NY Times admits to publishing 'anti-Semitic tropes' with Trump-Netanyahu cartoon

The New York Times has finally come out of the closet completely. Now there's no denying the "Gray Lady" is actually Eva von Braun [aka Eva Anna Paula Hitler] the mistress and short-term wife of Adolf Hitler. Being more repugnant than used canary cage liner, the rag ought to change its name to Der Stürmer.

After wrestling with the idea of whether or not to show the cartoon in this post, it became obvious that one needed to see it in order to appreciate the hatred and crass vulgarity of this anti-Semitic former newspaper. It is now in line with the Democrat Party and the new, young faces of the Jew/Israel-hating left.

After the rag printed the cartoon featuring Netanyahu and Trump that was panned for fanning the flames of Jew-hatred, they admitted the image contained ‘anti-Semitic tropes’ and retracted it.

On Saturday, the New York Times tweeted an acknowledgment that a cartoon it published on April 25 included “anti-Semitic tropes.”

As you can see, the image portrays Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog, with the Jewish star of David symbol dangling from his collar. His leash is held by President Trump, who is depicted as a blind man wearing a yarmulka or skullcap, another common symbol Jewish.

The cartoon echoes common anti-Semitic canards and imagery, which present Jews as animals, accuse Jews of hatching plots to dominate the world, and promote the myth that Israel secretly influences world leaders to do the bidding of the Jews.

This crap is old and Hitler-esque.

Only after there was significant outcry over the cartoon, the garbage rag admitted on Twitter that the cartoon “included anti-Semitic tropes,” that “the image was offensive,” and that publishing the image “was an error of judgment.”

How is it possible to make an error in judgment over something so obviously offensive to Jews? Who the hell are they kidding?

This is a "newspaper" that falsely claimed that Jesus was not Jewish, but was Palestinian--an impossibility because the land known as Palestine came about 700 years after Jesus was resurrected and was born in Judea, a land named by the Jews.

The executive director of Boston’s Jewish Community Relations Council, Jeremy Burton, pointed out on Twitter that for Jesus, a “Judean Jew,” “the term Palestine was that of the Roman occupier.” Meanwhile, Daniel Sugarman of London’s Jewish Chronicle referred to the “Jesus was a Palestinian” claim as a “deliberate historical revisionism designed to deny the Jewish connection to the Holy Land.”

The Times later edited the story to eliminate the false claim that Jesus was “Palestinian.”

The Times should only be read in order to understand the left's thinking and prepare us for debate. Other than that, a bunch of trees have died in vain.


Follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and will hopefully entertain you bigly.




Tweet