Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: The Sulzbergers and the New York Times

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 25 Jun 2015 00:40 #1

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8020
The fun they had: New York Times staff mimicked mass killings in leaked photos



The headquarters of the New York Times (Reuters / Gary Hershorn)

Two leaked photographs show top New York Times staff in poses making fun of mass killings shortly after they happened.

An unnamed former New York Times employee provided Gawker with the photos, which were then published on Tuesday. They show an apparent disconnect between the NYT image of decorous professionalism and literal images of staff making light of mass death.



One photo shows the longtime NYT opinion page editor Andrew Rosenthal wielding a fake M16 rifle and a bottle of wine over staffers stained with fake blood, recreating the June 2001 Nepalese royal massacre. The massacre was committed by the Crown Prince Dipendra, who took the lives of nine people including the king, queen, as well as his own. One of the weapons that he used was an M16.

The calendar on the wall indicates that the reenactment also occurred in June 2001, when the memory of the tragedy would have still been fresh in the minds of the public.



The other photo shows a large number of staff posing in an apparently laborious reenactment of the Heaven’s Gate mass suicide of 1997. Bill Keller, who would go on to reach the position of executive editor, is seen presiding over the staff posing as post-suicide cultists. Executive editor is the highest-ranking editorial position at NYT.

“These photos are in poor taste, not reflective of the values of The New York Times and deeply regrettable,” NYT’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. told Gawker in a statement Tuesday morning. Schulzberg is also the Chairman of the paper’s owner, The New York Times Company.

This embarrassment occurs only three days after it was revealed that the paper was tricked into publishing an article claiming that the Charleston shooter Dylann Roof was a diehard fan of the children’s cartoon My Little Pony.

The New York Times is considered to be a “paper of record” in the United States, meaning that it’s one of the most authoritative, professional and widely respected media institutions in the country.
rt.com/usa/269233-nyt-joke-mass-killings/
Last Edit: 25 Jun 2015 00:43 by Orangeaid.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 25 Jun 2015 11:30 #2

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8020
How Two Jewish Publishers Who Privately Opposed Zionism Folded

By Staff | 01/06/07 12:53pm

In her 1997 autobiography, the late Katharine Graham of the Washington Post described her father as an assimilating Jew who didn’t talk about his Jewishness to his Episcopal-church-going children. He was “involved in Jewish charities, causes, and international issues.

“He was not a Zionist, however, believing strongly that he was an American citizen first and foremost.”

That’s odd. Her father, the financier Eugene I. Meyer Jr., who bought the Washington Post in the 1930s, is a figure in Zionist history. Behind the scenes, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis turned to Meyer again and again for money to support the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Meyer met with Brandeis’s Zionist klatches, personally lobbied his friend FDR on their account, and agreed to head the University Zionist society—an organization to build support among Jews on campus (per Brandeis’s letters, edited by Melvin Urofsky and David W. Levy, and Peter Grose’s Israel in the Mind of America).

So was Katharine Graham lying about her father?

Well, no. Despite Meyer’s support, even Brandeis conceded late in life that “his heart was never in Zionism and he did this largely on my account.” So Meyer was merely tithing—to something he didn’t believe in. This speaks to an interesting feature of the Israel lobby: It has long counted on support from assimilationist Jews who were lukewarm on the idea but went along under pressure from their nationalist Jewish friends.

Consider Meyer’s counterpart at the NYT: former publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger. When Sulzberger died in 1968, the Times obit was emphatic about his views. “[Jewishness] was to him a religion, not a nationality. He did not believe Jews to be a race or a people, and, like Mr. Ochs [his father-in-law], was deeply opposed to the Zionism movement…”

Deeply opposed. Successful assimilating German Jews like Sulzberger and Meyer loved America. They were becoming big deals in the land of opportunity, they didn’t quite see the point of Zionism—though they knew that Eastern European Jews who had fled pogroms were excited by it.

Sulzberger flirted with public declarations of his anti-Zionism. According to Thomas Kolsky’s splendid history, Jews Against Zionism, in the 1940s, Sulzberger helped draft the mission statement of the anti-Zionist Jewish organization, the American Council for Judaism—which opposed “all philosophies that stress the racialism, the nationalism and the homelessness of the Jews, as injurious to their interests.” Wow.

But in the end Sulzberger dithered and didn’t sign on publicly. He wanted to, he told the Reform rabbis who headed the group. But till it got a big following, he just couldn’t do so. It would hurt the integrity of the newspaper. Chicken.

Besides, the nascent Israel lobby was already on the Times’ case, accusing it of being “a transmission belt for anti-Zionist propaganda.” This ticked Sulzberger off. He said the viciousness of the Zionists’ attacks were a big reason he had converted to anti-Zionism!

