The liberal establishment's war on the New York City mayoral candidate reflects panic over a growing left challenge to Zionist orthodoxy and the mainstreaming of Palestine solidarity

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 28 points 1 year ago*

Judith Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, was a key figure in reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the 2003 invasion. Her reporting, particularly her exclusives citing Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs, were prominently used by the Bush administration to build the case for war. Miller later acknowledged that her reporting relied too heavily on sources connected to the Bush administration and that she didn't adequately consider dissenting views. 

https://youtu.be/924DT22tSWE

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 1 year ago (33 children)

    I mentioned Zohran to my aging mother (who lives in a suburb, and cannot vote in NYC elections). She was like, "You didn't vote for him did you? He's a communist"

    We decided not to go into details right then, but it's wild what a deep, emotional, response the idea of "communism" evokes. I don't know what she even thinks it is.

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago*

    You know those experiments Pavlov did with dogs that made them salivate to the sound of a bell (because they associated the sound with food)? Boomers essentially had that but the trigger is the word communism and the response is aversion / disgust.

    They didn't have the internet back then so mainstream media could essentially control mainstream thought.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago

    I don't know what she even thinks it is.

    She thinks it's the enemy.

    That type of response has nothing to do with politics or even reality, it's just "us vs. them". People attribute everything they think is evil to "them".

    (It's not just communism hate. Because anyone who knows what it is, know that he isn't one.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    People were more or less helping each other back in the 50's after the war. The money boys got worried about that and Joseph McCarthy, along with Donald Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn, started a communist witch hunt which eventually got out of hand. The communist stigma remained.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    "Communism" as it was in history should 100% invoke that reaction. The dude is not a communist tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Maybe. The natural reflex is to point out the horrors of capitalism, but people are more okay with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Not "maybe". Countries were screwed over by communists, people murdered in the thousands with famines that killed millions. People excusing communism - either the Soviet Union or China are delusional.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Isn't the problem there authoritarianism? The Nazis were also authoritarian shitheads, but not communists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Source: Author's ass crack.

    These claims come from the "Black Book of Communism", an old propaganda piece with wildly bullshit claims (provably so)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    These "claims" as you put it come from a person who has lived in an area and talked to their parents and grandparents about it. So stay in your lane with your "hurr durr propaganda". Soviets were war criminals, not a utopia and anyone saying otherwise is the one that's brainwashed by history revisionism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Communism tyrants and authoritarian dictatorships. Get a grip. Nobody has done real communism. They give the people fake participation while the wealth and power go to the top. It doesn’t matter which system you choose, if the rich and powerful take control you’re fucked. Capitalism worked for a while in the US, now it’s fucked because of the rich people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Still upset about the battle of Berlin, I see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No, about Katyn and the years of occupation that followed till 89' actually. And about Holodomor. And about using tanks against civilians. And about a ton of other things that tankies don't know about because they think the Soviet Union was perfect

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Ok, so what is your solution? Besides calling everyone to your left a commie?

    Capitalism is no longer working. The status quo is untenable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    My solution is to not glorify the Soviet Union as some sort of enlightened country when in reality it was a shithole that killed millions of people.

    Also, don't put words in my mouth. Just because you think in "tribes" and everyone that doesn't think exactly like you is your enemy, doesn't mean other people are just as naive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    My solution is to not glorify the Soviet Union as some sort of enlightened country

    Am I doing that, or have you just decided that you hate everyone to your left and only your left and therefore they must be commies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    I said "communism as it was in history should evoke a negative reaction. You then jumped in saying what basically amounts to "you are a nazi mad about losing". I then said "no, I am mad about attrocities done to the various peoples because of the soviet union. To which you then respond "what else are we supposed to do?"

    So:

    1. You are arguing that communism as it was in history shouldn't invoke a negative reaction

    2. You are calling me a nazi

    3. You are deflecting from the attrocities of communism and going "whatabout capitalism".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    You are arguing that communism as it was in history shouldn’t invoke a negative reaction

    If you would prefer that they hadn't joined the Allies, just say so.

    You are calling me a nazi

    You call people to your left commies. And it's clear that you consider only one to be evil.

    You are deflecting from the attrocities of communism and going “whatabout capitalism”.

    No, I'm asking what your solution is, as the current situation is untenable. So far your response has been "ur uh commie! Stop talking about the system in which you live and hate the commies!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    No I don't call people "to my left" commies. I even specifically said "Zohran isn't a communist". But by all means, keep attacking the strawman that you put up. Doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union was a terror state that screwed up several countries and killed millions (and if you need the clarification, millions after WW2 was over). I'm done talking to a wall, have a nice day.

