approved site. Only against conservative news sites.”

    “Roseann lost her show because she compared a black woman to an ape. Will NYT editors lose their jobs for printing a cartoon depicting the President of Israel as a dog?”

    “Pretty awful cartoon. But, I’d prefer they expose who and how they hate right out in the open. Better that Americans and American Jews see the Progressives for who they really are.”

    Although I would formerly have agreed with this next commenter, that ship has long since sailed. When outrage is only “justified” going one direction, then protest becomes an obligation, and is the only way to get somewhere.

    It is a stupid cartoon, but I got to disagree on the outrage factor here. If it hurts your feelings or offends you, don’t look at it. I’d say the same thing to the Muslims who used those French cartoons to justify beheadings and whatnot.

    Antisemitic? Yes. Stupid to publish? Yes. But going overboard on the outrage and calls for resignations, along with savoring the “I caught the other side being a hypocrite!” feeling gets us nowhere.

    Confusion: feature or bug?

    “Wait I thought Trump was Hitler? I can’t keep up with the left, they’re just spinning randomly now.”

    “Wait a moment here. I thought they said it was Putin of the evil Russians who was leading DJT around like a blind man and now they say it’s been Bibi of the evil Jews all along? That’s some change. This is so confusing They really should make up their minds.”

    Too true.

    “I always know right away when something offends me, but when you’re a liberal democrat, it takes a committee to decide whether you should be offended or not. Of course this can all change on short notice, so you have to pay close attention or risk being mis-offended.”

    “I cannot take this cartoon too seriously. I can just see a bunch of editors and muckety-mucks sitting around a table at the NYT going “slitting our wrists with Fake News and TDS isn’t making us bleed out fast enough, how can we slit our throat too?””

12. Final comments from CTH –

    “And you win the internet!!! Instead of clutching pearls, you communicated an alternate view. Well done. That is the only answer instead of crying someone said something mean.”

    https://i.postimg.cc/HsCBsN1Z/trump-antisemitic-3.png

13. Given such attitude of her sworn enemies Israel would be completely justified to add genocide treat to her tool set of dealing with them as an ultimate argument to persuade them stop and desist.

14. Given the history of the murderous anti-semitic hatred, the border line between allegedly lawful criticism of Israel or Judaism and criminal incitement of hatred toward all Jews is practically non-existent. This is a sufficient reason why all such imagery must be outlawed.

15. When I first saw this cartoon, I thought it must surely be a parody. No major news organization could possibly publish such an offensive image these days — except that it did. I have been refusing to click on NY Times links for some years now. Everyone should shun them.

16. The NY Times has now apologized (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/28/media/ny-times-anti-semitic-cartoon/index.html):

    The Times apology came Sunday afternoon after it issued an earlier statement saying it was wrong to run a cartoon that contained “anti-Semitic tropes.” But that statement did not contain any apology.

    The new statement said: “We are deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon last Thursday in the print edition of The New York Times that circulates outside of the United States, and we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again.”

    “Such imagery is always dangerous, and at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, it’s all the more unacceptable,” it continued.

    The paper said the decision to run the syndicated cartoon was made by a single editor working without adequate oversight.

    “The matter remains under review, and we are evaluating our internal processes and training,” said the statement. “We anticipate significant changes.”

17. The apology is good. That, according to the Times, a single editor was able to put this image on their site is evidence that the changes need to be significant indeed.

18. Bret Stephens today in the NY Times:

    …[the cartoon’s] publication was an astonishing act of ignorance of anti-Semitism — and that, at a publication that is otherwise hyper-alert to nearly every conceivable expression of prejudice, from mansplaining to racial microaggressions to transphobia.

    Imagine, for instance, if the dog on a leash in the image hadn’t been the Israeli prime minister but instead a prominent woman such as Nancy Pelosi, a person of color such as John Lewis, or a Muslim such as Ilhan Omar. Would that have gone unnoticed by either the wire service that provides the Times with images or the editor who, even if he were working in haste, selected it?

    The question answers itself. And it raises a follow-on: How have even the most blatant expressions of anti-Semitism become almost undetectable to editors who think it’s part of their job to stand up to bigotry?

    The reason is the almost torrential criticism of Israel and the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism, including by this paper, which has become so common that people have been desensitized to its inherent bigotry. So long as anti-Semitic arguments or images are framed, however speciously, as commentary about Israel, there will be a tendency to view them as a form of political opinion, not ethnic prejudice. But as I noted in a Sunday Review essay in February, anti-Zionism is all but indistinguishable from anti-Semitism in practice and often in intent, however much progressives try to deny this.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.html

19. The apology is likely a lie – CYA. Blame just one person, not the system, blah blah blah.

    The Bigger Lie is that Palestinians want to live in peace with Israel. The only peace they want is for Israel to be destroyed. Or is it just their leaders? I actually think most of them. On the question of peaceful existence, the Palestinians are inferior to the Israelis.

