Sunday, March 8, 2015

Daily Kos Bigotry

Michael L.

As one of the largest progressive-left blogs in the United States, Daily Kos is also among the most racist political blogs in the United States.

Most of that racism takes the form of what Manfred Gerstenfeld dubbed "humanitarian racism."  This is the form of bigotry that the Left engages in concerning the people that they like.  Among those that they tend not to like, such as Israeli Jews - if not Jews, more generally - they are a tad more forward-leaning in their contempt.

For example, an individual who goes under the moniker bevenroDEUX recently published a piece entitled, I've had it with Jew-hate and its proponents.  In that "diary" he linked to this image:

zeon 2 3e4c8

In a poll at the end of the diary the writer asks the following question:
Is imagery like I've linked to here ever acceptable?
Now, the imagery above is pretty awful and not a just a little anti-Semitic, but full blown anti-Semitic hatred of the type that the Nazis reveled in.  We've got the hawk nose, the sharp teeth, the world domination theme, the killing babies theme.  It's all right there.

So, is this acceptable to "Kossacks"?

A full 26 percent of Daily Kos users are perfectly fine with the image above, as we see from this graph of the poll.


I would submit that if a quarter of any given population is OK with the image above, with no caveats whatsoever, then we know that we are dealing with a population in which a significant minority is perfectly comfortable with the very worst expressions of hatred toward Jews possible.

And what can that say about the rest of the group, when we know that the vast majority of anti-Semitic expressions are not nearly as obvious or heinous as what we see above?

For example, if 25 percent think that the above is just dandy, what percentage are OK with the notion, often put forth, that Israel intentionally seeks to kill Palestinian-Arab children?

The idea that Israel enjoys killing perfectly innocent Palestinian-Arab waifs is how the blood libel has metastasized and evolved to fit the current moment.  No one outside of the Muslim world believes that Jews kill non-Jewish babies to use the blood in the making of matzoh, as they used to tell one another in medieval Europe.

Now they simply tell one another that Jewish Israelis like to kill Palestinian-Arab children, but it's the same old lie told for the same old reason.

The purpose, consciously acknowledged or not, is to incite anti-Jewish violence and to justify that violence to others.

This is why Daily Kos users almost never object to Arab on Jewish violence.  For years prior to the latest Israeli excursion into Gaza, Jihadis shot thousands of rockets into southern Israel, ruining the lives of the people who live there, wrecking their economy, and giving their children Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Did Daily Kos participants speak out against this anti-Jewish violence?

Of course, they did not, because on a certain level they tend to think that we simply have it coming.  Any violence by any Arab against any Jew for any reason is considered perfectly understandable precisely because of the never ending defamation of the Jewish State of Israel and the attendant blood libel that so often accompanies these defamations.

They are, in fact, engaged in a project of desensitization to anti-Jewish imagery and, therefore, desensitization to anti-Jewish violence.  It is also, in part, for this reason that President of the United States, Barack Obama, could consider the attack some weeks back at the Parisian kosher market to be just some random attack by some random individuals against other random individuals for no discernible reason, whatsoever.

So, yes, Daily Kos is a deeply bigoted venue and the poll above, while not a scientific poll, nevertheless demonstrates the type of "racism" that progressives kid themselves that, in their enlightenment, they have left behind.

They haven't.


  1. It's 50/50 out of a sample size of 88. I suppose the title of the diary might have led to some self-selection, but I don't know enough about statistics to determine which way that would swing the poll, if any.

    "No with caveats" equals yes, that those who even selected that option, are okay with blatant Nazi imagery as long as it somehow helps advance or serve a purpose of which they approve.

    In a way, those who voted "no with caveats" are the worst, since at least those who voted one of the "yes" options are willing to admit that they accept Nazism in their 'big tent.'

    1. I understand.

      At first I included "yes with caveas"as a "yes," but since I published the hideous thing with a caveat...

    2. I understand caveat costs $80 a portion. I'd better just take two, then...

      (sorry, couldn't resist quoting Fletch)

  2. And even if that one poll really isn't worth much, years of commentary and a hostile environment toward Jews, enabled and, seemingly lately, even encouraged, by the site's administration, demonstrates the very same thing.

  3. Many believe the greater issue is that people knowingly make false claims of antisemitism to shut down anti-Israel discussion.

    Anyone can see that anti-Israel discussion there is rampant, however, completely disproportionate, and includes numerous commentary that is offensive and creates hate for Jews.

