THE CRAZY: The Crazy has always been with us!


Concerning Kyrie's link: Ignore the things you've always been told about "the rational animal."

Forget all that "rational animal" stuff! The Crazy has relentlessly played a leading role in our war-suffused human affairs. 

No one died in the Tulip Craze, though quite a few people went broke. (According to the leading authority on this "mania," an outbreak of the bubonic plague helped bring the affair to its end.)

Other times, The Crazy has led us humans to waves of murder and violence. That brings us to the film, and by extension the book, to which NBA star Kyrie Irving famously linked. 

For understandable reasons, major news orgs may not want to repeat the crazy claims found in such films and such books. As an example of what we mean, consider what the New York Times included—and what it omitted—in yesterday's front-page report.

In print editions, the report appeared on the Times' front page. Online, the report appears beneath this pair of headlines:

Between Kanye and the Midterms, the Unsettling Stream of Antisemitism
For American Jews, this fall has become increasingly worrisome. On Thursday alone, the F.B.I. warned of threats to New Jersey synagogues and the Nets suspended Kyrie Irving.

The Nets had suspended Kyrie Irving, that sub-headline declared. Eventually, Irving was mentioned in the body of the report, but this is all that was said:

PAULSON AND GRAHAM (11/6/22): For many Jewish people across the country, the sense that overtly antisemitic rhetoric is emanating from so many spheres simultaneously is unsettling.

Steve Rosenberg, a former executive at the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, said he was put “over the edge” by an incident last weekend in which a prominent basketball player, Nets guard Kyrie Irving, defended his support of an antisemitic documentary (and garnered praise from [Kanye West] in the process). On Thursday, the Nets suspended Mr. Irving indefinitely, citing his “failure to disavow antisemitism.” He posted an apology on Instagram late Thursday night.

Readers were told that Irving had linked to an antisemitic documentary. But what had this documentary said? What was the nature of its alleged antisemitism?

Yesterday's report didn't say. Readers would have to trust the New York Times' assessment of the film.

Yesterday's report didn't describe the contents of the film—but there was nothing new about this. This pattern had been established in the paper's earlier reporting.

In print editions on October 31, the Times had published an initial report about Irving's link to the film. This is the way the report began, headline included:

Irving Stands by Postings About Antisemitic Documentary and Conspiracy Theory

Nets guard Kyrie Irving doubled down on his support of an antisemitic documentary and a “New World Order” conspiracy theory about secret societies during a testy news conference Saturday night, a day after his team’s owner chastised him for supporting the film.

The conspiracy theory, pushed by the Infowars host Alex Jones, falsely suggests that people in the government are working to enslave the human population by, among other methods, releasing viruses.

“History is not supposed to be hidden from anybody,” Irving said as he defended himself for posting a link on Twitter to the 2018 documentary “Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America,” which espouses several antisemitic tropes.

“Did I do anything illegal?” Irving said. “Did I hurt anybody? Did I harm anybody? Am I going out and saying that I hate one specific group of people?”

Irving posted about the documentary on Twitter and Instagram in the past week, and the Nets owner Joe Tsai rebuked him in a statement Friday, saying that he was “disappointed.”

According to Sopan Deb's report, Irving had supported a "New World Order conspiracy theory" promulgated by the lunatic Alex Jones. Also, Irving had supported "an antisemitic documentary," New York Times readers were told.

You'll note that Deb described the content of Jones' lunatic theory. But nowhere did Deb describe the content of the "several antisemitic tropes" allegedly found in the film.

It's understandable that major news orgs report such matters this way. News orgs may feel that describing the content of such material may serve to spread these antisemitic claims even further. Understandably, news orgs may be reluctant to play any such role in this latest manifestation of The Manifestly Insane. 

It's understandable that news orgs may adopt that point of view. In the end, it seems to us that this keeps us from grasping the extent of the role The Crazy plays in our human affairs.

What kinds of "antisemitic tropes" are present in the film to which Irving offered a link? How crazy would Irving have to be to put his faith in such claims?

Simply put, a reader can't answer such questions from reading the New York Times. Consider a second report in Sunday's Times about Irving's deranged behavior.

In print editions, this second report appeared inside the National section, on page A21. Online, Troy Closson's report appears beneath this headline

Kyrie Irving’s Links to Antisemitism Horrify His Many Jewish Fans.

Once again, the lengthy report makes no attempt to describe the content of the film to which Irving posted a link. Eventually, though, Closson wrote the following—and Closson himself provided a link in support of what he had said:

CLOSSON (11/6/22): Before last season, the guard declined to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, and played in just 29 of 82 regular-season games, missing many because of a New York City mandate requiring the vaccination of all private sector employees in the city that made him ineligible to compete at Barclays Center.

But many fans said that his prowess as one of the league’s most talented guards eclipsed his off-the-court controversies: When he played his first home game in March after more than nine months away, the crowd broke a turnout record for a Nets game, and Mr. Irving received the loudest cheers when starting lineups were announced.

But patience for his behavior has faltered this week, after his comments and what many fans saw as a slow and halfhearted attempt to walk them back. After facing backlash for posting the link to the 2018 documentary “Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America,” which espouses several antisemitic tropes, Mr. Irving said in a statement six days later, “I am aware of the negative impact of my post towards the Jewish community and I take responsibility.”

