Left-wing

Women's March Co-Founders Won't Condemn Farrakhan, Revealing the Hollowness of Intersectionality

If the left is going to insist that only the most consistent enemies of bigotry are welcome in their ranks, one might expect some consistency.

|

Mallory
Screenshot via The View

The Women's March has seen better days.

This year's activities, which kick off at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, should be just as vital as they were in 2017 and 2016—Donald Trump is still president, after all—and yet the movement is beset by well-founded suspicion of its national leaders, who stand accused of turning a blind-eye to anti-Semitism.

It's a serious problem, and one that exposes the hypocrisy of intersectionality, the philosophy of the modern activist left. Intersectional progressives claim that all sources of oppression are inherently linked, and it isn't enough to just oppose sexism: Allies aren't allies unless they also oppose racism, transphobia, anti-Muslim bigotry, and so on.

I question whether this is a wise strategy for single-cause advocacy. But if the left is going to insist that only the most strident and consistent enemies of bigotry are welcome in their ranks, one might expect some consistency. Yet for some reason, anti-Semitism got left off the list of approved evils.

In December, Tablet, a Jewish magazine, claimed that Women's March leaders Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez used anti-Semitic language and blamed Jewish people for exploiting people of color. The activists have denied this charge. They have refused, however, to denounce Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a blatantly anti-Semitic and anti-gay conspiracy theorist with whom Mallory and Women's March co-founder Linda Sarsour have considerable ties.

On Monday, Mallory and Bland appeared on ABC's The View to generate buzz for the Women's March and address the controversy. Conservative host Meghan McCain asked Mallory directly whether she would condemn Farrakhan's statements; she would not. Instead, she merely said that she disagreed with them. She also maintained that Farrakhan was the "greatest of all time because of what he has done for black communities."

Again, this is a man who said that Jews in Hollywood had become the chosen people of Satan for their role in promoting LGBT equality. (Defending himself against charges of anti-Semitism, Farrakhan attempted to clarify the matter by insisting, "I'm not anti-Semite, I'm anti-termite," which, uh, says something.) The Southern Poverty Law Center rightly considers the Nation of Islam to be an organized hate group. This could be why the organization withdrew as a co-sponsor of the Women's March this year.

Mallory's extreme reluctance to disassociate herself from a noxiously anti-Semitic figure is characteristic of the far-left. At elite college campuses, criticism of the state of Israel—legitimate or not—occasionally overlaps with anti-Semitism. People like Angela Davis—an activist and organizer who supported all the worst aspects of the Soviet Union and the Black Panthers, and even backed mass murdering cult leader Jim Jones—are remembered fondly in activist circles on campuses and on social media. The Root called her a "freedom fighter" just last week.

This is not to say that all criticism of Israel is off-base or anti-Semitic, nor that pro-Israeli groups are some aggrieved minority. In fact, campus administrators have often censored pro-Palestinian voices on grounds that their speech was offensive. Activists should enjoy the right to protest Israel's existence, irrespective of the hurt feelings of other students.

Even so, this blindness toward anti-Semitism is a problem, especially in a case like the Women's March, where you have a socially-significant mass movement involving millions of people being led by activists considerably further to the left than the average attendee. Palling around with people like Farrakhan is a character quirk for the far-left; for everyone else, it's much harder to overlook.

But what makes this loose association with anti-Semitism so inexplicable is that it flies in the face of the very doctrine the left purports to embrace most strongly. If intersectionality means anything, it means that an activist cannot focus on his or her own marginalization and ignore the marginalization of everyone else. Left-of-center media outlets have endlessly pilloried white women and white feminism lately for not being intersectional enough: White women who say they are feminists but do nothing to address the needs of the black, trans, Muslim, and disabled communities have betrayed the collective cause, and are worse than useless. But for some reason, anti-Semitism in the ranks is just not a concern.

The term intersectionality dates to the late 1980s, when sociologists coined the word to describe the cumulative oppression of being black and being a woman. In the years since, sociology departments have proposed many other sources of oppression, and university bias response teams and microaggression police are inventing new ones every day. Having excluded anti-Semitism from the ranks, the concept seems rather hollow.

(For more about intersectionality and the infighting it produces on the left, pre-order my forthcoming book, PANIC ATTACK: Young Radicals in the age of Trump.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

290 responses to “Women's March Co-Founders Won't Condemn Farrakhan, Revealing the Hollowness of Intersectionality

  1. Having excluded anti-Semitism from the ranks, the concept seems rather hollow.

    Oh, it;s hollow for far more reasons than just that.

    1. The idiots who buy into intersectionality have hollow enough heads they will ignore this interview just like they ignore actual objective truth. Post modern theory is making people dumber.

      1. actual objective truth

        I’m sure you’re just the person to tell us what it is.

        1. It’s so weird how your scolding looks exactly like Cathy’s scolding.

          1. It’s so weird how your comments look exactly like the comments of someone that drives the ugliest car ever made.

            1. “that drives the ugliest car ever made.”

              That’s no way to talk about my sexual relationship with your mom.

  2. The rich tapestry that is intersectionality politics.

    1. It’s like a quilt sewn by Jackson Pollock.

  3. The problem being that if intersectionality frames Muslims as exclusively victims of bigotry, you cannot condemn Muslim bigots in their black and white worldview.

    1. And criticizing Muslim patriarchy is off the table as well.

    2. Members of the Nation of Islam are Muslims in the same sense that Mormons from the early 20th century were Christians.

      1. Are all the anti-semitic Muslim leaders in the Women’s March from the Nation of Islam?

        1. I have no idea. We were going to hang out, but they never showed up.

        2. I am not certain what that is supposed to mean. I am not Mormon but to state that at some point in their history they didn’t believe in Christ is wrong. Now we’re you trying to imply they were not mainstream Christian? Or not widely accepted by other Christian churches? If so you did a shitty job of expressing that sentiment.

          1. This was in reply to Cyto.

          2. Mormons are Christian in the sense they believe that Jesus was the son of the God. However, the Mormon faith contains a number of very important concepts that appear nowhere in the Old or New Testament (e.g., Jesus reappears in the New World after his crucifixion) and are not followed by most, if any, other Christian denominations and pretty clearly originated with Joseph Smith (whether you want to attribute them to divine guidance or Smith’s own mind). Equally, the members of the Nation of Islam are Muslim in the sense that they follow the five pillars of Islam, but again Islam as preached by the NOI has a number of very important concepts that appear in nowhere in the Quran or other traditional Islamic texts (e.g., whites are devils) and pretty clearly originated with Elijah Muhammad (whether you want to attribute them to divine guidance or Elijah Muhammad’s own mind).

            1. It’s well known Jesus left earth after he he regenerated into his second body after the crucifiction. Traveling through time and space

              1. Jesus was a Time-Lord! I knew it! What Doctor was he?

            2. That sounds like a fair-minded description of Mormonism, but I think it doesn’t go quite far enough to explain why (current / mainstream) Christians might not agree that Mormons are Christians, at least in the same sense that mainstream Christians think of it.

              One big difference that your description allows for but doesn’t name: Mormonism teaches a multiplicity of gods, and that humans can advance toward actual godhood, not just goodness, godliness, or God-proximity.

              That seems more than semantics! (And is readily distinguishable from arguments about the nature of a tripartate godhead.)

              Mormon doctrine also holds that Mary has impregnated by a physical manifestation of (“the”) God, rather than the no-touching version of the mainstream Christian story. (Yes, some controversy over that, but even for quasi-believers, that’s on the manifest.)

              Mormonism also relies on some purported revelations that don’t pass the sniff test; they don’t have the protective layer afforded some religion by deepening mystery as a result of age.

              There are quite a few of these, and you’re free to accept or scoff at them, but for anyone not familiar, google “Book of Abraham” for some interesting reading!

