That and people think we're "greedy" for whatever reason.
The Atlantic: The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem (Antisemitism) [READ OP]
- Thread starter makonero
- Start date
- Status
That and people think we're "greedy" for whatever reason.
Antisemitism is prominent on both the left and right and it sucks.
This reddit post sums up my feelings:
This reddit post sums up my feelings:
When your political views are about knocking down barriers and institutions that favour the privileged and powerful and antisemitism is literally a conspiracy theory about Jews having outsized power and influence you're going to be vulnerable to holding antismetic views and being antisemetic if you aren't careful.
At least that's how I see the left's antisemitism problem in the Anglosphere.
At least that's how I see the left's antisemitism problem in the Anglosphere.
Exactly. Its fucking stupid quite honestly in my mind. But i am not apart of the conflict, i just have opinions looking as an observer, so i can't say i am right about anything factually.
I am saying that right wingers in America atleast are far more likely to be "pro israeli state" and less biased against jewish people in general compared to their hatred of everyone else.
Whereas left wingers have a blind spot when it comes to being able to differentiate between the destructive policies of Netanyahu and the right wing israeli state, and innocent jews in general. So even if they do differentiate between the two, their language can make it seem like they are generalizing and are antisemitic to the jewish people at large even if they arent intending it to come out like that. I am a prime example i would think.
You better have some serious sources before accusing somebody of antisemitism other than "she told me that off record" since it's a very serious accusation. The ADL is famous for conflating antisemitism and antizionism so it's not very surprising. The ADL qualify the BDS as antisemitic for instance, conflating zionism and the right for "autodetermination of the jewish people". So it's not really a neutral voice. (the other source came from a parliament member of Israel praising Israel as a gay paradise for Palestinians)
Most of her "inflammatory discourse" about shari'a and jihad are justly made to not let those words being held hostage by the far-right narrative, which have contaminated the whole discussion around Islam and muslims.
Having muslims, catholics, jews, atheists making alliance means that you will have conflict of values on some subjects like LBGT. It remind me of Yasir Qadhi who maintain the traditional muslim stance on homosexuality while supporting the gay marriage in the US, since it's a civil marriage. So you can fight for rights of all while being conservative on certains issues on a personnal level. Personnal ethics don't necesarly translate in the want to see those ethics applied to everyone. In the same way, many progressives support the right of muslims women to wear hijab or niqab but they reject the practice and think it's immoral (except they use more "enlighted" parlance).
Last edited:
The existence of anti-semitic socialists doesn't mean that anti-semitic Nazis aren't also a thing!
This is one of those "horseshoe" branching things between the far left and far right because there's a subset of people (populists) who are economically left but also incredibly racist and xenophobic. And so whether they view themselves on the left or the right depends on whether or not they prioritize their hatred of minorities or their desire to redistribute wealth (to everyone but the minorities, of course.)
Your definitely right about that kirb, i've seen tons of garbage on comment sections of left wing youtube channels i follow about liking the "economic views" of progressive liberals but not liking the social progressive aspects they preach.
The thing is though, that there has to be some set definition of right and left right? is it economics? is it social? Does being an economic populist brand you as a left winger? Does social advocacy?
I would argue being a "right wing economic populist" is basically just saying you hate minorities and are a fucking bigot, so your agreeing with leftist progressives that your getting screwed over by the system IN ADDITION to black people being your enemy.
I've also seen the opposite. The so called "neoliberal", who is comfortable with globalization and washington corruption and blindly playing for party teams all that shit, as long as they can appeal to social aspects of society to cover for that lack of economic care about the parts of society they claim to want to represent in a diverse manner.
I feel like there is a "all of the above approach" is necessary, that's what i feel progressvism is. Social justice, along with economic populism and a real want to take on the society you live in in all the ways possible and change it in a positive manner.
it's true and you know it loldoes NOI have any connection to 5% nation or am i conflating here?
youre right but i think this is somewhat different. Farrakhan is a black nationalist basically. Hes not at all left
For the US the chart here is really helpful in explaining the divisions and why the "ecnomic liberal, but also racist" group ends up being the swing votes (and why the GOP is determined to cleave along Social lines, instead of Economic ones- they can't make a majority w/ RW economics because most people hate them) https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond It's why Obama would pander to them by hitting Hillary on NAFTA in the primaries but then turning around and supporting TPP in his second term.
The thing is that economic "populism" (either on the far left or right) goes hand in hand with the xenophobia and racism- the view of trade as a zero-sum game is something that makes sense to the same person who is fearful of losing status and privilege to minorities or outsiders. That's why many modern liberals support globalization/free trade while also pushing for much broader social safety nets.
Yeah, didn't mean to lump him into that by implication accidentally, was speaking more broadly about macro-US trends w/ race/economics where Farrakhan is a massive outlier.