Again, readers were told that the film in question "espouses several antisemitic tropes." Once again, Closson made no attempt to report what those antisemitic tropes might be—but good Lord!

Under the words "which espouses several antisemitic tropes," Closson provided a link to a report which did describe those claims! Readers would finally get the chance to learn what this crackpot film said!

Closson provided a link—but his link didn't lead to some earlier report in the New York Times. Instead, Closson was forced to link to this derailed report from by Jon Blistein in RollingStone.

What sorts of "antisemitic tropes" does Irving seem to be supporting? You can't find out in the New York Times! You have to go that other source to understand the craziness of what Irving has done.

The Crazy suffuses our national discourse at the present time. It's also true that The Crazy has played a persistent role in our war-suffused human affairs.

How crazy are the crazy claims which Irving seems to be espousing? Tomorrow, we'll show you what RollingStone has reported, even as we marvel at the dainty ways the New York Times has been avoiding such content.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep—but our species is stalked by The Crazy. Whether with Donald J. Trump or Kyrie Irving, our upper-end mainstream press is often inclined to "walk on by" such manifestations. 

Such decisions may be understandable, but they keep us all in the dark. Tomorrow, we'll show you the extent of The Crazy which apparently seemed to make sense to this athletically talented, but very strange, major NBA star.

Tomorrow: RollingStone reports


  1. "Mao" will post any minute now, explaining how Antisemitism is just another hoax by Dembots and the Mainstream media.

  2. tl;dr
    "...promulgated by the lunatic Alex Jones."

    Oh dear. Is he the one constantly talking about wimmin trapped in men's bodies? he, dear Bob? Or is it your brain-dead liberal cult?

    1. Alex Jones fringe theories are considerably more sane than mainstream Democrat gender ideology and racism.

    2. We don't know much about Alex Jones' suggestions. The one we have heard about -- that one of the school shootings was a sham, with a goal of weakening the second amendment -- certainly isn't irrational.

      Regardless of whether his hypothesis is true or not, it's perfectly rational. Unlike y'know, wimmin trapped inside men's bodies...

    3. Notice how the right only cares about men becoming women and not women becoming men. That is because the men on the right are worried they might accidentally be attracted to a transwoman and be embarrassed. Somerby never mentions that Carlson's biggest fears are about his masculinity and the so-called feminization of society, especially the he-man parts of it. I suspect that is why Somerby and Mao watch his show too.

    4. "accidentally" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

    5. It is "irrational" to believe things that have no factual support, especially when that belief includes actions that hurt other people. The only part of Alex Jones's behavior that wasn't irrational is the con that bilked his followers of their money.

    6. Jordan Peterson advocates feeding infants pigeon milk.

    7. Thank you -- pigeons don't have milk.

    8. No one is worried about being attracted to a tranny, we're worried about our sons getting castrated by people who hate themselves and hate reality.

    9. 12:52

      It's one of his 12 rules for life.

    10. There is no castration patrol roaming neighborhood playgrounds seeking boys to castrate b/c hate.

      Notice that again, the concern is for boys, not how gender identity affects girls.

      Also, pigeons do have milk:

      "The pigeon is one of only three bird species (the others being flamingos and male emperor penguins) known to produce 'milk' to feed their young. In pigeons the milk starts to be produced in the crop of the parent birds two days before eggs hatch."

    11. The gender child abusers are after girls and their fertility. They want to drug them so they don't enter puberty and are cured of their confusion. They might like men and babies if allowed to develop into normal women.

    12. Pigeon milk is high in soluble fiber.

    13. The lawsuits will take care of the gender ideology sickness even in states where there are enough deranged wine moms who want to inflict the abuse.

    14. All normal women like men after puberty precisely why the modern day Mengeles who hate men want to ruin normal girls.

    15. Men should have the power of law to force girls and women to use their bodies the way men dictate. That is the normal way of things. Uh huh.

  3. Alex Jones believes that blacks are the lost tribe of Israel, God’s “true” chose people, and that the Holocaust didn’t happen or is wildly exaggerated?

    How can Bob live in Baltimore and never have heard of this stuff before?

    1. Of course he has heard it before. How does it change your opinion of Somerby to know that he is writing this stuff with eyes open?

    2. Anonymouse 11:32am, it doesn’t make me cynical toward him at all.

      If he knew about Black Nationalism, I would expect him to ask if this is what Irving is involved with, because it’s not obscure stuff. However, Bob did say that he understood the media doesn’t want to air bad ideas, but give some direction in the report. That’s not disingenuousness, he’s more cautious than me. YOU should appreciate that.

    3. The title of the film was sufficient to google it.

    4. They mentioned the movie, they could have linked to an explanation of it, or better yet— informed their readers themselves.

    5. They did explain it -- they said it was anti-semitic.

  4. Somerby has of course heard of "this stuff" before.

    "Readers were told that Irving had linked to an antisemitic documentary. But what had this documentary said? What was the nature of its alleged antisemitism?

    Yesterday's report didn't say. Readers would have to trust the New York Times' assessment of the film."

    There is no need to give a wider forum to antisemitic media in the name of reporting. It merely provides a bigger platform to hate.