      2. Mormons believed and still believe in christ. It’s literally the definition of christianity.

        1. To expound…

          The primary differences in classic christianity and Mormonism are two things. First the holy trinity as one entity versus 3 entities, mormons believe the latter. But this isnt a unique belief to mormons. And second the mormons have added a book of scripture which is jo different than Constantine choosing which books belong in the bible at the Council of Nicea. He literally chose a play, book of Job, to be in the bible. Not much of a jump to what Mormons did.

          1. The mormon “church” was set up by a pedo to promote pedoism. Kind of like islam. The catholics wanted in much later.

            1. Smith was a pedophile? And your evidence is what? Even Young didn’t practice pedophilia (it was quite common at the time for women to marry in their mid teens).

              1. Also pedophilia specifically refers to those who prefers pre-pubescant girls. Ephebophilia refers to those who are primarily attracted to adolescents in their mid to late teens (15-19 years of age). Considering how popular barely legal porn is, this would apply to a large percentage of the male (and non-heterosexual female) population.

            2. Our modem concept of agof consent really only a thing of the last sixty years or so. Coinciding with high school attendence becoming common.

              1. Exactly. It can be argued that attraction to mid teens is normal, in that that is the age when we really begin to become sexually aware. Society has only recently decreed this is bad, and most people have enough self control to not break this modern taboo. But to honestly equate it to pedophilia, which is an abnormal sexual desire, is not honest.

          2. There’s also the part about Jesus reappearing in the New World, which is definitely not something mentioned in the Bible and which most Christian sects would consider pretty dramatically wrong.

            1. Disagree with but doesn’t disqualify then from the label of Christian. I disagree with the Catholics interpretation of Paul’s teachings about clergy marriage but I still consider them Christians.

            2. Most (original) Mormons did come from a background of more standard Christianity, and never rejected basic Christian doctrines, as they saw it, but simply added to them. Most members of the NOI were never adherents of standard Islam, and in fact know little about it. So I’d say the connection between the NOI and ordinary Islam is less than that between Mormonism and ordinary Christianity.

              1. Most early Mormons were also of English descent and from upper New York and New England, thus many Mormons during the early day were descended from Puritans. Smith grew up during a period of deep religious revitalism, especially in the area of New York he was raised in.

    3. This is why the Black community in the USA will mostly diverge from the Democratic Party.

      Many Jewish folks stick with the Democratic party, so militant Black groups wont want to keep that relationship.

      Regular Black Americans are realizing that the Democratic party is not for them (since its the Party of slavery and always has been).

      1. Lol, you really are a moron.

        What makes you believe you have your finger on the pulse of “the Black community” or any community, lol?

        Nothing in that post makes any sense at all, it’s only a word salad. You just take a huge, bloody shit on your keyboard and hit “enter”, right?

        You are just a racist, collectivist kunt, LC.

        Even Trump hates you, bitch!

        1. Peter, you need to go. You are stupid, useless, and have no value. Truly an ant among gods, relatively speaking. Go back to HuffPo, WaPo, or whateve rcck you crawled out from under.

          And LC is right. The black community is finally starting to leave the democrat party, who endlessly shits on them. Go look at the data from the last election. Of course, you’re too stupid to do that.

          1. You are a fucking triblist, Shithole.

            How about you and your bitch LoveTrumpsCock get a room together?

            No evidence “the Black community” is leaving in droves and going Republican.

            Fuck off, Shitforbrains.

            1. Democratic Party=The party of slavery

    4. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, in a bout of “Who is less pleasant to whom?”. Muslims aren’t ever going to come out too well.

  4. Farrakhan was the “greatest of all time because of what he has done for black communities.”

    Hmm.

    1. Umm…. what has Farrakhan actually done for black communities?

      I know he gives a good speech and his followers lead good lives, but what has he accomplished compared to what MLKjr or even Jesse Jackson have done?

      1. He greatly inspired the leader of the Women’s March?

      2. Perpetuated a couple extra generations of black stereotypes.

      3. got a lotta dudes wearing bowties and pants that are too short

        1. Wow, i didn’t know Steve Erkel was a Black Muslim.

      4. He helped inspire the character Brother Muzone?

      5. Black-Jewish Relations: Minister Louis Farrakhan – In His Own Words

        “Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”

        [….]

        1. You see, he’s not anti-Semitic, he’s only against the *Satanic* Jews, not the others.

      6. Umm…. what has Farrakhan actually done for black communities?

        Killed Malcolm X.

        1. Daaaaaaaamn!

          1. I actually meant it as a slight against Farrakhan, but I’m pretty OK with the slight either way. X was cool, but if you thought either one of them was illuminating a divine path to freedom or racial harmony, you were pretty delusional.

            1. Malcolm X was right about the evilness of welfare and other social safety nets. And understood the importance of the 2A for oppressed people. He definitely took it to far.

              1. *he defiy took it to far in other aspects.

              2. He might have done better if he hadn’t been killed. He was moving away from that Nation of Islam bullshit.

                1. I actually agree with more of his stands then MLK Jr’s stands.

        2. oh shit! nice dude.

      7. You aren’t supposed to ask those questions, bigot.

      8. Did the degenerate Farrakhan make the trains run on time?

  5. >>>Even so, this blindness toward anti-Semitism is a problem, especially in a case like the Women’s March

    it’s a Women’s (Womens’?) March why does it matter what the womens believe?

  6. I am quite surprised the radical left and radical right have not come together to hold hands and sing songs about their mutual hatred of Jews. Hitler and Mussolini loved Amin al-Husseini.

    1. ” Hitler and Mussolini loved Amin al-Husseini.”

      So did the British, who appointed the guy to his position of power.

      1. Never ruin a narrative.

    2. Because that’s not what the radical Right believes. Okay, *some* might, but they’re rare. Don’t believe everything the radical Left tells you.

    3. There is no right-wing rationale for anti-semitism, but there is a lot of left-wing revisionist history that casts past left-wing movements (the German National Socialists come to mind) as right-wing.

      1. The reason the Left calls Nazis “right wing” is because Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union.

        Before that point the National Socialists were allied with International Socialists and everything was pretty much hunky dory (as much as any movement predicated on factionalism could be). After the invasion the American socialists gasped in shock and disbelief and then started calling Nazis and other fascists “right wing”.

        1. “Before that point the National Socialists were allied with International Socialists and everything was pretty much hunky dory ”

          The Spanish civil war pitted the right against the left, and that was going on several years before the attack on the USSR. Allies means friendship, like the NATO alliance where members commit to defending each other. USSR and Nazi Germany were not allies and were fighting proxy wars with each other in Spain.

          1. Soviet Russia had a treaty of alliance with Nazi Germany and helped it train and rearm in defiance of the Versailles Treatment. Stalin even referred to Hitler as a friend and Ally before June of 1941. That was one of the reasons the Soviets were caught off guard. And the Spanish Civil War was between left and left (and the anti-Franco forces were as much supported by so called Western Liberal Democracies as they were by the Soviets).

            1. “the Spanish Civil War was between left and left”

              Franco was not a leftist. You should read up a little on history. The Spanish civil war was fought between the Nationalists, Franco, supported by the Catholic church, Hitler and Mussolini, and the Republicans, supported by various foreign liberals, Trotskyists, and Anarchists. Soviets supplied the Republicans with guns, ammo, tanks and aircraft, even soldiers were sent to oversee their equipment. Western democracies weren’t especially supportive of either side.

              “Stalin even referred to Hitler as a friend and Ally before June of 1941.”

              Take what he says with a grain of salt. As they say in basketball, keep your eyes on their feet,

              1. Franco was a rightesr only if you disregard everything but his nationalism. He was a leftist national. A good number of foreign volunteers for the Republican side were English and French volunteers who were unofficially supported by their respective governments. And I am not certain how your reference to the Catholic Church is pertinent. The Catholic Church has supported a number of left wing causes over the years, how else would you explain the current Pope?
                Do you think Stalin was going to oppose Hitler if Hitler had not launched Operation Barbarossa?

                1. “Franco was a rightesr only if you disregard everything but his nationalism. He was a leftist national. ”

                  I don’t know what you are driving at. I’m not disregarding anything.

