Why is The New York Times so afraid of Zohran Mamdani?
Why is The New York Times so afraid of Zohran Mamdani?
The liberal establishment's war on the New York City mayoral candidate reflects panic over a growing left challenge to Zionist orthodoxy and the mainstreaming of Palestine solidarity
I mentioned Zohran to my aging mother (who lives in a suburb, and cannot vote in NYC elections). She was like, "You didn't vote for him did you? He's a communist"
We decided not to go into details right then, but it's wild what a deep, emotional, response the idea of "communism" evokes. I don't know what she even thinks it is.
You know those experiments Pavlov did with dogs that made them salivate to the sound of a bell (because they associated the sound with food)? Boomers essentially had that but the trigger is the word communism and the response is aversion / disgust.
They didn't have the internet back then so mainstream media could essentially control mainstream thought.
I don't know what she even thinks it is.
She thinks it's the enemy.
That type of response has nothing to do with politics or even reality, it's just "us vs. them". People attribute everything they think is evil to "them".
(It's not just communism hate. Because anyone who knows what it is, know that he isn't one.)
None of them do. They were just programmed real good during the red scare to have a knee-jerk reaction to anything with the name communist or socialist.
That reminds me of the woman who declared that she couldn't vote for Barack Obama because he was a Muslim and an atheist.
People were more or less helping each other back in the 50's after the war. The money boys got worried about that and Joseph McCarthy, along with Donald Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn, started a communist witch hunt which eventually got out of hand. The communist stigma remained.
"Communism" as it was in history should 100% invoke that reaction. The dude is not a communist tho.
Maybe. The natural reflex is to point out the horrors of capitalism, but people are more okay with that.
Communism tyrants and authoritarian dictatorships. Get a grip. Nobody has done real communism. They give the people fake participation while the wealth and power go to the top. It doesn’t matter which system you choose, if the rich and powerful take control you’re fucked. Capitalism worked for a while in the US, now it’s fucked because of the rich people.
Still upset about the battle of Berlin, I see.
Yeah, there is only one party that is busy implementing their secret police
Judith Miller, a former reporter for The New York Times, was a key figure in reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) prior to the 2003 invasion. Her reporting, particularly her exclusives citing Saddam Hussein's possession of WMDs, were prominently used by the Bush administration to build the case for war. Miller later acknowledged that her reporting relied too heavily on sources connected to the Bush administration and that she didn't adequately consider dissenting views.
Because they are capitalists
Maybe look into where they get their funding. Follow the money to the truth, just expect to be disgusted when you find it. On a related note, go back and watch HBO's the Wire to see why real systemic change doesn't happen.
Feels like grasping at straws, here. Sure, NYT aren't his biggest fans, but the article has this as evidence of its' claims:
"opinions on Israel are changing fast", and cautioned that "Mamdani's victory is not a fluke. It's a sign of things to come."
He is, of course, right.
Clearly The MiddleEastEye agrees with NYT about Mamandi, so let me flip that; why is MEE so afraid of Zohran Mamdani?
Because it's a shit-tier rag that's consistently skewed in favor of a few special interests - involving apologizing constantly for one that is currently blowing kids up on our dime. I honestly cannot understand why anyone would give this rag any credence since they drummed us into a war in 2003.
Just being charitable here (to be clear I agree with you) - but I think a big contributor to a lot of folks taking these old media organizations more seriously than they should, is how batshit insane the rest of the media ecosystem has gotten.
That combined with the kind of...legacy of trust, for these old "household name" ones? It's hard for us olds to update our mental models in a deep way. I was raised thinking it was a respectable outfit - I know, for sure, that I don't trust them or like them at all today. And yet every time I see "New York Times" my subconscious goes "ah, yep, one of the good ones". Brains are dumb and annoying.
This is absolutely the case - it takes time to destroy credibility for a large institution considered a "paper of record". And it makes it really easy for them to just "forget" to include certain pieces of information that drastically alter a story's narrative. The BBC is also hugely guilty of this kind of manipulation, with the ceaveat that the truth of it is in plain sight - the BBC is literally a government-run propaganda organ! But hey, you get a bunch of sober sounding people wearing professional costumes to talk to a bunch of "experts", get a bunch of reddit bot farms to post well researched science/tech articles to build a foundation of credibility with your professional classes, and then you start slipping your real content in between the fill. Many people will be trained to accept facts from that environment at that point, and it takes effort to keep on top of it all.
What's made things so egregious recently is that this approach only works when everyone's half asleep. Hypnotized, if you will. In the context of more and more people being forced into an activist stance by their ethics, morals and in most cases and sadly more importantly (to them) personal situations, it isn't a good approach, because people who are already active will be distrustful and less likely to accept their "content" at face value. From there, it all kind of unravels.
It's a peacetime control tooling for a sleepy, well-fed, soft population. When things get hard and the reality most people lives is wildly discordant with the "facts" they are shown, it generates friction and resentment. Populism is the result - left or right. Our elites made a very bad bet thinking they could step down this path rather than New Deal-ing their way out of it, because they are already losing control of the situation. The hysterical screeching about Mamdani - in particular kirsten gillibrand's racist tirade - is what it looks like when they panic, stop maintaining the mask and you see what's underneath.
It's a bunch of magic tricks that the audience just worked out, the bunny rabbit getting pulled out of the top hat is falling to bits and scaring all the children. And all the women. And all the men.
A spectre is haunting New York - the spectre of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor.
It is a freak show. Marx and Engels are not turning in their graves - they are breakdancing back to life.
No kidding?
After Bidens debate performance they published 80 articles in 2 weeks about it...
Should they not have? Should they have continued to pretend that the president was lucid when everyone saw him bragging about how he finally beat Medicare?
How many of the articles were apologia?
It's this and other factors. The real enemy of the neolibs was not communism. The real enemy was and still is the social democracy. The welfare state that protect everyone is what they want to abolish. Mamdani is for lots of people the image of this social democracy. If he wins, they lose. If he wins, he put the social democracy back on track. They are afraid of that.
Can't stop to read now but I'd wager some politicians are to scared of trump and his supporters to allow real left wing populism
Almost precisely backwards.
Fascism happens when people cry out for change and it's denied. If obama hadnt betrayed us all in 08, if sanders hadn't been ratfucked in 16, we wouldn't be in this mess. Fascism is enabled by fear of the left, by alienation from your own interests, by irrational hate, by self loathing, by hopeless faceless rage when the actual causes of your displeasure are unspeakable.
Because there are a lot of Zionists in the media. They have their marching orders from their handlers. Kill any progressiveness.
Such a well-written article. Lots of emotion, but it's incredibly right on.
We've been trying to tell yall for years. For anti capitalist? Socialists? All manners of leftists? Biggest enemy has always and will always be liberals.
Actually it's capital. But it's true that Liberalism is the wiggly fun-house slide to capitalism and fascism no doubt.
Liberalism is capitalism. They are intrinsically and indivisiblely linked. The liberal revolutions were capitalist revolutions.
Liberalism is defined by advocates of guaranteed human rights and freedoms so long as those freedoms don't infringe upon others'.
So, no, actually. None of the stuff you said.
which political establishment just passed legislation to obliterate the social safety net
Yes liberals who are simultaneously all-powerful and weak.
I believe they are using it in the sense of economic liberalism. What today we just call capitalism. Encompassing Republicans, national Democratic leadership, and those that larp as anarchist or libertarian while being capitalist.