    Readers need not "trust" the NY Times. They can trust the Nets organization that whatever Kyrie Irving said or did was inconsistent with their organization's values.

    The point is to stop spreading this filth about Jewish people. Somerby's belief that it should be spread further in the name of clearing Irving is specious. You cannot lessen the harm to Jewish people by spreading more filth around.

    And Somerby knows this as well as the perpetrators of this antisemitic garbage. It is not the job of the NY Times to help more people become antisemitic, as if this were just another opinion and not an attack on a group of people based on their Jewishness.

    1. Very good point. Bob (who had a checkered past in this area, see Mel Gibson) does have a bit of a point
      though. It is hard to gage the awfulness
      of Irving’s link.
      In one report I saw Irving admitted
      some of the article was bullshit,
      he just liked other parts of it.
      That makes Irving even dumber
      In one sense. But it seems
      important to the story. Anyone
      else notice he has the same
      name as the Jew baiting historian
      Christopher Hitchens made a
      fool of himself defending?

    2. The NY Times reported that Irving had linked to a documentary, not an article. It also said he made a half-assed apology. If Irving has talked about both an article and a documentary, that makes this more than just a casual reference, and sounds like he is promoting anti-semitism at various opportunities. But it doesn't sound like there is much dispute that he was promoting antisemitic stuff, and given that, who cares how anti-semitic it was or what it said specifically? Knowing such details only appeals to those with anti-semitic inclinations -- it would be sickening and upsetting to everyone else. So why feed that appetite?

    3. This story coming up, certainly makes it clear why MSNBC dumped Tiffany Cross pronto.

      Saying that white people “annex” literary everything and are steeped in violence toward blacks would have been a bit hard to justify as the news pivoted to this similar rhetoric.

    4. Her contract was not renewed. She wasn’t dumped for saying something wrong.

    5. Anonymouse4:47pm, that’s not what these people are saying.

  5. "we'll show you the extent of The Crazy which apparently seemed to make sense to this athletically talented, but very strange, major NBA star."

    When an NBA star, who has access to the media because of his sports prowess and not his opinions, uses his celebrity to engage in hate speech against Jews, he is not being "strange" or even "very strange." He is being a bigot and hurting other people. It is right for the Nets to object, and it is wrong for Somerby to call for the increased spread of that hate speech so that fans can evaluate what he did.

    If you see someone attacking another person on the street and someone stops him, you don't say "wait, let him continue his attack so that we can decide whether it was hurtful enough to stop." THAT is crazy, but that is what Somerby wants. There is nothing about basketball that requires hate speech against Jews. Period. The NY Times is reporting that actions taken against Irving, not the attack on Jews embodied by a particular film. It is sufficient to say that Irvine was disciplined and not particularly remorseful about his actions against Jews.

    Next Somerby will be calling for the NY Times to show us Paul Pelosi's bruises so that we can decide for ourselves whether he was seriously attacked. Despite medical treatment and despite police statements. We the public should get to retraumatize him by publishing his wounds so that the right wing can gloat over them and other prospective attackers can see proper placement of their hammers.

    Somerby has gone off his rocker today -- or maybe he too has decided to let loose his own antisemitic demons. Perhaps Somerby thinks that he might walk in Irvings shoes, or maybe he just wants Irving to get maximum bang for his buck by making sure that antisemitic message gets carried as far and wide as possible, to hurt as many Jews as Irving's fame can accomplish.

    1. Actually, we know about Pelosi’s bruises and fractures because they were reported. We know about his assailant because his views have reported.

      The NYT could and should have given some direction as to the facts behind the accusation and of the movie.

    2. You do not know specifics of Pelosi’s injuries because they were only generally reported.

    3. Maybe the attack on Paul Pelosi was a hoax intended to promote hammer control.

    4. Anonymouse 4:43pm, “General” as in skull fracture and serious injuries to his right arm, and both hands?

  6. "Such decisions may be understandable, but they keep us all in the dark."

    If Somerby really wants us all to know the full extent of antisemitic craziness lurking on the internet, he could publish links to the white supremacist and neo nazi web sites, and perhaps a list of their publications. Inquiring minds really should read all of the filth that floats around before deciding to be good decent people, amirite?

    And similarly with porn. Why not publish links to that. In fact, why not list all of the deviant behavior that it lis possible for people to behave in, starting with the real evidence of Dahmer's crimes? And who cares about the victims? No one -- it is the public's right to see and hear everything done to each of them, including Jews. And when Trump calls Rosie O'Donnell some horrible name, we should all get to hear what he called her, so that we can make up our own minds about whether that fits her or not.

    But lets carry that further. When there is libel and slander that should be repeated so that we know whether the judge's decisions were right. And when someone smears bad words in feces on someone's garage door, that should be printed too, so everyone can decide whether the abuse was warranted. And when revenge porn is uploaded to the internet by an ex boyfriend, that should be printed in the NY Times, so we can all decide whether he had the right to do that.

    And why should we take Somerby's word for the craziness or depravity of humanity? We should all see and hear every example of human crap so that we can decide whether it is rational or not -- it is possible that there is some truth to the things said about the Jews, amirite Somerby. And isn't that really your point here today?