                  “And I am not certain how your reference to the Catholic Church is pertinent. ”

                  Because you don’t know your history. One of the biggest atrocities of the war was committed by Republicans against members of the church. The Nationalists had and continued to have good relations with the church. Are you claiming that the church was on good terms with both sides? Pick up a history book on the subject, one that you think is credible.

                  “Do you think Stalin was going to oppose Hitler if Hitler had not launched Operation Barbarossa?”

                  Stalin accepted the Western powers running the show in Western Europe after WWII. No reason to think he’d have treated the Nazis any differently as long as they never invaded.

                  “A good number of foreign volunteers for the Republican side were English and French volunteers who were unofficially supported by their respective governments”

                  You mean they were provided with weapons and transport? I think not.

                  1. Evidence exiata, that while officially neutral (so was the Soviet Union) that British Secret Service was conducting operations in Spain.

                    1. “British Secret Service was conducting operations in Spain.”

                      You’ll find that the British secret service conducts operations in most countries of note, Britain included. Not sure how this makes Franco a leftist.

                    2. Did I say that it did? No I was responding to your statement that “Western democracies weren’t especially supportive of either side”. You really are not very good at keeping track of your own arguments are you?

                    3. “You really are not very good at keeping track of your own arguments are you?”

                      My argument is that the spanish civil war did not pit leftist against leftist, as you claimed. You brought in the british secret services, for reasons not clear.

                    4. I brought in the British Secret service as an example of a western power aiding the Republican, which you claimed they never did. Please keep up, I even provided the exact quote you used. What you are now attempting to do is fairly self evident. You make a point, have it refuted and then you claimed you never made that point. You were the one who claimed that Hitler and Stalin were never allies, which is historically incorrect. As evidence of this incorrect assumption your brought up how the supported different sides of the Spanish Civil war, trying to use that as proof that Hitler was actually a right winger or something. I contend that proves nothing and that Franco was pretty leftist himself (as was Hitler). You were the one who stated the Western Democracies didn’t support the Republicans, inferring it was because of the official neutrality policy (which Stalin also had signed but as you have already alluded didn’t honor at all). I pointed out that neither did the Western Powers, as evidence by the British Secret Secice’s involvement. You have also tried and used Franco’s support (rather tepid during the Civil war, he was viewed as rather agnostic but willing to use the Catholic Church for his own gains by his contemporaries) as somehow proof that he was more right then left. You made a point, I countered that point, then you attempted to cloud it by being disingenuous about my counterpoint.

                    5. The Soviets provided massive support to the Republicans, the Nazis provided a comparable level to the Nationalists. Mexico and Italy played comparatively minor roles in the conflict. The British government played a negligible role in the affair. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Britain played an important role in the civil war. I don’t understand how that makes the conflict one between leftists, as you claimed.

                      ” I countered that point, then you attempted to cloud it by being disingenuous about my counterpoint.”

                      I agreed with you. Franco was no Liberal and no Libertarian. I disagree that Franco was a leftist. He made no statements supporting Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin that I’m aware of, and waged a bloody war against those who did. Franco was no Anarchist either. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. The Bolsheviks also massacred anarchists whenever the chance came up, much like Franco did. Is this what makes you believe that Franco was no only a leftist, but a Bolshevik, to boot. Though a strange kind of Bolshevik it must be said, one in thrall to the church, the monarchy, a militarist and a Hitlerite pawn.

                  2. Stalin didn’t agree to shit, did you forget the Soviets embargo of West Berlin to force it’s capitulation. Stalin wasn’t prepared to fight the west at that time, he knew the west, especially the US, was to prepared for a war. As it was, one was barely avoided. Stalin also made a fool out of FDR at Yalta and got most of what he wanted and figured he could wait.
                    You reference to the Republicans atrocity against the Catholic Church is non-sequitor, since that neither proves nor disproves that Franco was a leftist. And I never claimed the church was in good grace with both sides. I stated the fact that the Church supported Franco proves absolutely nothing.
                    As to my statement about disregarding everything but Franco’s nationalism, it’s pretty self evident. The only proof of his “right wing” beliefs is his nationalism. This begs the question if it is possible for a leftist to be a nationalist? Which yes it is. As for his other policies, he was a progressive and thus a leftist. His economic and political positions were hardly right wing.

                    1. “. I stated the fact that the Church supported Franco proves absolutely nothing.”

                      It wasn’t simply that though. The church supported Franco AND Franco supported the church. Much the same can be said of Spain’s monarchy and business elite, all traditionally seen as rightist in orientation rather than leftists.

                      “His economic and political positions were hardly right wing.”

                      It’s not clear to me which policies you have in mind.

                    2. Well let’s see… his opposition to freedom of speech, religion etc. The fact that he strongly controlled the economy and hindered foreign investment and trade until the late 1950s, and then only because he opposed communism, not because he believed in free trade or capitalism.

                      His support of the Church, again, doesn’t prove that he was right wing. Many leftist also support the Catholic Church. So far you haven’t offered any proof other than the fact that he is a nationalist, which doesn’t prove anything.

                    3. “Well let’s see… his opposition to freedom of speech, religion etc. The fact that he strongly controlled the economy and hindered foreign investment and trade until the late 1950s, and then only because he opposed communism, not because he believed in free trade or capitalism.”

                      We agree Franco was not a Liberal nor a Libertarian. He was a rightist, a tory who go back and forth over issues like free trade, is what I’m saying, and have said all along. The right wing party in US, the republicans, are split over tariffs and what not. You shouldn’t try to put too much stock into someone’s economic policies, which shift with the wind. So does ideological conviction, but less readily.

                      “So far you haven’t offered any proof other than the fact that he is a nationalist, which doesn’t prove anything.”

                      He was much more than a nationalist. He was a militarist, a monarchist, a catholic, and a pawn of Hitler. He wouldn’t have lasted a minute amongst the Bolsheviks boasting about these sort of allegiances he had.

                    4. And again, how does his being Catholic make him a a right winger? The Catholic Church is probably one of the most leftist Churches in Christianity and has a long history of supporting progressive causes. The argument over tariffs is not an argument about free trade vs managed trade, but rather we should use tariffs against those who employ unfair trade practices. We hardly had anything related to free trade from China (and NAFTA gave a lot of latitude to Canada and Mexico to make policies that made it more difficult to sell American products in their countries or made it hard for their businesses, such as agriculture, to sell in the US for greater profits; look at the Canadian grain growing policies, it made it very hard for Canadian farmers to sell to American elevators while making it to expensive for American farmers to sell to Canadian elevators). You attempt to simplify things into your preconceptions while ignoring any evidence that runs counter to your narrative.

                    5. “And again, how does his being Catholic make him a a right winger?”

                      Because leftists have had it in for religion since Marx called it the opium of the people, meaning that its influence is malign. Rightists have supported it as a bastion of tradition. The place known as the ‘bible belt’ in the US is probably the nation’s most conservative region. You must know this. You must also know that conservatives and liberals have switched positions over the years on issues of trade and economic policy, not just in the US but throughout the English speaking world and beyond.

                      “You attempt to simplify things into your preconceptions while ignoring any evidence that runs counter to your narrative.”

                      You’re the one whose claiming Franco economic illiberalism made him a leftist. At least that’s what I think you are claiming, you haven’t been too forthcoming.

                  3. And further, Stalin and his intelligence agencies actively tried to destabilize Western European governments after the war. Jesus H Christ talk about lack of historical awareness. Do you just pick and choose the facts that support your thesis while completely ignoring the cornucopia of evidence against your position?

                    1. ‘And further, Stalin and his intelligence agencies actively tried to destabilize Western European governments after the war. ‘

                      Before the war as well. I’m sure Lenin back in 1917 while still riding in the sealed train was plotting the destabilization of the Western European governments, Germany especially. They never invaded these countries until they themselves were invaded, and after the war, they gave up strategic advantages in Austria and Greece for example. The Soviets were more interested in stirring up trouble in Asian countries rather than Western Europe.