Two things:
1. We know these accusations are true.
2. You are quoting stories from the Times blog platform, which is not written by the editorial board, and has had those offending stories removed when their content was pointed out.
Very true, but i dont think being for economic populism itself is bad, or inherently means that your a racist or a xenophobe, even if its SUPER easy to use to gin up political support. All that means is that being apart of the little guy faction cleaves across most political lines.
Trump used it against the other GOP candidates in the election callin everybody a puppet of the donors and such, which of course they were, but he was just as bad, if not worse, and that allowed for the right wing upsurge.
The fact that its much easier now to take advantage of(whether your a Bernie Sanders or a Trump) i feel is a big statement on how the people who are not rich in general either leftist or right wing are doing, to be able to have that strength of appeal.
Anti semitism from the left has always been a tricky issue. On one side you have a lot of legitimate critiques of Israel being labeled as anti semetic and on the other you have people trying their hardest to stealthily broaden the critique to Jewish people as a whole. Funnily enough I think the community on this forum is one of the best at not falling for either extreme.
I would say the Women's March does need to address any anti semitism in their ranks before it festers but the group seems to be made up of honest, well meaning people that have done a great job of listening. In fact, I would say they are one of the most self aware and self critical organizations out there. I trust them to do the right thing.
I would say the Women's March does need to address any anti semitism in their ranks before it festers but the group seems to be made up of honest, well meaning people that have done a great job of listening. In fact, I would say they are one of the most self aware and self critical organizations out there. I trust them to do the right thing.
1. What "accusations"? That some of the Women's March staff were in photographs with Farrakhan? That one of them spoke at an event that he also spoke at? This is Daily Stormer-level "journalism". (Note that Sarsour wasn't even connected to Farrakhan -- she's just smeared in the piece for being Palestinian, as she is throughout the site.)
2. Bullshit. It happens repeatedly and explicitly in the very same section as this article. And the news section itself uses only the lightest of euphemisms for promotion of the same policies. They're up there as I write this.
Yeah, none of the criticism here has extended to the Women's March organization beyond "having these people as high-level figureheads is a very, very bad look" at this point, it's purely restricted to the individuals.
so she was in some pictures with farrakhan. you know who else was in pictures with him and was terrified the media would find out and would call him an anti-semite?
Barack Obama. Because he wouldn't "disavow" him. So does she get off the hook if she calls him a terrible person? Is that all they want? It seems more than just a little political, and not really about social justice or even purity of alliances and associations.
Barack Obama. Because he wouldn't "disavow" him. So does she get off the hook if she calls him a terrible person? Is that all they want? It seems more than just a little political, and not really about social justice or even purity of alliances and associations.
Obama was actually forced to disavow Farrakhan when he endorsed.
NOI has done some positive things for the black community over the years, but their racism and anti-semitism really can't be excused.
and if the picture had come out it would have made his eventual disavowal less effective and given the opponents trying to sink his candidacy better bearing. So the pictures remained under wraps, I think until well into his second term.
https://www.myajc.com/news/local/co...d-obama-2008-campaign/jC8NKhQr6a72VjRYY9o0EM/
Two of them were photographed with him. One of them has no relation, but is of Palestinian descent.
I can't read the article right now so I have to ask: no one knows?
You are straight up downplaying the connections shown here. Mallory called Farrakhan "GOAT," Perez spoke well of him, and Sarsour praised the man who attacked a Twitter user for questioning their connection to Farrakhan.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BBlYO-jixw8/
His "hardcore truth":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK5UJ8Z4zps
Anyone saying this is nothing more than two people being photographed together are being disingenuous.
His "hardcore truth":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK5UJ8Z4zps
Anyone saying this is nothing more than two people being photographed together are being disingenuous.
Mallory praising leaders who "have the same enemies as Jesus" after the Farrakhan event. Blatant dogwhistling.
Sarsour praising an an antisemitic minister who randomly interjects to talk about a Jew he can scapegoat to defend Farrakhan and Mallory.
Smh at the people in here defending Sarsour.
Last edited:
Sarsour is fucking disgusting. She's needs to fuck off into a corner never to be seen or heard from again.
Antisemitism existed long before the Israel/Palestine issues. The Palestine issues are used as cover for a subset of people who know they can't get away with overt antisemitism.
There are plenty of people approaching the conflict in good faith. There are also some who aren't, and you can pick up on the difference after a while.
Most people that marched haven't a clue who these people are. Large movements like this and BLM don't have clear hierarchical structures -- most of it is organized organically. Teresa Shook is credited with actually starting the march and she's nowhere on that site.
The people marching and using the hashtag have no say in who is listed on that website, so it's misleading to suggest these people or their views represent the movement.
It'd be great if they stepped down and found better people, but as far as I know they'd have to do that with their own volition so the more likely outcome might be that the larger movement just explicitly disassociates themselves with the people on that website.