  7. People don’t become more antisemitic by journalism that reports things.

    People aren’t children. It’s the job of reporters to report on cultural phenomena, never more so when there’s a huge pop culture icon with black nationalist beliefs. Beliefs that have been around for years and are the stuff of advertised seminars where I live.

    Kanye West is merely too maniac to keep it to the correct setting.

    Whether you should throw people off basketballs teams for this is a matter of team ownership AND public discussion that could be helpful to everyone in distinguishing when things like this go from wackiness to inflaming hate.

    1. Anonymouse 10:18am- second anonymouse reductio ad absurdum of the day.

    2. People become antisemitic by being exposed to antisemitic film and writing on the internet. Directing them to sources that will radicalize them is how antisemitism spreads. People are susceptible to such stuff (regardless of age). When a pop culture icon endorses it, more people will think it is OK to express hate against Jews.

      People who engage in hate speech and attack Jews should lose their jobs and go to jail, if their behavior fits the definition of crimes.

      We do not need to have a "public discussion" about whether hate literature against Jews has merit. That is what happened in Germany and look where it led. We do not have to revive this garbage in order to tell whether it is hate or not. And we do not have to let the people who believe this stuff tell us it is not hate and we should try it ourselves to know for sure.

      Next you'll be telling us we should all try cocaine in order to decide whether it is good for us, instead of taking the word of police, doctors, addicts and the public health department about it.

      You don't fool anyone here Cecelia. It is all fine when the literature is about hating Jews, but when it is Toni Morrison, you think it should be banned. The right is not the ACLU and it doesn't have free speech in mind. It wants more people to hear bad things about Jews, to further its conspiracy theories and malign innocent people trying to live their lives.

    3. Bias, prejudices, and hate can be a matter of degree.

      There is no need to fear that these beliefs will spread simply by public discussion. In fact the opposite is true, especially as regards two public figures who are widely admired in the public.

      Instead of a highly partisan, one sided, political festival, why not via journalism? Why not a discussion where the impetus is to allow people to harbor thoughts that aren’t rational (After all, what do Muslims think about Jewish claims?) yet explore where the boundaries must be set.

      THAT is a conversation that is needed. THAT would be helpful.

      No, it’s not the stuff of angry political junkies and operatives who daily savage a blogger, but it’s worth doing for everyone else.

    4. BTW- I don’t think Toni Morrison books should be banned. Never said that. Never wished Amazon or Target to boycott authors.

      I do think some topics need to be explored at higher grade levels and have repeatedly said this, but where would you get an argument that wasn’t based upon misrepresenting what someone else thinks.

    5. This stuff is being said by Right-wingers. Who the &6%$ would ever listen to a word they say?

    6. i don't want to live in a world, so screwed up, people listen to what Right-wingers say.

    7. Cecelia, you seriously think we need to "explore" what is so bad about the Jews at "higher grade levels"?

      When you use someone's own words, you can have an argument that doesn't misrepresent them. That is why people quote instead of paraphrasing.

      Surely you can see that when a basketball star demeans a portion of the audience for such sports it is bad for business? The Nets made that determination -- it isn't up to Somerby to decide whether it might have hurt his own feelings to have bad things said about him. He is not Jewish -- how can he know what it feels like to be in their position?

    8. Cecelia thinks we need to engage in a public discussion about whether things like the blood libel are true. Or whether antisemitic propaganda is bad enough to be considered hate speech.

      How about if I said that you, Cecelia, are drinking adrenochrome from babies you killed, in order to stay younger. Need proof -- look how abnormally young you look. Is there any value in such a discussion? There is a point where some discussions are not worth having, especially when they were debated and settled back in the 1930s-40s. Or do you think that because a small but venal minority still believes crackpot stuff, the paper of record needs to focus on their beliefs so that the broader society can consider whether they have a point or not?

      And today illustrates that no matter what crazy thing Somerby says, you will defend it. "Wait, wait, even nazis had a point, so let's all talk about it."

    9. Yeah, you can talk antisemitism at higher grade levels.

      You can discuss the issues involving a tolerance of religious dogma that may be very narrow, for whacky believes and conspiracy theories, and what scenarios arise when boundaries must be set.

      You can even do it in a setting of embracing people in general and human foibles in particular. You can make it relevant to a mid grade level so that you aren’t making children distrustful, but being respectful of freedom and becoming progressively discerning.

    10. You can do all of that without repeating the antisemitic propaganda that good decent people agree is not fit for public consumption.

    11. Anonymouse11:29pm, you can and should monitor the details in elementary school.

      In the adult public forum where people are being written about in the NYT as having beliefs that render them deserving of disenfranchisement (and that disfranchisement includes the pummeling of people who refuse to go along with it) then it needs to be understood, discussed, and hopefully a matter of sage guidance and understanding for all of us.

    12. Your suggestions about what should be discussed, when, by schools might have more merit if you linked them to the developmental needs of children and the points where they are forming their own identities. Do you know when that is?

      Irving was not being disenfrancised when the Nets decided they didn't want him speaking for them? It is their right to decide that, not Irving's right to use his basketball job as a podium for fringe beliefs.

      By the way, disenfranchisement refers to being denied the vote, not to being denied a platform to speak. Basketball players are given instructions about how to relate to the public when they sign their contracts with a team organization. Irving broke the rules.