                    2. Bullshit the Soviets spent far more money and effort, though less direct force, in trying to destabilize the west. And they messed around in Asia about as much as the West did.
                      “They never invaded these countries until they themselves were invaded…” which is exactly what I stated to begin with, because those countries they were allied with before Hitler betrayed Stalin. Thank you for proving my original point. God you aren’t very good at this.

                      They gave up Austria in exchange for Czechoslovakia, it wasn’t out of any altruism on Stalin’s part, it was pure calculation. Stalin decided to instead focus on securing his gains in eastern and central Europe while using less direct methods to destabilize western Europe. Stalin always viewed FDR, especially, as a useful fool and had little use for Truman either. His writings are quite clear that he viewed the alliance with the west as just an ends to a mean, the eventual conquest of the world by Soviet Communism.

                    3. “Bullshit the Soviets spent far more money and effort, though less direct force, in trying to destabilize the west. ”

                      Soviet spies like Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs didn’t cost the Soviets a dime, or a kopek. They worked gratis out of ideological conviction.

                      “They gave up Austria in exchange for Czechoslovakia”

                      Nonsense. Soviet Red Army overran Czecho and occupied it during the war. Same with a good deal of eastern Europe and Germany. Had they wanted to control europe they would have secured Greece, ensuring Soviet control of Europe’s energy supply. Instead, the pulled back letting an allied fascist coalition overturn a successful communist anti nazi insurgency.

              2. Also, Communist China and the USSR did not have the most cordial relationship. Did that make Mao a rightest?

                1. No, the Soviets were revisionists. Maoists stayed true to the spirit of Stalin.

                  1. Stalin didn’t even like Mao, speak about revisionism.

                    1. Stalin’s policies vis a vis China were about containing Japan. He turned a blind eye to the Nationalist massacre of Communists in the early 1930s, for example.

                    2. You do know Stalin ruled the soviet union for eight years after the end of World War II, don’t you?

                    3. “You do know Stalin ruled the soviet union for eight years after the end of World War II, don’t you?”

                      More importantly, he ruled the place for some 15 years before the war. Stalin’s policies towards China were pretty stable during the period after the war. Before, there was a lot of back and forth, and Stalin was reacting to circumstances, like the kidnapping of Chiang Kai Shek, something that nobody foresaw and led to big changes, ie the anti-Japanese truce between the communists and the nationalists.

                    4. His policies towards China were hardly very stable. China and Soviets were at best uneasy allies. Stalin did not see Mao as an equal partner, but instead felt they were little more than another puppet state. Mao never trusted the Soviets, and he felt that Stalin intentionally insulted him by making him wait 17 days to talk to Stalin. Mai said as much in. 1958 interview. Additionally, Kruschev felt one of his first duties in 1954 was to mend fences between the USSR and the PCR, if the Stalin-Mao alliance was so cordial there would have been no need to mend fences. The alliance was doomed from the start and since then has almost erupted into open warfare.

                    5. “His policies towards China were hardly very stable. ”

                      They were less stable before the war, as I’ve tried to point out a couple of times. And I’d advise against putting too much stock in the personal feelings between any two politicians. Trump, for example, has repeatedly told us about his warm and respectful feelings towards Chairman Xi, but this will no doubt change with the shifting interests of their respective countries. But personal conflicts and grudges aside, the USSR supported revolutionary China and the communists more than any other nation on the planet. Military, industry, education, there was a whole smorgassbord of support that no other nation could begin to match.

              3. “they say in basketball, keep your eyes on their feet,”

                No, you watch their hips.
                If you’re watching their feet, you’re playing shitty defense

                1. Sorry, I meant bowling.

      2. When you read the literature of the time, it’s apparent they all come from the left side of the ideological spectrum. You never hear them say ‘we Nazis are right-wingers’. It didn’t exist. It’s a myth.

        Fascists were to the ‘right’ on the socialist scale.

        Not ‘right’ as we come to understand it. Progressives did a fantastic job confusing that – as they always do.

        Notice how today they have the balls to claim conservatives and Trump are anti-semites. They just rewrite on a whim and the illiterates eat it up.

        1. They had to because they had to hide the fact that Progressivism wasn’t he parent of Fascism and how similar many of the beliefs of FDR and Wilson were to certain Italian and German dictators.

      3. There is no right-wing rationale for anti-semitism

        Da fuq? While being right wing certainly isn’t synonymous with being anti-Semitic, you have to literally be lying or the dumbest mother effer on the planet to be unaware of instances of right-wing anti-Semitism. (See, e.g., czarist Russia in the 19th and early 20th Centuries or most of Europe between roughly 1100 and 1750.)

        1. How exactly is Czarist Russia or feudal Europe from the dark ages to the enlightenment right wing?

    4. The radical right can’t be reached for comment, as there’s only about 100 of them and they live in the woods.

      The radical left can be found at most major news outlets and in the democratic party, so they’re easier to reach.

      1. Basically, that.

      2. The radical right may live in the woods but their magic powers enable them to feature prominently in the dreams of progressives, like our Tony. They are the Freddy Krueger of politics.

    5. New Nazis are still radical left. There is no right wing socialism.

      1. But there sure as fuck right wing progressivism, Shithole.

      2. +100

  7. The Southern Poverty Law Center rightly considers the Nation of Islam to be an organized hate group.

    Quoting SPLC? Really? I mean “even a stopped clock” and all that, but dang!

    1. This is a good point. I’m surprised reason magazine isn’t on their list of hate publications.

      1. It’s telling that they’re not.

        1. Who could hate Robbies hair?

      2. Reason works hard to stay on their good side.

  8. Wow this is so wrong on so many levels. I am heartbroken by the hostility between Jews and blacks. We should be allies. The fact is, despite ‘antisemitism’ from Farrakhan, Sarsour, Mallory, Mark Lamont Hill, and Angela Davis, the Women’s March saved us from the Trumpocalypse. They went out in the streets by the millions with their pink pussy hats and said to Trump, “Don’t even”. And he saw them and guess what – he didn’t! They deserve most of the credit for this. Furthermore, Israel’s chief rabbi is an outspoken, unapologetic racist yet Jews are silent, and Netanyahu’s son is a supremacist and Jews are silent. It is completely hypocritical for us to attack black people for our own sins. Furthermore, the worst antisemitism I have ever experienced is from Zionists. When we are fighting each other viciously, of course outside troublemakers like Farrakhan will take the bait and pile on. This causes an escalating cycle of hostility leading to violence and genocide. The Birmingham Holocaust foundation protested Davis’ award because of her ‘antisemitism’. The people supposed to protect us from a Holocaust are repeating all the same mistakes of the past. WM are heroes. I am disgusted by my people right now. Sorry, need a minute.

    1. You’re no OBL, but it’s a good effort.

    2. I understand he feelings expressed above. But why should a Judaic be surprise by Jewish repression of fellow Judaics? Has he studied the history of his people? Does he know the history of the Kairite sect? How they were persecuted viciously, mutilated, property coonfiscated?
      The Kairiites are persecuted in Iisrael today because they refuse to. Be conscripted into the IDF.
      The also point out that the. Only truee semites are the Palestinian people. The Biblical Hebrews are extinct. Modern Judaics are mainly Asakenazi., Eastern European or Russian, not Semitic at all.
      Before he weeps over the sins of his people, he. Might check out. Unz..com where “self loathing” Jewish writers explore their peoples history and psychology. Dry. Your tears, my friend. The. Only way to change reality is to face itt clear eyed.

      1. Genetic testing show that the Asakenazi are from Eastern Europe through the matrilineal lines (via mitorchondrial DNA) but the Y chromosome is Middle Eastern. You are pushing a disproven myth to excuse your outright bigotry. Fuck off!

  9. I am surprised that we are focusing solely on Farrakhan’s anti-semitism.

    He has never been shy about calling white people the blue-eyed devil. In fact, his religion explicitly states that white people were not created by God, but by an evil scientist.