Last edited:
Jeez, now I don't know what to think.
Just be kind to each other, everyone. Judge folks on their individual merits, and take care not to stereotype or have prejudices about people. And if you see unkindness, do your best to put a stop to it.
JustinP Pretty much this. I marched in both women's marches and had never heard of Sarsour outside of passing mentions from folks.
Just be kind to each other, everyone. Judge folks on their individual merits, and take care not to stereotype or have prejudices about people. And if you see unkindness, do your best to put a stop to it.
JustinP Pretty much this. I marched in both women's marches and had never heard of Sarsour outside of passing mentions from folks.
I get it now. She has a suuuuuuuper long history of supporting Farrakhan. She's also posted elsewhere that she believes in the kind of loyalty that the actress who played Rudy showed with Bill Cosby.
The above exchange with Sarsour combined with Mallory's extremely intentional defiance in disavowing Farrakhan is all I need to see. It's gross.
This is off topic here, but I think in practice, corporatists heighten xenophobia and racism in these people. The answer to that is not to ignore economic populism. It is to reveal and destroy the false, divisive narratives the corporatists put forth.
On topic....
I think what's most likely to happen here is that these two people will simply be shunned by people who care enough to shun them. No way Sarsour is stepping down, she basically founded the thing (as far as I'm aware). Moreover, reading the thread, it seems that people are mad Sarsour and Mallory are supportive of people that hate Jews in a sort of "revenge for Palestine" sense. From what I read, they haven't said any of things themselves but they just kind of associate with them. That's not going to be enough for most people. Hell, even Farrakhan himself isn't exactly persona non grata. I know a few NOI members that love him and they're perfectly normal people.
The statement is completely toothless, because the "leaders" of the movement have specifically gone out of their way to not disavow Farrakhan.
I am aware that antisemitism was around way before the whole Israel and Palestine conflict. I'm talking about some people who have beef with them today. And the ones that do most likely say the conflict between the two. The poster I quoted asked if the majority of the hate had to do with the entertainment industry.
I think this tweet pretty much highlights the problem. And why I think this level of organizing among the left is extremely unstable and bound to fall apart. You cannot sustain that level of intersectionality without having a sigificant number of people in leadership you disagree with. You're either going to have to accept them, or let the movement fall apart form internal disagreements (which is a real possibility here). My strategy would be to raise up a bunch of independent groups and form alliances with them, but that is not the strategy that got millions of women to march at Trump's election. They got the results. Let's see if they can sustain it.
I think forming a bunch of separate (but allied) groups is a longer term solution if you want to organize in this way. That's essentially why BLM has no one leader but has lasted for as long as it has. It's also what was done during the 50-70's Civil Rights Movement.
No need to insult the NOI. Respect everyones faith. The NOI help a lot of young man and women. Just like many religions.
What a lame non-apology. If denouncing a virulent antisemite is going "pit your communities against each other" then your problems are so structural you need to find better allies.
Last edited:
NOI is an absolutely abhorent and racist ideology GTFO with this.
The NAACP President gets it. Planned Parenthood also removed her as one of the main speakers at their annual meeting in April.
So does the Italian mafia, and still I feel it's prudent to denounce them and the members of the Catholic Church who enabled organized crime in their communities. Which the NoI absolutely did as well.
The thing is a lot of it does have to do with this illusion of control in both the western world and the middle east. People look at an over representation of Jews in high positions in American society compared to their population and they extrapolate all kinds of nonsense conspiracy theories from that. Stuff about favoritism and bullshit about subverting specific cultures because we're "parasites" to them that are all destined to fuck up every country we're in.
Israel is just one piece of the puzzle.
Piss off with the whole "parroting right-wing talking points" bullshit; I don't need to read a right-wingers's take on it to know that Linda Sarsour is a shitty person because her own statements illustrate that fact perfectly well. Fuck her. She is no better than a right-wing bigot.
There's alot more to the NOI than just Farrakhan. Do you actually know anyone in it? This is one of my greatest disagreements with "modern liberalism." You dismiss whole groups because they don't meet all of your standards.
I always thought the Women's March was an event, not an organization that could have ties to things.
The NOI is a creepy cult and Farrakhan is a huckster clown.
The NOI is a creepy cult and Farrakhan is a huckster clown.
NOI at its very origins is an openly racist ideology. I hope you are just ignorant of its teachings and not defending racism knowingly.
Anything to get rid of Linda Sarsour, her defense of Sharia Law makes me sick. It doesn't surprise me that she would defend an Anti-Semite. Good on people like Jake Tapper who calls out the problematic people on the liberal side. As a huge supporter of the women's march this does not make our cause look good. People like Sarsour, Perez, and Mallory need to go.
- Status