    13. No, Cecelia has a point -- when is the right time to tell children about the globalist Jewish plot to replace white Christian Americans?

    14. Anonymouse 12:(9pm, until you got the news that Irving was giving some credence to Black Nationalism you had no idea why he had been suspended other than it was antisemitism.

      That’s all we needed to know, you said. We shouldn’t air this stuff.


      We both know that you wouldn’t settle for the media skirting around Depape’s beliefs ostensibly to spare us the details of his deplorable theories. Only because THAT would deny you a political talking point.

      No, this is a man who is losing everything over a hideous belief, but not a crime.

      I damn sure want to know what it’s about before Inform an opinion on whether the punishment fits.

      As to the developmental needs of children, why do you think parents want age related boundaries on certain subjects taught in schools.

    15. Of course I would be satisfied with that. I don’t want to hear right wing lies repeated either. You don’t get an opinion about his punishment. The team does that. Further, not being Jewish, any opinion you form is worthless because you don’t know how it feels to the targets of such prejudice. And don’t pretend you empathize with Jews. You just said you suspect the antisemitism might not be bad enough to justify punishment.

    16. Anonymouse 5:41pm, no, I said that I wouldn’t assume a man was antisemitic based upon the NYT saying it. I want details. I want reporting.

      I also made distinctions regarding an injustice that someone (erroneously) thinks occurred thousands of years ago, with continued and current animus toward an entire racial or ethnic group.

      You aren’t in charge of who can and can’t have legitimate opinions on any subject. You know that. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here regaling the world with yours.

    17. Some people are children.

    18. The NY Times called the propaganda film that Irving linked to "anti-semitic". It said that Irving barely apologized. You can judge from that whether Irving himself is anti-semitic. If you want to know about that film, google it yourself. The name was provided so that you could do that.

      If you will be satisfied with nothing less than the NY Times repeating the slurs against Jews that got Irving into trouble, then you are an anti-semite yourself and you have no empathy for what it is like to be a member of a persecuted group.

      If you feel that way about Jews, that they should be injured for your satisfaction, then you need to own up to your own motives. It isn't about making your own decisions at all -- you have already decided that maligning Jews is OK -- you have called for the NY Times to do that to them, for no good reason except that you and anti-semites like you, get off on hurting other people.

  8. Suppose a sports star linked to a racist video. Would the media report what was racist about this video?

    IMO the same standard should apply to antisemitism

    1. There are ethics in journalism that would prevent spreading the hate speech that someone is reported to have engaged in. It makes the paper as bad as the person they are reporting on.

      Why Somerby doesn't understand journalistic ethics is beyond me.

    2. Are there really such rules? E.g., if a public figure compared blacks to apes, would the New York Times merely report that this person used a racist trope? I don't think so. I think the Times would report the awful thing he said.

    3. Yes, there are such principles taught in J-school and codified by newspapers for their employees. And yes, they would not repeat the slur if it were hurtful like that.

    4. Anonymous 4:39pm, a belief that blacks were the original tribe of Israel and were usurped by another ethnic group is not a tossed-off ugly slur.

      This is the sort of antisemitic conspiracy theory of a kind that has been around for generations and would have fully articulated and explored had it involved white adherents.

    5. “The conspiracy theory, pushed by the Infowars host Alex Jones, falsely suggests that people in the government are working to enslave the human population by, among other methods, releasing viruses.”

      The NYT won’t detail Black Nationalism, but they’ll expressly tell you that Alex Jones believes that the government wants to enslave populations via homegrown viruses.

    6. You saw how much was part of the documentary (below). The excerpt by Somerby listed the film by name. Why was that not sufficient for anyone wishing to know more? Alex Jones slurred the govt. In this case Jews would be slurred. How is that justified when the name of the film was already listed?

    7. I am sure it would save time and space if the NYT assumed you’d google the salient particulars of the stories they report, but it’s not good journalism.

      How is it that “slurring the govt” is less shocking and hurtful to all these sensitive souls reading the NYT than hearing that Irving may believe that the Jews stole his holy heritage thousands of years ago?

      Does the NYT hesitate to report on right wing conspiracy theories that invoke the Clintons or the Pelosi family?

      No, the NYT only does this when it’s addressing a conspiracy theory it WISHES was coming from Alex Jones.

    8. David, what if we said that not only black people but all people are apes? To a chimpanzee, a human is a closer relative than a gorilla is.

    9. Clinton, Pelosi, Trump and other politicians are considered fair game because they are public figures. The rules are different for them. Jews, as a group, are not public figures and allowing reporters to repeat some of the slime that is spoken against Jews by antisemites is not reporting. It is maligning an innocent group of people using bigoted filth. There is no excuse that falls under the category of news reporting that justifies doing that.

      The NYTimes has no duty to provide "background info" about that propaganda film in a story that was about the Nets response to Kyrie Irving's anti-semitic behavior. It aggravates the harm done by Irving and is off-topic because the report was about the Nets' response, not Irving's misbehavior (which was probably reported previously).

      Cecelia and Somerby may just love seeing the NY Times repeat anti-semitic conspiracy theories in the paper of record, but I am glad the Times had the good judgment to avoid giving a platform to the filthy specimens who produce such garbage.