    I suppose using anti-semitism is easier, since you could link someone to Hitler and the Holocaust if they are anti-Semitic. But his entire theology is based on anti white racism. They aren’t the least bit secretive about it. They are very open about their racism against white people.

    And in the modern world, their view on women is quite misogynistic.

    but yeah, he’s prone to make the offhanded anti-semitic comment as well.

    1. Just for some context, here is a good minister relating the topic in his own words.

      https://youtu.be/cbVvc9y6rMM

    2. Bigotry against whites is okay. Or at least not as bad as other forms of bigotry. The equality lecture my employer forced me to go to last fall told me so.

    3. I am surprised that we are focusing solely on Farrakhan’s anti-semitism.

      He has never been shy about calling white people the blue-eyed devil. In fact, his religion explicitly states that white people were not created by God, but by an evil scientist.

      In the eyes of intersectionality AND Reason, you cannot be racist against white people.

    4. I am surprised that we are focusing solely on Farrakhan’s anti-semitism.

      He has never been shy about calling white people the blue-eyed devil. In fact, his religion explicitly states that white people were not created by God, but by an evil scientist.

      In the eyes of intersectionality AND Reason, you cannot be racist against white people.

    5. It’s Robby trying to talk intersectionality leftists back from the insanity. There is no room for white people in that worldview so the anti-white racism is perfectly acceptable and even to be applauded as speaking truth to power.

  10. Mallory’s extreme reluctance to disassociate herself from a noxiously anti-Semitic figure is characteristic of the far-left. At elite college campuses, criticism of the state of Israel?legitimate or not?occasionally overlaps with anti-Semitism.

    Something that “occasionally” happens in a movement isn’t usually considered “characteristic” of that movement.

    But this type of “analysis” is characteristic of Robby’s hackish coverage of the “far-left [sic].”

    1. “But this type of “analysis” is characteristic of Robby’s hackish coverage of the “far-left [sic].””

      Yeah, you worthless piece of shit, Robby never tries to be “balanced”.

      1. That is some A-list sarcasm right there.

      2. Who’s asking for balance? Logic would suffice.

        1. Take your hairy arm pitted jew hatred elsewhere Cathy

        2. This is a hoist by their own petard argument. These folks run around demanding that their political opponents denounce anyone who stumbles over words, wears the wrong type of outfit, eats the wrong type of food, goes to the wrong type of movie…. So now they closely associated themselves with a loud and proud anti-semite. That is the perfect time to use a sauce for the goose type of approach.

          1. Did you read my original comment above? That has nothing to do with it.

          2. If we just got rid of the progtards, this would all go away.

        3. Cathy L|1.15.19 @ 11:02AM|#
          “Who’s asking for balance? Logic would suffice.”

          Why would I wast timee being logical with an ignoramus like you?

    2. We know that social issue libertarians like you care far more about the Faith of Intersectionality than anything else, but there is quite a difference between those who are critical of Israeli policy (Scott Horton) and those who criticize Israel as a uniquely evil nation due to the religious/ethnic composition of its inhabitants (Farrakhan and several elected Democrats now).

      1. Fuck off, liar.

        1. Do you not see a difference between Scott Horton, Sheldon Richman, or Ron Paul’s criticisms of Israel and that of Farrakhan and Women’s March leaders? Paul was just smeared as an antisemite for posting a stupid picture for an article that he wrote and all three of them are constantly smeared by Republicans as antisemites, but we should instead be more understanding of the extreme Left who base their criticism of Israel not in some consistent opposition to war, but in a perverse pyramid of oppression and racialized stereotypes? That makes no sense

          1. Do you not see a difference between Scott Horton, Sheldon Richman, or Ron Paul’s criticisms of Israel and that of Farrakhan and Women’s March leaders?

            Why should I answer a single question from you until you retract your false claim about things I said about Kavanaugh? Seriously, go fuck yourself.

            1. What false statements did he make? Because I never saw him misrepresent anything you said about Kavanaugh. What I think happens is you allowed your hatred to bleed through and he called you put and you realized how bad you looked. So your only defense (rather then being truthful and admitting you went to far) was to imply he liked about you. But anyone who read the exchange is well aware of who is not being honest. Hint it isn’t Just Say’n. Like most progressives you hate when people point out how intolerant you really are and your default response is a personal attack. Your inability for self reflection is astounding at times. That’s what happens when you expect a participation trophy for everything you do.

              1. What false statements did he make? Because I never saw him misrepresent anything you said about Kavanaugh.

                Lol, is this a joke? He claimed I said Kavanaugh ran a gang rape ring. Since I never said that, he can’t point to me saying it, and neither can you. It’s completely made up.

                1. You referred to those exact allegations and implied it multiple times. So, again how did he lie?

                  1. BTW I saw him quote you directly and you still accused him of lying. It seems to be a common tactic of the left.

                    1. You mean when he said this?

                      Maybe you should re-read the comments where you are defending the position that “Devil’s Triangle” and “boofing” do not mean what Kavanaugh says that they mean. That sounds like being a “boofing truther”, otherwise known as “the respectable man’s QAnon”.

                      He wasn’t quoting me directly there. Go ahead, follow his link and see. This is all made up out of whole cloth, only because Just Say’n really wanted to score points dunking on a tweet from ENB. It’s completely absurd.

                      Once again, no one can point to me actually saying Kavanaugh ran a gang rape ring, because I never said anything remotely resembling that.

                    2. Suggesting that he was lying about the meaning behind “Devil’s Triangle” and “boofing” and then suggesting that his angry reaction to Senators who accused him of being a gang rapist absent evidence made him unqualified for the Court is the definition of a “boofing truther”. Those were your comments.

                      And I wasn’t “dunking” on anyone. I was stating that the opposition today is profoundly shittier than it was under the Bush administration. Under Bush the opposition opposed war overseas, which is reversed now.

                    3. Suggesting that he was lying about the meaning behind “Devil’s Triangle” and “boofing” and then suggesting that his angry reaction to Senators who accused him of being a gang rapist absent evidence made him unqualified for the Court is the definition of a “boofing truther”. Those were your comments.

                      Dude, you are out of your goddamn mind, at best. You can’t point to where I actually said any of that. All you can point to is a subthread, the Tulpa half of which was nuked. Quote a fucking post I wrote while linking to it if you think you have such great backup. You do not.

                    4. Did you actually defend those accusations? Yes you did. I also saw you backtrack really quickly but you did make those defenses. The fact that now you are once again acting as if you didn’t is all the evidence we need of your inability to admit mistakes. Go collect your participation trophy.

                    5. BTW, the very fact that you continue to worry about what he said over three months ago demonstrates how fragile your ego is. Most people would just call him an asshole and move on. Not bring it up again in a totally unrelated thread three months plus after the fact.

                    6. BTW, the very fact that you continue to worry about what he said over three months ago

                      Lol, what the fuck are you talking about now? I’m complaining about what he said yesterday.

                    7. So your butthurt over something he said yesterday about something that happened three months ago? And this makes you look better how? (Eye brow cocked inquisitively).

            2. Cathy, he doesn’t owe you shit.

    3. “Something that “occasionally” happens in a movement isn’t usually considered “characteristic” of that movement.”

      But you fuck one goat!

    4. Well, you could point to the other women’s groups that were excluded from the previous march (pro-life supporters were the major ones, which given Farrakhan’s stance is questionable). Or that several local women’s marches have been canceled because they don’t want to be associated with Farrakhan.

      I mean, do as you will, but consistency hasn’t been their strong suit, and let’s not kid ourselves that is is a very, very specific type of leftism that they are promoting.

      1. I agree that there are a shitload of excellent criticisms that could be made of the Women’s March.

    5. Robby is reflexively incapable of criticizing the left so his “occasionally overlaps” is much closer to “consistently lines up with”.