    Edit: and to your point about the Soviet Union joining the allies - I would very much rather they didn't start the war along with Nazi Germany by invading Poland at the same time, signing a nonagression pact with the Nazis, sending people to gulags where thousands died. But that's a tiny detail right, who cares that they were one of the two that started it all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No I don’t call people “to my left” commies. I even specifically said “Zohran isn’t a communist”.

    And yet, when prompted to offer solutions to the situation the US is in now, your solution was "ZOMG COMMIES." It's in this thread. Capitalism got us here, not communism. It's clear that you have no solutions but don't like anyone else's.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, there is only one party that is busy implementing their secret police

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Yes, because there is only one party you mean. Oh, no, you didn't mean the KGB, the black cars disappearing people, you just wanted to go "whatabout Murica" like that matters to the fact that communism hasn't worked out in history and resulted in oppression.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Because they are capitalists

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Maybe look into where they get their funding. Follow the money to the truth, just expect to be disgusted when you find it. On a related note, go back and watch HBO's the Wire to see why real systemic change doesn't happen.

  • source
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago (30 children)

    We've been trying to tell yall for years. For anti capitalist? Socialists? All manners of leftists? Biggest enemy has always and will always be liberals.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Actually it's capital. But it's true that Liberalism is the wiggly fun-house slide to capitalism and fascism no doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don't infringe upon others'.

    So, no, actually. None of the stuff you said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The only rights liberalism cares about are private property rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Oh, you must be the new owner of Webster and Oxford dictionaries.

    Check it out, guys! Its the dude who decides the meaning of words. Round of applause.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Neither liberalism nor neoliberalism can be grasped coherently without talking about capitalism and democracy. If liberalism names the political ideology aligned to the historical emergence of “free market” capitalism and Western-style representative democracy, neoliberalism signifies a particular regime of liberalism, capitalism, and democracy that has been globalized since the 1970s, in the form of an active state promotion of market and competition principles that critics see as antithetical to democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sucks for them that they're PhDs and they still confuse words like Liberalism and Laissez Faire.

    The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party... well, Republicans.

    It's just propoganda made to appear in a slightly better light when in truth opposing liberalism is just opposing human rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    So either multiple people with PhDs that have written extensively on the subject are correct and you didn't comprehend their point, or you, who failed to comprehend even the wiki page on Liberalism, know more.

    It's pretty obvious which is the case when you read through the article, even more so when you read when laissez faire is mentioned multiple times.

    I have you tagged as a Zionist from previous conversations, you got no say on the concept of human rights when you've repeatedly defended that type of fascism in the past.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    "The dictionary definition has not changed, this is like calling China communist or the USSR socialist republic, or calling the US Republican Party… well, Republicans."

    Yeah, I mean you're here stomping your feet over semantics by leaning on a dictionary definition rather than acknowledging that all your criticisms of other political systems absolutely applies to your defense of Liberalism. In so far as we're existing only in theory, the things you said about Liberalism are true (according to the source that you didn't cite), but in the actual world and as applied through history, Liberalism simply isn't what that definition claims anymore, or Liberals aren't Liberals despite their claims. Both can be true.

    P.S. you're bad at this defense thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Yes liberals who are simultaneously all-powerful and weak.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    I believe they are using it in the sense of economic liberalism. What today we just call capitalism. Encompassing Republicans, national Democratic leadership, and those that larp as anarchist or libertarian while being capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)

    Libertarians are capitalists who hate the state and like drugs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    libertarians are republicans who got tired of being taken seriously.

    A libertarian is a man who can throw a dart at a map and tell you the age of consent where it lands. His eyes light up if it lands in international waters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    Uh no. There’s such a thing as left libertarians. People who recognize that the government can never be of the people from the people, therefore the governments power should be limited as much as possible. Before you say that’s anarchism, anarchists are imo a different breed because of their “end game”, though I might convert to anarchism once one of them comes up with a description of what a classless stateless society looks like and how it will be different than what chimps have right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No there are no left libertarians just people lying to themselves about how right they actually are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If you could back that up with an actual argument, we can cook something.

    I for one don’t really care where on the spectrum I’m perceived to be, generally I think I’m dead center simply because I like to look at what nets the greatest benefit instead of asking myself whether the policy aligns better with right or left wing discourse. I happen to believe that the government having the least amount of power needed to fulfill their role is a good thing and that curbing the vices of capitalism is also a good thing. So left libertarian is the best label for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I’ve made my argument already but tell me how a libertarian curbs the vices of capitalism because that’s the hypocrisy I’m talking about right there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The problem is lumping all libertarians together as if they are all the same thing. Are all socialists the same thing? Should I lump tankies with social democrats?