      Somerby calls it crazy, as if all kinds of crazy were equal in his eyes, but this is not crazy -- it is hate speech and it comes from bigots who harbor animosity toward specific groups of people for characteristics they cannot help. That is not what journalism exists to do, and those who helped Hitler by printing his attacks on the Jews were in the same position and the NY Times but made the wrong decision. As a result, 6+ million Jews were exterminated in Germany. Kyrie Irvine, in his stupidity, links to a film that says the Holocaust never happened. Somerby knows better, even if Cecelia does not.

    10. Anonymouse 12:11am, if only Somerby had not given nod to the natural reluctance to share hurtful conspiracy theories.

      If only the NYT wasn’t so squeamish as to who is involved in these theories and could approach the subject rationally.

      Say,,,like this:

  9. "What sorts of "antisemitic tropes" does Irving seem to be supporting? You can't find out in the New York Times! "

    Why would you need to find out?

    1. To decide for yourself whether they are antisemitic ( some people say that boycotting Israel is antisemitic) or to ponder the censorship to freedom quotient.

      You know— to have the facts- think for yourself- to make your own decisions.

      To be human.

    2. By that logic, the NY Times should repeat all of the evidence given at a trial so that the readers can decide whether a criminal found guilty was really guilty or not.

      The newspaper is reporting what happened -- that Kyrie Irving was disciplined by his team and showed tepid remorse. What he said doesn't matter. It was sufficient to cause the Nets to object.

      How many Jewish people live in New York? How many would be offended by Irving's actions? That is for the Nets to decide, not you, but given that they are a New York team, the home team for a large majority of Jewish people in the US, don't you think they might take this incident a tad more seriously than you, who have nothing at stake?

      Irving certainly has the right to say what he thinks, as a citizen with free speech in this country. But The Nets, a basketball franchise, does not have to hire him after he insults the team's audience members in a way that reflects badly on the entire team. Irving can happily say what he wants for another team, somewhere in Texas perhaps, where antisemitism is considered dinner conversation.

      If you did decide it was OK for Irving to say what he did, what would be the consequence of that decision? Would it change what he did? Would it change the attitude of his team and of Jewish people in the bleachers?

      If the NY Times selectively decided to repeat the slurs against Jews, what would that say about its editorial policy and stance toward hate speech and anti-semitism in particular? Would that be good for the business success of the NY Times, a paper that serves the largest Jewish readership in our country, or would Jewish readers perhaps feel that the paper was unconcerned with their well-being and not interested when bigots express antisemitism, in fact perhaps interested in spreading libels against them, promoting conspiracy theories incorporating antisemitic beliefs. How many Jewish readers would need to cancel their subscriptions because they are slapped in the face when they are simply trying to find out the news before the NY Times might care about antisemitism sent their way?

      Not being Jewish, you might not care about that, but the paper does and Jewish people do, and so do those who truly value the right of diverse people to live freely in our country without being maligned in our paper of record, without warning and without cause.

  10. Anonymouse 11:06am, absolutely that sort of craziness needs to be talked about in the press.

    It needs to be described. It needs to be pinpointed as where it started and is still going on. It needs to be approached in a journalistic, rather manner and it needs to countered in a way that does not turn it into something that is there to paintball all your political contrarians.

    Not that we have outlets like that anymore.

    1. If you are continuing a discussion in response to someone who posted above, please try to keep your comment in the same thread where the discussion started.

      Started a new thread with a comment that belongs elsewhere is discourteous to other readers, uncivil, and shows a kind of narcissism that implies that whatever you say deserves extra emphasis compared to others here.

      We get it already that you do not care about the Jewish people maligned by antisemitic propaganda. Now you show that you don't care about readers here either, which is consistent. And then you go on to suggest that Jewish people should put up with whatever they have to, in order for those who hold deviant and socially unacceptable views to have their moment in the sun too. Those poor poor antisemites who were not allowed to spew their filth by those vicious Nets managers and an over-vigilant NY Times!!! The horror!

    2. Shorter Cecelia: Crazy people should have more rights than Jews.

    3. Anonymouse 11:28am, the more exclamations marks you use, the more it would seem that such beliefs need to see the light of day in a content that isn’t thoroughly politicized.

      I might to less open to real anti-semitism than you describe. But how else, but in extremes, do anonymices describe anyone who disagrees with them?

      I would allow blacks to consider themselves to be the real Jews and the real chosen people of Hashem, all day long.

      Does it go farther than that, and if so, to where? Where do we start talking about boundaries ( much needed ones) in a manner that is respectful of freedom and of personal differences.

    4. Glad to know you are so broad-minded when Irving is expressing a conspiracy theory you agree with.

      Anti-semitism isn't about "personal differences" in the way you suggest. It is about active persecution of a people, scapegoating (by blaming them for problems with other causes), and now disrespecting their culture by co-opting their history and religion.

      I am not going to dignify these conspiracy theories by discussing them with you as if they had any merit. Stop pushing this here (or elsewhere either). It is wrong and it hurts people.

    5. Anonymouse 12:42pm, I don’t agree with one iota of what Irving thinks. Not from anyone. Not even when it’s white gentiles who are labeled as the usurpers of the planet.

      What I do think is that the NYT could have clued its readers into this conspiracy theory and the movie behind it. That’s their job.