What is my point? Here are two powerful Jews, one a non-Zionist, the other anti-, controlling two of the most important newspapers, and both are afraid to express their views. Some may call that professionalism, I call it abdication: they were holding back on a central issue of the time. The publishers of the New Republic and the New York Sun and Commentary would never cheat their readers of their views of Israel, that’s their raison d’etre.

Why didn’t these men express their views? I think they were ashamed of their assimilation. And they were outplayed by the nationalists in their community. Kolsky says that the Zionists beat the anti-Zionists not on the issues, but by outsmarting them. They put them on the defensive by saying they were unrepresentative or “self-hating.” They allowed them to piously play by the rules—no lobbying! the anti-Zionists declared— while the Zionists were working the White House. Give them credit. Today the Israel lobby works the cloakrooms and paints anyone who criticizes the intimacy of the U.S.-Israel relationship as an anti-Semite; and liberal Jews sigh and walk away.

Lately Richard Cohen of the Washington Post admitted regretfully that the creation of Israel was a “mistake.” Sixty years ago a group of Reform anti-Zionist Jews were saying just that: that a Jewish state was an anachronism, it would result in endless violence in the Middle East, and would require support from Jews here, which would make those Jews confused about their allegiance. The two publishers evidently shared many of these views but couldn’t take a stand.

So what was the position of liberal assimilating Jews in the Zionist movement? Just what Stokely Carmichael said the position of women was in the black power movement: prone.

Read more at observer.com/2007/01/how-two-jewish-publishers-who-privately-opposed-zionism-folded/#ixzz3e4J8865R 
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: rodin

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 06 Aug 2015 13:11 #3

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8020
The Jew York Times: (Blames White Hate to Determine) Why Are Our Parks So White?

National Park Service needs affirmative action to promote “diversity”

By Hunter Wallace



Although Ken Burns made a documentary called “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea,” The New York Times is lamenting that black people aren’t so fond of the pristine wilderness, and attribute their lack of interest in nature to, what else, White racism:

“The national parks attracted a record 292.8 million visitors in 2014, but a vast majority were white and aging. The most recent survey commissioned by the park service on visitation, released in 2011, found that 22 percent of visitors were minorities, though they make up some 37 percent of the population.

This suggests an alarming disconnect. The Census Bureau projects that the country will have a majority nonwhite population by 2044. If that new majority has little or no relationship with the outdoors, then the future of the nation’s parks, and the retail and nonprofit ecosystem that surrounds them, will be in trouble. …

There was always nervous banter as we cruised through small rural towns on our way to a park. And there were jokes about finding a “Whites Only” sign at the entrance to our destination or the perils of being lynched or attacked while collecting firewood after the sun went down. Our cultural history taught us what to expect.”

Rather than ridicule and dismiss this absurd idea, The New York Times treats this sort of black hysteria about White lynch mobs lurking in the wilderness of Yosemite and Yellowstone with a tone of seriousness. Among other black conspiracy theories and urban legends, millions of black people also believe that the US federal government created AIDS to kill off the black population and that Church’s Chicken is owned by the Ku Klux Klan and uses a secret ingredient to make black men sterile.

“We need to demolish the notion that the national parks and the rest of nature are an exclusive club where minorities are unwelcome.

The place to start is the National Park Service. About 80 percent of park service employees in 2014 were white. The parks’ official charity, the National Park Foundation, has four minority members on its 22-person board. …

The National Park Service is the logical leader to blaze a trail to racial diversity in the natural world. It has a high public profile, and its approaching centennial can serve as a platform for redefinition.”

Naturally, The New York Times concludes that a massive affirmative action plan is necessary “to blaze a trail to racial diversity” in the National Park Service, which is hideously White and unwelcoming to minority visitors. It worked out so well in post-colonial Africa!

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 09 Aug 2015 20:21 #4

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Twilight Zoned
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 17276
  • Likes received: 1812
@ oraangaid, you must be the biggest tit that as ever posted on a forum. :D
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 08 Nov 2015 05:33 #5

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8020


DAVID BROOKS: ANTI-SEMITISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER

 By Mike King 




NY Times: How to Fight Anti-Semitism
By DAVID BROOKS

"Anti-Semitism is rising around the world. So the question becomes: What can we do to fight it? We have to understand the many ugly faces of anti-Semitism if we are to effectively stand against it."

REBUTTAL BY


Break out the violins and pass the tissues. Little David Brooks of the New York Slimes & PBS fame is about to school us dumb goyim about the dangers and root causes of "anti-Semitism" TM; and, more importantly, how to "effectively stand against it."