    Libertarianism is simply being aware that the government will exploit their authority over the individual, so it is best that it has as little capacity to do so as possible. That says nothing about the economical system in which a state operates. Although in my idea, yes it is still capitalistic (though with greater worker ownership, social nets and some wealth redistribution) because imo capitalism is not inherently bad, it’s a tool and we can wield it to our benefit. For proof look how easily it adapts to all conditions: it works when there’s totalitarianism, in democracies, in monarchies and even in anarchy and in collapsed states.

    But one can argue for curbing state power over the individual while at the same time advocating for the interest of the individual (which so often are the interest of the collective ) above corporate interests. You’ll find few sane libertarians who think we should let corporations dump toxic waste everywhere, just to give an example.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You’ll find few sane libertarians…

    See now we’re speaking the same language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Because it's a shit-tier rag that's consistently skewed in favor of a few special interests - involving apologizing constantly for one that is currently blowing kids up on our dime. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would give this rag any credence since they drummed us into a war in 2003.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Just being charitable here (to be clear I agree with you) - but I think a big contributor to a lot of folks taking these old media organizations more seriously than they should, is how batshit insane the rest of the media ecosystem has gotten.

    That combined with the kind of...legacy of trust, for these old "household name" ones? It's hard for us olds to update our mental models in a deep way. I was raised thinking it was a respectable outfit - I know, for sure, that I don't trust them or like them at all today. And yet every time I see "New York Times" my subconscious goes "ah, yep, one of the good ones". Brains are dumb and annoying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    This is absolutely the case - it takes time to destroy credibility for a large institution considered a "paper of record". And it makes it really easy for them to just "forget" to include certain pieces of information that drastically alter a story's narrative. The BBC is also hugely guilty of this kind of manipulation, with the ceaveat that the truth of it is in plain sight - the BBC is literally a government-run propaganda organ! But hey, you get a bunch of sober sounding people wearing professional costumes to talk to a bunch of "experts", get a bunch of reddit bot farms to post well researched science/tech articles to build a foundation of credibility with your professional classes, and then you start slipping your real content in between the fill. Many people will be trained to accept facts from that environment at that point, and it takes effort to keep on top of it all.

    What's made things so egregious recently is that this approach only works when everyone's half asleep. Hypnotized, if you will. In the context of more and more people being forced into an activist stance by their ethics, morals and in most cases and sadly more importantly (to them) personal situations, it isn't a good approach, because people who are already active will be distrustful and less likely to accept their "content" at face value. From there, it all kind of unravels.

    It's a peacetime control tooling for a sleepy, well-fed, soft population. When things get hard and the reality most people lives is wildly discordant with the "facts" they are shown, it generates friction and resentment. Populism is the result - left or right. Our elites made a very bad bet thinking they could step down this path rather than New Deal-ing their way out of it, because they are already losing control of the situation. The hysterical screeching about Mamdani - in particular kirsten gillibrand's racist tirade - is what it looks like when they panic, stop maintaining the mask and you see what's underneath.

    It's a bunch of magic tricks that the audience just worked out, the bunny rabbit getting pulled out of the top hat is falling to bits and scaring all the children. And all the women. And all the men.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    It's this and other factors. The real enemy of the neolibs was not communism. The real enemy was and still is the social democracy. The welfare state that protect everyone is what they want to abolish. Mamdani is for lots of people the image of this social democracy. If he wins, they lose. If he wins, he put the social democracy back on track. They are afraid of that.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Feels like grasping at straws, here. Sure, NYT aren't his biggest fans, but the article has this as evidence of its' claims:

    "opinions on Israel are changing fast", and cautioned that "Mamdani's victory is not a fluke. It's a sign of things to come."

    He is, of course, right.

    Clearly The MiddleEastEye agrees with NYT about Mamandi, so let me flip that; why is MEE so afraid of Zohran Mamdani?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    After Bidens debate performance they published 80 articles in 2 weeks about it...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Because there are a lot of Zionists in the media. They have their marching orders from their handlers. Kill any progressiveness.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Can't stop to read now but I'd wager some politicians are to scared of trump and his supporters to allow real left wing populism

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Almost precisely backwards.

    Fascism happens when people cry out for change and it's denied. If obama hadnt betrayed us all in 08, if sanders hadn't been ratfucked in 16, we wouldn't be in this mess. Fascism is enabled by fear of the left, by alienation from your own interests, by irrational hate, by self loathing, by hopeless faceless rage when the actual causes of your displeasure are unspeakable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Imagine where the world be on climate policy if al gore hadn't been cheated and you guys might not have ended up in the middle east for so long and nasty stuff like the patriot act might not have been passed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah that would be cool. I'd really rather live in that timeline.

    Instead we are in this one. Where ratfucking after ratfucking of the people's desire, making their cries unspeakable, has lead us to fascism.

    Its one of the reasons ill never vote for a dnc politician. They brought this shit into the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Such a well-written article. Lots of emotion, but it's incredibly right on.

  • source