      The conspiracy theory has already been articulated on this board without your hammering the anonymouse posted it in the slightest.

      It’s time you got off this particular act of the day.

      You don’t even buy it.

    6. The article was not about that. Newspapers do not provide that much background so why would they suddenly do it now in this context — and why would Somerby suddenly demand it? And no, the NYTimes does not exist to spread right wing propaganda.

    7. Anonymouse 4:35, oh, really? In the same article the NYT incongruously told us the basics of a conspiracy theory harbored by Alex Jones.

    8. The theory was about the govt. No one is going to be slurred by such a theory because it is not about any group of people. No one would be hurt by what they reported. The same is NOT true when the slurs are against Jews. Jews are hurt by that.

      Are you really so stupid that this has to be pointed out twice?

    9. Why have Kanye West’s comments about Jews been published?

      Why were comments, unaired from West’s interview with Tucker Carlson, obtained from Fox by media outlets and reported upon?

  11. A liberal or a Democrat with a blog would be urging folks to get out and vote. Somerby is silent.

    1. Well, that is not the stated purpose of the blog, but Bob doesn’t pay any attention to that anyway…

  12. "Yevgeny Prigozhin, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that Russia has interfered in US elections in the past and would continue to do so, Insider reports.

    Said Prigozhin: “We have interfered, we are interfering and we will continue to interfere. Carefully, accurately, surgically and in our own way, as we know how to do.”

  13. As has been said here before, bigotry isn't part of mental illness. Somerby elides this by referring to it as "Crazy" but antisemitism can be self-serving, part of one's upbringing, wrongheaded, reinforced by hatred or other motives, but it isn't a symptom of mental illness. Someone can be mentally ill and a bigot, or mentally ill and not a bigot -- there is no relation between the two.

    Bigotry can be changed if it is addressed in certain ways. Somerby wants to dismiss it all as crazy and do nothing about it. In fact, he wants to hear the bigoted garbage, to decide if it is crazy (by his standards), but he doesn't want to do anything to reduce bigotry in our society. He wants to call it crazy, blame humanity (but especially the blue tribe) and move on, while giving the crazy pride of place in the NY Times. Now that's crazy!

    1. Anonymouse 11:50am, who is telling us to move on from bigotry?

      Bob tears his hair out every day about every Qanon believer and conspiracy nut on the planet.

      Now he wants to know what the NYT means when dodging around the beliefs of two famous men, and you’re accusing him of covering up bigotry.

    2. No, I am accusing Somerby of excusing and minimizing bigotry by calling it Crazy and then dismissing it as a universal human trait.

    3. Bigotry is a universal human trait. Saying that does not minimize it. If you don’t think that you harbor bigotry to some degree then you have zero insight.

      It’s amusing to me that anonymices can be here day after day and not be aware that if Somerby had his druthers we would be receiving our news from the purportedly wise gatekeepers of the golden tv news era. “All The News That Wouldn’t Have Included Monica Lewinsky.”

      Somerby is hardly a free-handed advocate for letting it roll to the proles. My guess is that wouldn’t have been the case even in the free speech 60’s.

      He’s not as gung-ho as me. I want to hear it all. Don’t put people at risk of losing everything before you tell me why, and why that “why” is worth it.

      Somerby wants some basic info as to what this man believes that has caused him to be fingered in the god-almighty NYT.

      That shouldn't be too much for anyone to ask.

    4. Cecelia, bigotry is not a human universal. People learn to be bigots and it can also be unlearned. It is not innate and not natural. Also, this is not a matter of opinion, but of psychology, which is a science with empirical findings to back up its conclusions about how people think and behave.

      If you want to hear it all, visit Stormfront. The NY Times is not the place to let it all roll. It is a newspaper whose purpose is reporting on current events, to everyone from children to grannies. Newspapers should not be cesspools, even if that's where you prefer to live.

      You are mistaken that Irving was "fingered" by the NY Times. They are reporting what his team, the Nets, decided to do about his bigoted statements.

    5. No, Anonymouse 1:21pm, the NYT could have given the basics without shocking grannies and…”children”…

      I don’t know how anonymices aren't in body casts over their daily reaching for TDH outrage.

    6. Read the list below. It takes up a lot of space and it IS shocking and hurtful to repeat. Maybe not to you though…

  14. Nate Silver says:

    "“But it’s not hard to imagine how the polls could be biased against Democrats instead. After 2016 and 2020, pollsters face more reputational risk from again missing high on Democrats than the other way around, and that could consciously or unconsciously affect decisions they make at the margin, or even which polls they release to the public. Moreover, the composition of polling averages has considerably changed, with fewer ‘gold standard’ polls and more quick-and-dirty ones that tend to show more favorable results for Republicans.”

  15. Digby corrects the record:

    "You may have read about a physical political attack on a Marco Rubio canvasser a few days back. It sounds pretty bad. The guy was handing out leaflets when he was allegedly attacked by violent Democrats who beat him mercilessly because he was a Republican. Then we found out that he was a Proud Boy who was fighting at Charlottesville. Now we find out that the whole thing is a sham.

    Cellphone videos of the incident have now emerged (seemingly from the assailants’ defense attorneys) which undermine the political attack storyline and actually show one of the assailants (just before the attack) telling Christopher Monzon to go about his business and keep canvassing.