  4. The old swamp never changes. Still antisemitic after all these years.

    1. It's gotten WORSE!

      When ZOG cartoons are promoted to the front page by DKOS STAFF, they have proved to become WORSE (The cartoon I noted is not the diary written about, its one I commented on here, which incidentally led to my last time out there, not my current one for reposting a great article from this site as a diary)

    2. The best you used to be able to say about that place was that at least the administration knew their site membership well enough to realize that keeping Israel off the front page was probably a good idea, lest things devolved to frenzied electronic bund camp dances and whatnot.

      Whether they did this merely to avoid embarrassment, or whether it was for more admirable purposes, at least the toxic environment which has always existed for Jews at that site was kept simmering just below the surface.

      This is decidedly not the case anymore, of course.

    3. Markos Moulitsas is not anti-Semitic, nor anti-Jewish.

      For us the issue is vital.

      For him it's a pain in the ass.

    4. I disagree Mike.. I think he is anti-Semitic. While you are right that he doesn't care too much about it, he enables anti-Semitism and through the actions of his admins. (and he is well aware of more than you might think) he enables it. He COULD come down on the bigots and deal out punishment, but he doesn't. Rather he lets them run rampant and party like its 1939.

      I used to agree with you about him. I can pretty much say that I was wrong.

      He and his admins. are bigots toward Jews. They could stop shit, but they want for the sake of "clicks". That is the "banality of evil".

    5. I only ever saw Markos comment in two A-I diaries, as far as I can recall. One time was to threaten to ban fizziks for posting the Daphne Anson link (the horror!), which he did a day or two later. The other time was to attack me over something, which I don't remember. A lot of people attacked me for things there. Heh.

      I'll take the approach here that it doesn't matter what he personally feels. To paraphrase his lackey, Meteor Blades', sig-line - it's not what he thinks that's important, it's what he does. And allows.

      His name is right there on the top of his blog, which does more than any other left-wing blog in the US to spread hatred towards Jews.

    6. I agree with Jay.

      Specifically: "I'll take the approach here that it doesn't matter what he personally feels. To paraphrase his lackey, Meteor Blades', sig-line - it's not what he thinks that's important, it's what he does. And allows."

      Turning a blind eye and allowing it under his name is just like the Ron Paul racists newsletters. It bears his name, it is his creation. He is responsible for his staff and what is allowed to happen there!

  5. And, naturally, Meteor Blades, AKA Timothy Lange, chimes in with this:

    All criticism of Netanyahu is not anti-semitic... (27+ / 0-)

    ...nor is criticism of Israeli policies in Gaza or the West Bank. And most of the leftists I know are highly critical of the policies of many nations in addition to Israel (or its current leadership). There are, of course, anti-semites opposing those policies, but lumping together as anti-semitic or self-loathing all those who make such criticisms—including as we have seen repeatedly, Jews who oppose those polices—does Israel no good whatsoever.

    This is such heinous nonsense.

    Who the fuck ever claims that any "criticism" of either Israel or Netanyahu is ipso-facto anti-Semitism? No one! It's a total straw man.

    What we object to is not criticism, but never ending hysterical defamation.

    I assume that this guy must understand the difference, no?

    1. It also depends on what the 'criticism' is. Brings to mind that hideous Sharon 'cartoon' from a few years ago, where he's a grotesque caricature building the security fence with bloody, screaming children and shit. Would Meteor Blades have considered that to be mere 'criticism?'

      Let Howard Jacobson tell it. I believe k linked to this article the other day.

      "The other thing that seemed worth saying related to that now classic formulation - "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel." I wasn't concerned to make the no less classical rebuttal - "Of course being critical of Israel doesn't necessarily mark you out as an anti-Semite, but it doesn't necessarily mark you out as not one either." Enough already with who is or who isn't. What I wanted to address was something different - how the glamour word "anti-Semite" has transfixed both parties to this semantic tussle, when the real issue is what we mean by "critical".

      Reader, only think about it: was ever a tiny word sent on such a mighty errand, or to put it another way, was ever such a massive job of demolition done by so delicate an instrument. Critical - as though those who accuse Israel of every known crime against humanity, of being more Nazi than the Nazis, more fascist than the fascists, more apartheid than apartheid South Africa, are simply exercising measured argument and fine discrimination.

      I know a bit about being critical. It's my job. Being "critical" is when you say that such-and-such a book works here but doesn't work there, good plot, bad characterisation, enjoyed some parts, hated others. What being critical is not, is saying this is the most evil and odious book ever written, worse than all other evil and odious books, should never have been published in the first place, was in fact published in flagrant defiance of international law, must be banned, and in the meantime should not under any circumstances be read. For that we need another word than critical.

  6. That is what the people at DK believe (unless you are Jewish)