  11. But for some reason, anti-Semitism in the ranks is just not a concern.

    Perhaps the reason is Jews are a subset of white people with a “disproportionate representation in the elite”

  12. But for some reason, anti-Semitism in the ranks is just not a concern.

    Perhaps the reason is Jews are a subset of white people with a “disproportionate representation in the elite”

    1. They also seem to be okay with bigotry towards people of Eastern Asian heritage.

    2. Progressives are just bigots at their core. That’s the real problem.

  13. the hypocrisy of intersectionality

    I suppose if you’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, taking their arguments at face value and willing to stipulate that they’re good-faith arguments, you might call it hypocrisy. If you’re a little more cynical you might find it easy enough to assume they’re lying, manipulative, scheming pieces of shit willing to say or to do anything to gain power and they fully intend to use that power to stomp the shit out of anybody they don’t like. They don’t want equality, they want vengeance.

  14. If the Left doesn’t watch out, they’ll lose their Jewish bloc vote. And then they’ll have no intellectuals left.

    1. You’re not kidding. Their average IQ would instantly drop about 20-30 points!

    2. And the Eastern Asian heritage after that.

      1. Asians are already on double secret probation, since they won’t give up their spots at Harvard and MIT.

        1. Because we measure equality of outcome (at least when it is convenient to our narrative). It would be funny to see the East Asian community go all Animal house on Harvard and MIT’s Dean Wermer.

      2. Dude, what’s with the fetish?

        1. Because if you can find a more blatant example of the left’s hypocrsy then their treatment of Asians I would love to see it. And besides, Asian women are sexy.

  15. Tamika Mallory called Farrakhan the “Greatest of all time” (“GOAT”). More appropriate might be “Great odious ruffianly idiotic low life antisemite” (you can figure out the acronym).

    1. Why isn’t it GAT? It’s the proper way to write it as an acronym.

  16. Uhhhh, most non-Jewish leftists love this jerkoff Calypso Louie. Guess who is good buddies with him that the scummy vermin in the JournoList successfully managed to cover up for a decade-plus?

    If you said Block Insane Yomomma, pat yourself on the back because you’re absolutely correct!

    1. If you said Block Insane Yomomma

      No one beside you has ever said that, dingus.

  17. Sorry, but if you want these groups to treat antisemitism as being somehow comparable to racism/homophobia/islamaphobia, then you’re going to have to enlist a lot more blacks, gays, trans, and mexicans into the ranks of judaism. Until then, judaism is going to be seen a religion of conservative white people and zero shits will be given.

    1. ” blacks, gays, trans, and mexicans”

      LOL yea these groups are pounding on the Temple door

      1. “We’ve only known a few hundred years of persecution and slavery if that! We want to know more! Let us in!”

    2. ” then you’re going to have to enlist a lot more blacks, gays, trans, and mexicans into the ranks of judaism”

      There are plenty of gay, mexican and black jews.

      “Until then, judaism is going to be seen a religion of conservative white people and zero shits will be given.”

      Just ask Woody Allen.

    3. “you’re going to have to enlist a lot more blacks, gays, trans, and mexicans into the ranks of judaism.”

      Like my interior decorator, Tyrona (formerly Tyrone) Ramirez?

      1. Oops, that was insensitive. I should have said Tyrona Ramirez-Shapiro.

  18. Psst…Al Sharpton started a race riot against Jews in the 80’s. Why are we pretending like Farrakhan is some kind of aberration?

    1. And it was based on a lie, just like he initially gained Fame on a lie.

      1. And he still keeps showing up as some sort of ‘authority’.

        1. Yep. MSLSD gave him a tv show, amd Obama made him an advisor who had regular physical access to the White House.

    2. Pure evil Sharpton.

      Two innocent men lost their lives needlessly if memory serves me right.

      What did tat piece of shit Sharpton call Jews? Diamond dealers or something?

      May Sharpton hopefully rot in hell one day.

  19. “”one might expect some consistency.””

    Come on Robby, in the world of principals over principles, I expect no such thing.

    1. People should be consistent. But it’s something you can’t expect.

      Trying to keep people consistent means hearing them cry about Whataboutism.

    2. Leftism is the rationalization of self-interest. It is always consistent.

    3. Consistency requires the application of logic. Logic is a tool of the patriarchy that oppresses women. Why should there be any expectation of consistency in a progressive movement?

      1. I am not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but at the risk of looking stupid, I actually have seen some argue that logic and math are tools of the patriarchy. Or that using logic is mansplaining.

        1. Oh and white colonialism.

        2. So have I, which is we why I am being only somewhat sarcastic. Many parts of the Left have explicitly rejected reason, you cannot expect them to apply reason to their positions.

          1. I thought so, but in this times, the left keeps demonstrating how right Poe was.

  20. I find it ironic that the womens march has had to resort to running a national campaign add multiple times a day to get people interested in going. Maybe people figured out that they are just protesters for protestings sake without a stand to stand on

    1. Because OBL hasn’t showed up yet… Wait until we go full Handmaiden’s Tale, then they’ll realize how wrong they were. I apologize, Xe is much better at this than I am.

  21. Intersectionality isn’t hollow. It’s evil.

    1. Now you’re gettin’ it.

  22. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  23. In the world of intersectionality, Jews just do not rate; between Israel and too much representation in the professions, banking/finance, and entertainment, they are just not victimy enough any more. Antisemitic is still a bad word [Hitler, after all] but when it comes the the board game of outrage, their cards are at the bottom of the pile. Literally anyone can trump them at claiming oppression.

    1. Except WASPs, naturally. They are literally the devil.

    2. What about those of Eastern Asian heritage? The left seems to short change them too a lot. I mean they defend affirmative action which seems to hurt Eastern Asians even more than Whites.

      1. Asians are too good at math and overall success apparently. They really tend to fuck up the poor opporessed immigrant narrative so they are about one rung higher than Jews. They may even be approaching the oppressor label.

        I’m seriously thinking about inventing a board game for this; going to call it “Outrage! The game that lets you settle your scores!” There could be cards for triggering, microaggression, and intersectionality, to name a few. Of course you’ll be assigned an oppressed status at the beginning and will just have to work with that unless you get a “transgender” card and then you move up several notches.

        1. Korean (especially) store owners already are often portrayed as oppressors.

        2. Can I identify as a bisexual female who prefers to dress in Butch?

  24. I have to admit, I’m kind of unclear on the difference between “disagree with” and “condemn.” Is “condemning” just disagreeing super hard? What does Mallory need to do to “condemn” Farrakhan’s views besides state that she thinks he’s wrong?

    Is it that when you “disagree” you are implying that the person you disagree with just made an honest and understandable mistake; whereas if you “condemn” you are implying that they reached their views because some defect of character distorted their thought process?

    I also don’t see any issue with condemning Farrakhan while simultaneously admiring positive things he did. I condemn Thomas Jefferson for owning slaves, but I admire his many intellectual achievements. I condemn Noam Chomsky for denying the mass murders in Cambodia, but think his work in linguistics has a lot of merit.

    1. “greatest of all time because of what he has done for black communities.” That pretty much completely erases her “disagreement” with him.

      1. And I don’t think a weak “disagreement” is the same as condemning him. Condemnation would be along the lines of his views on this subject are repulsive. Also, your example of Jefferson is not a great one, Jefferson hated slavery but practiced it, he wrestled with the moral implications his entire life and freed a number of his slaves (only to buy more later). Farrakhan has shown no moral dilemma in his anti-Semitism, or his other bigotries.

    2. Yeah, I’m not a big fan of “If you don’t condemn X, then you must agree with it.” I just don’t have time to condemn all the shit I’m stridently opposed to, then when I’m talking to you, you bust out with “Do you condemn human sacrifice?” uh… I’m not going to dance for you. I’m not your monkey. Next thing I know, you are going to say that anything I don’t actively condemn, I must condone. No. Fuck off slaver.

      1. But that isn’t what happened here. They were asked about someone the openly Ally themselves with. It wasn’t a random question.