    It appears that the brawl was triggered by one of the assailants thinking Monzon was looking too closely at his girlfriend. The big picture looks to be one of a group of young violent idiots thumping their chests and things spinning out of control.

    No one should think the assailants here are somehow the good guys. Both have lengthy criminal records, including for assault and violent conduct. (So does Monzon for that matter, though his criminal record seems like connected to his political activism – assault, incitement to riot, etc.)

    It wasn’t about politics at all. But that didn’t stop Rubio and the entire right wing turning this guy into a martyr and sadly, I’m not sure that the truth of this will penetrate at all. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this guy join Kyle Rittenhouse with his own Youtube channel and a full-blown right wing media career."

  16. You can look up the film yourself -- the title is given in the NY Times article.

    Here is what the ADL says about it:

    "The 2018 film Hebrews to Negroes, based on director Ronald Dalton Jr.’s book series of the same name, is a three-plus-hour effort to “prove” the Black Hebrew Israelite (BHI) belief that certain people of color, including Black Americans, are the true descendants of the biblical Israelites.
    The film promotes beliefs commonly found among antisemitic and extremist factions of the BHI movement, including claims that modern Jews are imposters who stole the religious heritage of Black people and have engaged in a “cover-up” to prevent Black people from knowing their “true” identity.
    While much of the film deals with historical and genetic arguments about various racial and ethnic groups, it also includes extensive antisemitism, including claims of a global Jewish conspiracy to oppress and defraud Black people, allegations that Jews are in part responsible for the transatlantic slave trade and the claim that Jews falsified the history of the Holocaust in order to “conceal their nature and protect their status and power.”
    The film also amplifies longstanding antisemitic tropes about Jewish power, control and greed, including false claims that Jews control the media, and disputes the identity of modern Jews, claiming they are “religious converts” who descended from the Khazars and have no historical connection to the land of Israel.
    To support its claims, the film cites statements from prominent antisemites and notorious antisemitic texts as supposed evidence of the “true” nature and identity of Jewish people. For example, the film includes passages from Henry Ford’s “The International Jew” and two purported (though seemingly fabricated) quotations from Adolf Hitler.
    The film also advertises the book on which it is based, which features even more explicit antisemitism, including quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a longer passage of Holocaust denial, attacks on Zionism, conspiratorial claims about the Rothschilds and more.
    In October 2022, professional basketball player Kyrie Irving, a repeat NBA All-Star and member of the Brooklyn Nets, shared a link to the film with his 4.6 million Twitter followers. Irving eventually deleted the tweet three days later, after initially telling reporters that he was “not going to stand down.” Irving has since issued a public apology and statement addressing the problematic nature of the film and his role in promoting it."

    Irving's unwillingness to stand down makes it sound like he has a full understanding of what he is endorsing and is not simply a clueless idiot.

    1. Here is more from the ADL (Anti-defamation League):

      "Among the film’s claims:

      “Black people are now finding out they are the real lost children of Israel. In turn, they are realizing that the Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi Jews in Israel are just religious converts with no biblical blood connection to the ancient Twelve Tribes of Israel.”

      “If the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews falsely claim they are from the Tribe of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, why did they decide to steal the identity of the real Black Israelites that they sold into slavery?”

      “The children of Israel got their brown skin complexion, something we don’t see with the people who came to Israel in 1948 and call themselves Jews.”

      Hebrews to Negroes: What You Need to Know
      Example of the images shown during the film promoting the Khazarian myth.

      “The seed of Edom, the seed of Cain, the Synagogue of Satan, and Lucifer himself are the major confederate that has been against us for a very long time.”

      “In school we are never taught about…the Jewish slave ships that brought our West African negro Bantus ancestors to slave ports owned by the Jewish Newport world center of slave commerce off the east coast of North America.”

      “The Jews have established five major falsehoods which work to conceal their nature and protect their status and power, to wit: 1) The Jews are ‘Israelites’, and thus God’s Chosen People; 2) Jesus Christ was a Jew; 3) That 6 million Jews were killed in a holocaust during WWII; 4) That all races are equal, or that all are brothers; and, 5) That Jews are just another religious group.” [Quotation from a 1978 antisemitic text published by Walter White Jr. titled “The Hidden Tyranny”]

      Statement falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler that is shown during the film; an example of the film’s use of quotes -- real and falsified -- from prominent antisemites as ”evidence” to support its claims.

      “[The Americans] plan on moving these false white Jews into a state of Israel. Because the white Jews know that the Negroes are the real children of Israel and to keep America’s secret, the Jews will blackmail America. They will extort America, their plan for world domination won’t work if the Negroes know who they are.” [Fabricated “quotation” falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler]"



      So, it should be obvious that this is not an accidental remark being construed as antisemitic, but is hard core stuff, including holocaust denial and major lies about Jewish people intended to inflame and create discord between blacks and Jews.

      Anyone could look this up. So why insist that the libels be repeated by the NY Times? That is about as crazy as crazy comes, but I have to wonder about Somerby's ulterior motives here.

    2. Read the whole list…

    3. What do people say about the ADL?

  17. The only time I see antisemitism on the internet, ever, is visiting Democrat blogs.