On "anti-semitism"TM in the Muslim world:

 "This is a form of derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people.This form of anti-Semitism cannot be reasoned away because it doesn’t exist on the level of reason."





So, Muslims suffer from "derangement", eh David? Of course, their sentiments have nothing to do with the brutal treatment which the Israeli military (which Brooks' son volunteered to serve in!) metes out to the poor and dispossessed Palestinians; and its historical unprovoked attacks upon nearby Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and even, clandestinely, Iran. No. It's all about the "derangement".

 "Arabs only hate us because they are deranged."

On "anti-semitism"TM in Europe:

"In Europe, anti-Semitism looks like a response to alienation. It’s particularly high where unemployment is rampant."

Well, at least "alienation" is not as severe of a neurosis as "derangement", but here again, Brooks attributes  TMto a mental complex. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Jewish-owned debt-based monetary system that is choking the life out of the European economies; or the fact that Jewish elites, by their own admission, are playing the "leading role" in "multi-culturalizing" Europe; flooding the dying continent with wave upon wave of Turd World immigration.




"Europeans only hate us because they can't get a job."

On "anti-semitism"TM in America (which Brooks admits is minimal)

"There are others who see anti-Semitism as another form of bigotry. But these are different evils. Most bigotry is an assertion of inferiority."

 



Yes. That's it David. Like our neurotic counterparts in the Middle East and Europe, we Americans who are concerned about the negative impact of Jewish Marxism and Zionism are also mentally unhinged; just envious losers who suffer from a "inferiority complex".  Never mind the fact that sex-crazed Jewish Hollywood is corrupting our children, or that the Jewish Central Bank is debasing our currency, or that the Jewish Lobby wants us to shed blood for Israel, or that the Jewish-run media is propagandizing the public with false news, or that Jewish academia persecutes scholars who dare to question the conventional accounts of World War II and the Holocaust TM.  No. Our sentiments are all about "envy". 

In other words: "Some Americans hate us only because we are more talented and smarter than they are." 

In Brooks' insular world, any criticism of the actions of organized Jewry is evidence of a mental disease. The Jews have nothing to answer for; not now, nor in the annals of the 3,000 year old history of "anti-Semitism"TM.  The  of ancient Rome must have been due to "schizophrenia". In Persia, "bi-polar disorder". In Medieval Europe, "paranoia". In Tsarist Russia, "anorexia nervosa". In Latin America, "attention deficit disorder". In Africa, "sickle cell anemia". In Southeast Asia, "anxiety disorder". On Planet Mars, "agoraphobia".

Brook's Bolshevik bullshit is breathtaking to behold. This from same man who wrote in 2005:

"A few years ago, I wrote a book about the rise of a new educated class, the people with 60′s values and 90′s money who go to Starbucks, shop at Whole Foods and drive Volvos. A woman came up to me after one of my book talks and said,'You realize what you’re talking about is the Jews taking over America.'

My eyes bugged out, but then I realized she was Jewish and she knew that I was, too, and between us we could acknowledged there’s a lot of truth in that statement.  For the Jews were the vanguard of a social movement that over the course of the 20th century transformed the American university system and the nature of the American elite."

Thanks for letting that bit of truth slip out, David. It shall be used against you.

Shakespeare was on to the age-old  

"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not avenge?"




- Shylock the money lender from 'The Merchant of Venice' (now banned in virtually all U.S. High Schools!) pleads his case before a magistrate; passionately explaining why he should be allowed to literally cut out a "pound of flesh" from a bankrupt debtor.
www.tomatobubble.com/id802.html
Last Edit: 08 Nov 2015 11:43 by novum.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 16 Nov 2016 23:14 #6

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8020
Trump Transition: Lying NYT Jews Up to Their Old Tricks Again
Daily Stormer
November 16, 2016



Folks, these are the most dishonest people, let me tell you.

You would think that after being humiliated so badly about the revelation of all their electoral shilling and lies, the Jews of the New York Times would be trying to rebuild their credibility with a temporary period of honest reporting.

But, you see, the thing about Jews is that they can’t help lying. It’s instinctive. Even when it would be to their advantage to clean up their act, they won’t do it.

And thus, their ultimate demise is assured.

Fox News:

Donald Trump resumed his war with The New York Times on Wednesday after a brief respite following last week’s upset victory, going on a Twitter tear over The Gray Lady’s claims that his transition team is in disarray and foreign leaders are struggling to reach him.

The president-elect made his case in trademark fashion, letting rip a rapid-fire string of rebuttals in an early-morning tweet-storm.