  25. There is no such thing as transphobia. Phobias are irrational fears. Trans isn’t a normal thing like spiders or heights. It’s not even as normal as homosexuality.

  26. “Their goal was to create a more democratic society “which guarantees political freedom, economic and physical security, abundant education, and incentives for wide cultural variety”.”

    From wikipedia article on the Weather Underground.

  27. You have to realize this is entirely consistent with SJW “thought”. The more victim points you have, the more you’re allowed to express racism and sexism. White women only have 1 victim point, so that’s why the SJWs are after them sometimes; they really only outrank white men. Muslims have more than 1 point, so that entitles them to be immune from criticism over the anti-gay and anti-women aspects of their religion. Black females and black muslims are at the very top of the victim points hierarchy, so they’re allowed to be as openly hateful as they want against anyone lower on the pyramid. Understand? So a white man saying “Kill all the Jews!!!!” is pure evil, but a black muslim or black female? They have a sufficient point tally to say that.

    It’s terrifying that the above isn’t a joke and actually descibes the SJW’s ideal society; doubly so because of how they’re bullied the rest of the left into silence, lest they get the James Watson treatment for stating un-PC facts or daring to suggest that people should not be judged by the color of their but by the content of their character (a tool of white supremacy!).

    1. It is like D&D, only here instead of hit points you have oppression points.
      Player 1: “I choose to hurt a level three anti-Semitic insult”
      Dungeon Master (rolls 20 sides die and calculates against your oppression points) ” you were unable to fend off accusations of anti-Semitism”
      Player 2: “Told you, you shouldn’t bplay the levek 3 straight white female SJW.”

      1. You know, because this is a libertarian leaning website (at least the commentators if not the actual authors and editors) someone will now debate me if using a D20 is appropriate or if you should use a 10 sided die.

    2. Go fish out Boyce explaining the lawsuit against Lindsey Shepherd on YouTube. The two professors she recorded are suing her. The suit asserts, among other things, this female TA exerted power of the two tenured SJW professors.

      The school by the way concluded their interrogation was not appropriate and should never have happened.

      They’re not only cowards (as most of these jerk offs are) but bullies. At around the 14m mark of the video you can hear her quicker and break down. It was truly sad to listen to.

      These are the people seeking ‘justice.’

      I’ll stop here because if that was my daughter who went thought that….

      1. Basically they are claiming the Shephard is responsible for making their slander of Jordan Peterson public (they said he was equivalent to Hitler among other false claims of things he has done to opponents) as a reason why her showing an interview with him was out of bounds. As if the claims they made as representatives of school policy were any less slander if it was just between them and Shephard. It seems a pretty desperate and sleazy legal tactic to redirect blame at the person they abused their authority on.

        1. Yup.

  28. “Conservative host Meghan McCain”

    Good one!

    1. They still insist David Brooks is conservative too. Dont you know anything byo the right of Sanders/AOC is conservative these days (which basically means anyone who has more than three working brain cells).

      1. Lol. I know.

        He’s a token conservative.

        A cuck conservative.

        I picture the NYT editors giving him a Scooby snack after every *conservative* article he writes.

        While we’re at it, they insist Krugman and Friedman are liberals – and with the former one with a conscience!. I see no evidence of that. I see two PROGRESSIVES.

        1. >>>Scooby snack

          prune juice and beets. Dave is a billion years old

  29. Jewish is a religion, a choice, and like all choices are subject to criticism.

    What people do, like Israelis, are also a choice.

    Anyone stupid enough to consider choices irrefutable constants, like race or sex, are bound to step in it.

    These people do think you’re whatever sex you say you are.

    1. Jewish is a people, Judaism is a religion. There is a difference. Not all Jews practice Judaism and not all followers of Judaism are Jewish. Pendantry is important.

      1. As are semantics.

      2. One should keep in mind that Mr. Misek here believes that WWII was caused by a Jewish conspiracy, that Hitler was only trying to help the Jews by protecting them in those camps, that “Holocaust survivors” are actually just paid actors, and that Paul McCartney was killed in a car crash in 1966.

        1. Actually, I said something like this, which I backed up with all the necessary links, right here.

          Well the whole Nazi narrative is a study of fake news.

          Contradicting the official Nazi holocaust narrative with actual evidence of science and history is considered hatred and is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

          Germany was winning WW1. Nobody had an answer to uboats. So the UK began shipping arms on passenger liners and hospital ships, the most notable the Lusitania. Global Zionists promised to bring the US into the war in exchange for Palestine, via the Balfour declaration, when Louis Brandeis, leader of the American Zionist organization was appointed to the Supreme Court and as Wilson’s “special counsel” to WW1.

          Germany knew what caused the loss of WW1 and when a leader showed up promising to put things right, they elected Hitler in 1932. Then global Zionists officially declared war on Germany and coerced nations around the world to boycott Germany’s necessary imports and exports in 1933. Germans had a choice, hand their democracy back over to Weimar or prepare for war. What would you do?

          The US entered the war again to oppose democracy.

          All of it for the Zionist lust for Palestine and look how they have terrorized and oppressed Palestinians for the last 70 years enabled by the most financial aid America has ever given anyone.

          What if Zionists never duped the US into WW1?

          https://reason.com/archives/2019/01/02/trump-
          is-right-about-the-ridiculous-misu#comment

          1. Wow. Germany under Hitler was a Democracy? By what definition are you using? And the rest is just as ignorant. Germany was not winning, nor losing the first world war. Wilson, a well known anti-Semite, was the one who manufactured the US entry into the war. Jews served with distinction in the Imperial German Army and Austro-Hungarian military. In greater numbers than in the Allied armies. The majority of German Jews considered themselves Patriots during the first world war. Etc.

            1. Yes, there were elections in 1932, Hitler got 36% of the vote and was made Chancellor shortly thereafter.

              Prior to their treachery during WW1, Jews enjoyed more freedom in Germany than anywhere else in Europe.

              The facts of their actions resulted in popular sentiment then, and now as witnessed in Palestine.

              It isn’t racist.

              1. The elections in 1932 were the last Hitler allowed. So no, they were not Democratic. Try again dumbfuck. And you have made accusations of treachery but there is zero evidence or reason for aforementioned treachery to exists. Basically, you are a dumbfuck that parrots easily disproven racist conspiracy bullshit. You try and dress up your bigotry as some form of intellectualism, but you just keep showing how ignorant of the truth you are.

                1. Here’s an outspoken Israeli, the son of a General, who has the guts to tell it like it is. Anti Semitic how?

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

                  1. And? That somehow disproves the science? Jesus you are stupid. One person’s opinion, widely rejected within the scientific community, is not proof of shit. You are trying to excuse your own anti-Semitism, no matter how you try and dress it up.

              2. Wow Rob, you really hate Jews, don’t you?

                1. Fuck no.

                  I’ve got Jew acquaintances.

                  Jews are more brainwashed than the rest of you. Some really believe they’re the chosen people who can do no wrong.

                  That’s a long way to fall.

                  1. Some really believe they’re the chosen people who can do no wrong.

                    Sounds like you’ve never met a Jew in your life. If you had, you’d know that guilt is a very big thing in Judaism.

                    -jcr

                    1. Based on their actions, Jews should be wallowing in that human emotion.

                    2. Fuck off, Adolf.

                      -jcr

      3. People who choose to define themselves by their religion, which is subject to criticism.

        1. But they don’t. Many Jews are atheist but still proudly claim to be Jewish.

          1. Yeah, fucked up, like atheist Christians.

            1. You can’t be a atheist Christian because Christian isn’t an ethnic group.

          2. Do you realize that 75% of “Semitic” people’s are Arab?

            1. And? Genetic testing has shown that the Asakenazi Jews are also Semitic via their y Chromosome, i.e. the patrilenial line.

              1. The people stealing Palestinian homes and oppressing the people aren’t. They are just self proclaimed Jews.

                1. What the fuck are you talking about? The majority of modern Israelis are Asakenazi Jews who, as I stated above, have been genetically shown to be Semitic.

