Daniel Greenfield, The Nazis had Horst Wessel, who was killed by a pimp while shacking up with a prostitute, as their martyr.
Then Wessel was joined by Ernst vom Rath, whose gay affair with a Jewish teen ended in a shooting that helped the Nazis launch Kristallnacht. And the Islamist lobby has Jamal Khashoggi, an old friend of Osama bin Laden, who churned out columns targeting his former bosses in Saudi Arabia for the Washington Post, on behalf of Qatar’s Islamist regime.
Why Khashoggi’s death should concern anyone except his Qatari bosses and Turkish hosts, who may have played a role in it, is one of those self-evident questions that no one asks.
Or is supposed to ask.
Jamal Khashoggi was not an American. He wasn’t living in this country when he was killed. His propaganda appeared in the Washington Post, but so did an op-ed by various Islamic terrorist leaders.
Would their deaths also require American intervention?
But the Horst Khashoggi Lied (song) never goes away. The drumbeat keeps getting amplified along with false claims that Khashoggi was a journalist, a human rights activist, and was a wonderful human being who was killed by a brutal regime for no reason at all. It’s uncertain whether the Nazis spent more time lying about Horst Wessel or the Washington Post and its media echo chamber spent more time lying about Jamal Khashoggi.
During the Trump administration, the media had to make do with touting The Dissident, an agitprop doc fueled by Turkish intelligence.
Articles about The Dissident boast of how Fogel received “unprecedented access” to material from the Turkish government and its intelligence apparatus.
“I was building a relationship with the Turkish government who at the end of the day saw the power they could have in this story if they allowed me to tell it, rather than it coming out through Turkish media,” Bryan Fogel admitted.
It’s not foreign disinformation when the media does it.
Now that the Democrats are back in power, they’re rebooting the Jamal Khashoggi Lied with the aim of doing actual damage, by boosting Islamist forces, dismantling the alliance between Israel and Sunni Arabs, and putting the Turkey-Iran-Qatar axis back in the driver’s seat of the region.
As Caroline Glick notes in The Khashoggi Passion Play, “Khashoggi, a terror supporting Qatari agent against a modernizing, pro-American, anti-jihadist and pro-Israel Saudi Crown Prince was an important political warfare asset for Obama’s clique. His job was to discredit MBS and legitimize the terror-supporting Qataris while making pro-jihadist progressives feel good about themselves.”
And so the Jamal Khashoggi Lied goes on.
Washington Post: Biden Nominee’s Antisemitism is a Baseless Smear We Won’t Even Dignify by Discussing
Democracy keeps on dying in darkness at the Washington Post whose editorial board decided to issue a rant falsely claiming that the problematic records of Vanita Gupta and Kirsten Clarke are “baseless smears”.
That’s quite a claim and it’s backed up by the finest journalism this side of Pravda.
In Ms. Clarke’s case, the allegations concern antisemitism — so what if the evidence is tissue-thin and there is no record she has ever uttered an antisemitic remark?
In another era, we might have opted not to dignify these attacks with a rebuttal. But in a time when elected officials have been known to embrace lies and conspiracy theories, it’s worth stating sooner rather than later: Both these nominees have serious, distinguished track records as champions of civil rights. For their opponents, that is the real rub.
It’s a good thing that the Washington Post’s editorial board decided not to “dignify these attacks with a rebuttal” Just some arm-waving. And the insistence that Clarke didn’t say anything antisemitic… on the record.
During her time as the head of Harvard’s Black Students Association, Clarke invited Tony Martin as a guest lecturer. A staunch anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, Martin had written a book called The Jewish Onslaught in which he attacked Judaism and the Jewish people. Clarke supported Martin’s Jew-hatred, writing in the student newspaper, “Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information [anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial] on indisputable fact.”
In 2019, Clarke signed a petition in support of liberal anti-Semite Tamika Mallory. The former co-chairwoman of the Women’s March, Mallory has praised Louis Farrakhan, refusing to condemn that notorious anti-Semite’s legacy of Jew-hatred. Mallory has referred to “white Jews” as white supremacists.
This wasn’t an issue that emerged with Biden’s nomination. Here’s a 1994 letter from The Crimson.
Last week, Wellesley Professor Tony Martin spoke at Harvard at the invitation of the Black Students Association (BSA). Martin, the author of an anti-Semitic tract entitled The Jewish Onslaught, used his Harvard forum to denounce the Jewish tradition and the Jewish people for holding a “monopoly” on centuries-worth of the notion of divinely ordained African inferiority. Repeating his belief that the “so-called Sages” of the Babylonian Talmud were the earliest racists of recorded history, Martin urged Harvard students to consider The Bell Curve, a controversial new book linking race and intelligence, as only the latest manifestation of a racist tradition spawned by Jews.
Sitting in Boylston Auditorium, listening to my heritage be defamed and lied about, my thoughts turned away from the anti-Semite at the lectern and to the young woman who had introduced him. In fact, immediately after the introduction, Martin lavished praise on Kristen M. Clarke ’97, the BSA president, who, he said, had courageously invited him “in the face of enormous pressure from the forces of reaction.”
But I’m sure that the Washington Post would be okay with a Trump admin nominee who invited a violently racist speaker, listened to him spew racist garbage, but didn’t personally say anything racist on the record? Or, the paper could just run nonsense about the CPAC podium being a swastika.
Inviting a racist to say racist things is, according to the Washington Post, a “tissue-thin” case, when the racist and his enabler are lefties.