The tweets unfolded as follows:

Invalid consumer key/secret in configuration

Invalid consumer key/secret in configuration

Invalid consumer key/secret in configuration

Trump already had been poking the Times since his victory last Tuesday. When the publisher of the newspaper wrote an open letter to readers promising to “reflect” on its coverage and rededicate itself to reporting honestly, Trump mocked the paper.

Yeah.

That was pretty funny.

Yeah.

That was pretty funny.

Zeiger
Daily Stormer
November 16, 2016

screenshot-from-2016-11-16-11-04-33

Folks, these are the most dishonest people, let me tell you.

You would think that after being humiliated so badly about the revelation of all their electoral shilling and lies, the Jews of the New York Times would be trying to rebuild their credibility with a temporary period of honest reporting.

But, you see, the thing about Jews is that they can’t help lying. It’s instinctive. Even when it would be to their advantage to clean up their act, they won’t do it.

And thus, their ultimate demise is assured.

Fox News:

Donald Trump resumed his war with The New York Times on Wednesday after a brief respite following last week’s upset victory, going on a Twitter tear over The Gray Lady’s claims that his transition team is in disarray and foreign leaders are struggling to reach him.

The president-elect made his case in trademark fashion, letting rip a rapid-fire string of rebuttals in an early-morning tweet-storm.

The tweets unfolded as follows:




Trump already had been poking the Times since his victory last Tuesday. When the publisher of the newspaper wrote an open letter to readers promising to “reflect” on its coverage and rededicate itself to reporting honestly, Trump mocked the paper.

Yeah.

That was pretty funny.



Huh, what were you dedicated to before? Unhinged propaganda?

Too bad their new-found devotion to “honest reporting” only lasted a day. If that.

Essentially, what they’re doing here is taking minor and normal steps the Trump people are taking to start this transition, and pretending like those are catastrophic problems. Just typical Jew obfuscation.

But unlike most politicians, Trump confronts the media rather than cowering in fear of their influence. Hopefully, his administration will take steps to finalize the eradication of this nest of subversives and traitors.

Who needs ’em?

Everyone already knows that the best source for honest, unbiased news is the Daily Stormer, after all. :hahano: :hahano:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 16 Nov 2016 23:39 #7

  • bd
  • bd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • bikerdruid
  • Posts: 3658
  • Likes received: 471
For the numerous readers that browse the forum, I would like to correct a misconception above, regarding Shakespeare's play.
The Merchant of Venice is widely misunderstood.
It appears to bend the knowledge of the orange goof.

Shylock loans a very large sum of money to Antonio, who has absolutely no intention of paying back thedebt.
The contract calls for a pound of flesh in case of default.
Antonio gladly signs the contract, knowing full well that he was not going to pay the debt, nor ever be required to pay the pound of flesh.
Shylock loses the court case, his fortune and his life, for attempting to take the life of Venetian Christian.
Although the pound o flesh is an extreme demand, Antonio agreed to it, entered into the contract and had no intenton of being honourable.
Shylock is cheated ... and is executed.
Antonio is a cunt. Simple.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 17 Nov 2016 10:23 #8

  • Orangeaid
  • Orangeaid's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 11659
  • Likes received: 8020
Nice cut and paste of someone else's work there Jewid :hahano:

This thread is about the Sulzbergers. I know your dementia must be wreaking havoc but take your pills so we can stay on topic please
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

The Sulzbergers and the New York Times 18 Nov 2016 05:12 #9

  • bd
  • bd's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • bikerdruid
  • Posts: 3658
  • Likes received: 471
You brought up the play.
I added truth to your misrepresentation..
And no cut and paste.. It is my own humble interpretation.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
David Icke Hits New York Times Controversy | Seriously12.37Saturday, 22 December 2018
Jew York Times Promotes Antifa-Communist Coup Effort12.23Sunday, 05 November 2017
New York Abortion Law - Murdering Babies up to their birthdays - SaT6.41Saturday, 09 February 2019
Jews And Black Nationalists Clash In New York (1994)6.34Friday, 25 January 2019
These Men Risked Their Lives to Build 1920s New York Skyscrapers6.34Wednesday, 03 April 2019
Drones over New York? NYPD chief admits he’s interested in an UAV6.34Friday, 15 February 2013
Through the Darkest of Times6.3Monday, 27 August 2018
NY Times Interview6.3Sunday, 15 February 2015
Rolling with the times6.3Saturday, 08 March 2014
The Burning Times6.3Saturday, 04 November 2017
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 260 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 210 - Raised
( £ 160 GBP )
donation thermometer
62%
Updated
6th January 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.