                  1. Wtf are you talking about? They still only represent 25% of Semitic peoples, the rest Arab.

                    When did Jews steal the term?

                    1. So what? It doesn’t matter if they are 25% or 100%, they are still semetic, and your hatred and bigotry towards them, based on disinformation to boot, is no less repugnant because they are only 25% of Semitic people (which you claimed they were not true Semites just a few posts ago). You can’t even make a coherent argument.

                    2. What does that matter? It doesn’t matter if they are 25% or 100% of Semitic people, it doesn’t make your hatred and bigotry, nor your spreading of long disproven myths and tinfoil hat conspiracies any less repugnant. And weren’t you just a few posts ago stating they, Israelis, were not true Semites? Can you even keep your own ignorant arguments straight?

                    3. Fucking squirrels!

                    4. Yeah, you’re nuts.

            2. It is true that Semitic is a misnomer in describing Jews.

              We also know that it is a fallacy to say that antisemitism does not mean what we think it means.

              It has been clearly stated above.

              Judaism is a religion and there are branches on that tree.

              Jews are a people. It has nothing to do with DNA.

              They are intertwined

              The tree is important in Judaism.

              Eitz chayim hi.

              1. Definition

                Jew
                “a person whose religion is Judaism.”

                Here there is no misnomer.

                1. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                2. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                3. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                4. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                5. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                6. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                7. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                8. No that isn’t the definition. The closest I could find to that state a ethnic group that historically is associated with the Abrahamic religion of Judaism. Note associated with historically, but that doesn’t make it a requirement. Damn just stop. You keep insisting on something that has been disproven multiple times. Just because you keep repeating the same lie doesn’t make it any truer.

                  1. Wag, you better check with your Rabbi and go talk to the dictionary company dipshit.

                    Like the second definition for Jew on dictionary.com.

                    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew

                9. You can do better than that.

                  You think you can throw 5000 years of history at me with six words you cut and pasted.

                  Weak.

                  1. How many of those years despised by everyone?

                    Not because of your “religion”, just because of your actions.

                    Poor persecuted Jew my ass.

              2. How is the term Semitic a misnomer for the Jewish people? Mitorchondrial DNA shows a matrilineal origin in Eastern Europe and Y chronosome DNA shows a patrilenial origin in the Middle East, closely related to other Semetic cultures in the region.

                1. Dipshit, Semitic refers more to Arabs than Jews. 75% vs 25% in fact.

                  I’m not criticizing the behaviour of Arabs, so I’m not being anti Semitic.

                  If I followed Judaism, smirk, I would be a fucking Jew. It’s that simple.

                2. Because it is not defined internally that way.

                  In truth there is no single definition.

                  As it should be. There is no progress without frontiers.

                  1. Internally eh?

                    An inside joke? Or a secret society with conspiracies? How many thousands of years does it take dipshits to learn that people don’t that?

                    So you and your rabbi won’t be correcting the dictionary company then? I’m not surprised.

      4. Definition
        Jew
        “a person whose religion is Judaism.”

        That’s all it takes to be a Jew.

        1. Rob you are not fooling anyone.

          1. Really?

            1. Name one person here you are fooling.

              1. Kol Nidre, religious planning to lie, is your deal.

                You’re right, I’m not trying to fool anyone.

                1. Putz.

    2. “Jewish is a religion”

      It’s an ethnicity. That’s why there’s such a thing as secular jews. A secular jew is still a jew.

      “These people do think you’re whatever sex you say you are.”

      Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

      1. Functioning reproductive organs and genetics take all the guesswork or of sex, for all but the most extremely disordered.

        1. “Functioning reproductive organs and genetics take all the guesswork or of sex”

          The fact that most people wear clothing specifically designed to hide these reproductive organs puts guesswork front and center.

          1. Fill your boots.

  30. “This year’s activities, which kick off at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, should be just as vital as they were in 2017 and 2016?Donald Trump is still president, after all”

    Lol. Just couldn’t write an article without mentioning Orange Man Bad. Out with it. Why is it vital? What precisely has Trump done WHILE IN OFFICE AND SERVING (as opposed to, say, Bill) that demands the marches are vital?

    Curious.

    1. Because Reason(s).

      1. This is on par roughly with Trump is a Nazi.

        Okay. What SPECIFICALLY has he said and done that makes him a literal Nazi?

        I love asking people that.

        Because *reason (s)” and ‘dude, if you’re too stupid to see it!’

        If you’ve said Trump is a Nazi you may be functionally retarded.

  31. It’s worth mentioning, though, Ocasio-Corrrrtez and Rashida Tlaib are friends with Sarsour – a most despicable individual.

    The left are wicked stupid people.

    1. Well we have a Hindu who has some pretty questionable views on homosexuality running for the Democratic nomination.

      1. Is that right?

        E.L.E!

        EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!

        1. Look up Gabbard…

        2. I was just reading more on her. She is a strong supporter of Modi, a well known Hindu extremist who is using his power to persecute non-Hindus in India. Has condemned a resolution calling for the US to discuss religious freedom with India. She also opposed the arrest of an Indian diplomat who was charged with perjury and Visa fraud when the diplomat was caught basically practicing slavery.

          1. Tulsi? The new ‘she surfs’ darling of the DNC?

            1. Exactly, I think they are starting to realize how stupid and crazy AOC is and have to keep the Indian vote (they are afraid that Haley might run in 2024 and if the Democrats don’t win in 2020, Haley could very well become the first female president and appeal to the Indian immigrant population).

            2. Can we just be honest and admit that the democrats have been taken over by marxists who want to overthrow our republic? The party must be forcibly disbanded and it’s leaders dealt with.

              Or you can all just let them continue to take over.

              1. It is definitely a process that started a long time ago. The head of the communist party in the US in the 1940s even stated that the Democratic party was little different then the communist party.

                1. People better start organizing roetty quick. Hollywood and the media need to be destroyed. That would greatly weaken the democrat/Marxist machine.

  32. “The term intersectionality dates to the late 1980s, when sociologists coined the word to describe the cumulative oppression of being black and being a woman.”

    Sociologists? You mean Marxists.

    1. The phrases are interchangeable.

  33. This question of “intersectionality” is actually a rehash of debates that go back to the 19th century. Early feminists saw a connection between the struggle for women’s rights and the one for black rights. Whether or not to continue that alliance caused disagreements among feminists in the late 1800s.

  34. Consistency? I don’t know one freaking person; libertarian, democrat, republican or green party who is completely consistent with the philosophy they claim to represent (NIMBYs for open borders?). Good thing we don’t have consistency police. What we do know is that human beings are tribal and cultural beings.

  35. So what does this bitch have against Jews anyway? Does she think it’s their fault that she’s a pig-ignorant, ugly, guilt-peddling waste of space?

    -jcr

  36. Apparently a group of nazis that some in the left can love.

  37. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you……
    http://www.geosalary.com

  38. Ya know, it’s not anti-Semitic to accept the factual reality that Jews DO control most of the media and entertainment in the USA.

    Look up who is the CEO of pretty much any major media company. Jews are 2-3% of the US population… They run basically every big media company in the USA. I work in the media industry, I know this from my personal life. It just is. It is not debatable. Some Jews have even written articles about it, and said “So what, it’s a good thing, because we Jews are awesome!”

    Anyway, the point is, pointing out things that are objectively true, just because some people might not like what they shine light on, does not make it inherently racist or whatever. Blacks commit 50% of murders in the US. It’s a fact. Most people don’t know this. If you tell somebody that fact, and it pisses them off… Well, it’s reality. It’s not racist to tell the truth, even if it might make some people angry.

  39. Why is he not also considered homophobic? One of the specific “anti-semitic” quotes in the article was him blaming the Jews for making gays acceptable! If anti-semitism is no longer a disqualifier for the left, being anti-gay certainly should be. The answer to the question, of course, is because he is a black non-Republican.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.