    The NYT is full of folk who think those with inferior policy or behavior, which results in having inferior material conditions, such inferiority is based on oppression by those with better behavior. Good behavior is oppression, which is bad. The oppressed have inferior conditions, which makes them morally superior.

    This is the disastrous current irrational secular logic, which US Dems and int’l leftists support, in opposition to Judeo-Christian Capitalism and individual freedom.

20. These are some of the same folks who – on an almost daily basis – call Trump and his supporters bigots!

21. Kate on April 28, 2019 at 8:27 pm at 8:27 pm said:
    The apology is good. That, according to the Times, a single editor was able to put this image on their site is evidence that the changes need to be significant indeed.
    * *
    Well, he was probably over-worked and tired, being as he is also their only fact-checker and ombudsman.

22. After reading the Bret Stephens piece on the apology: they are sorry they got caught.

    (thanks to Ann for being the designated clicker; I won’t pay to read their rag)

23. Commentary and follow-ups:
    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/04/29/rabbi-shmuley-the-gray-ladys-big-nosed-jewish-dog/

    It’s a sick and twisted charge of mysterious Jewish power over world leaders and institutions — precisely the kind posited by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The International Jew, and Der Stürmer.

    As a paper centered in and around one of the most Jewish cities on earth, I expected the Times to apologize profusely for what must have been a mistake. I expected executives to be handing in their resignations, for the deserving heads to roll.

    Instead, the Times merely acknowledged the fact that the caricature “included anti-Semitic tropes,” before writing it off as a simple “error of judgment.” Even after Jewish blood was shed in California over the very ideas carried by the cartoon, the paper still refused to apologize explicitly.

    A day later, under ferocious criticism and pressure, the Times did acknowledge the cartoon’s antisemitic imagery and said that a single executive with no oversight had made the decision to publish it, adding that there would be a review.

    So, their defense is that they’re not antisemitic, but incompetent. And this from the world’s most trusted news source.

    In the aftermath of the Unite the Right March in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Times churned out a torrent of the harshest condemnations of President Donald Trump for what they said was his failure properly to condemn the antisemitic tropes being parroted by the march’s detestable participants. According to the Times’ editorial board, the march had “presented Mr. Trump with the most glaring opportunity yet to separate himself decisively from the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who have cheered him on … and to make clear that America has no room for what they stand for.” The Times‘ diagnosis: “He blew it.”*

    In that same op-ed, the board also pointed out that “in fact, white supremacists have been responsible for 49 homicides in the past 16 years, more than any other domestic extremist movement…”.

    I would have the Times know that by the time they ran their sick cartoon, those 49 homicides had become 60, with eleven Jews gunned down by a man who believed that “the Jews” controlled America much in the way the cartoon depicts. Days ago, that number grew to 61, because yet another man decided to punish the Jews for the destructive influence they supposedly hold over America.

    In publishing so vile a caricature, the Times abdicated every shred of moral authority. Far from failing to condemn them, it chose to print — in full color and a quarter-of-a-million times — the very theories responsible for the last two white supremacist killing sprees.

    For the millions of American Jews beginning to register the expanse of antisemitism in their own home, the New York Times didn’t just ‘blow it.’ They’re actively helping to “grow it.”

    *A reminder: the Times, as did others, misconstrued almost everything about the President in this incident; it is cited to point out their hypocrisy.

    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/04/29/new-york-times-prints-another-anti-israel-cartoon-amid-antisemitism-scandal-rocking-newspaper/

    This second cartoon depicts Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wearing a robe and holding up what looks like a tablet with the Star of David on it. It depicts Netanyahu as blind and holding a selfie stick, taking a photo of himself.

    First rule of holes….

24. Pingback:The New York Times and the European vogue for anti-Semitic cartoons

25. Pingback:The New York Times and the European vogue for anti-Semitic cartoons | TrumpsMinutemen

26. Pingback:Caricature antisémite du New York Times: Retour sur un fiasco (Bewteen normalcy of deviance and creeping normalcy, how the NYT ended up joining a long-established European post-WWII tradition of antisemitism) | jcdurbant

27. Pingback:Caricature antisémite du New York Times: cronique d’une catastrophe annoncée (Bewteen normalcy of deviance and creeping normalcy, how the NYT ended up joining a long-established European post-WWII tradition of antisemitism) | jcdurbant

28. Pingback:Caricature antisémite du New York Times: chronique d’une catastrophe annoncée (Bewteen normalcy of deviance and creeping normalcy, how the NYT ended up joining a long-established European post-WWII tradition of antisemitism) | jcdurbant

29. Pingback:Caricature antisémite du New York Times: chronique d’une catastrophe annoncée (Bewteen normalcy of deviance and creeping normality, how the NYT ended up joining a long-established European post-WWII tradition of antisemitism) | jcdurbant

30. Der Sturmer… haha.

31. Pingback:Caricature antisémite du New York times: chronique d’une catastrophe annoncée (Between normalcy of deviance and creeping normality, how the NYT ended up joining a long-established European post-WWII tradition of antisemitism) | jcdurbant

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>