Ran Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I'm very well aware of the Rothschild family. But the reference is to a controlling owner of The Economist being a bosom-buddy of Clinton (and providing a quote from de Rothschild to this effect) and this, Wikileaks claims, is one factor making The Economist a biased sourced regarding Putin. That is the sum total of their claim. Is de Rothschild not one of the owner's of the magazine? There's nothing anti-semitic in criticizing a person for their political bias or connections, if your criticism isn't motivated by or predicated on their ethnicity or religion. One might as well have called Wikileaks out for being sexist for all the value the claim has. (I think Wikileaks are these days in Putin's pocket and the only thing their tweet did is remind me to pay a visit to see if I could read the contents of the issue.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 10 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said: again a bit of a push to call it anti-semitic. I think the point was more about a very rich person who controls a media outlet being in bed with politicians. Bit of 2+2 = 5 to read more into it. Depends. If you're into or familiar with the whole Rothschild conspiracy thing, it's an obvious dog whistle for the idea that Jewish bankers are trying to provoke hostility between the US and Russia - and if not, not. So I guess the relevant question is whether the people of WikiLeaks are familiar with the whole Rothschild conspiracy thing. Hard for me to imagine that there are global conspiracy theories WikiLeaks is not familiar with, but YMMV. I'm definitely just guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 It doesn't seem to me to matter. The whole point of the tweet was to explicitly connect the Lynn de Rothschild of the e-mail to the Economist owner; the source e-mail gives no titles and no indication that she has any connection to The Economist, so to make their point they _had_ to explicitly name her and note her control of the magazine. A quick look also notes that Rothschild's email to Clinton was subject "Miss You", suggesting they are _very_ close personal friends, which is what I think Wikileaks is really angling to get across when trying to smear the magazine as untrustworthy on Putin.. They're idiots in this case, mind you, but simply referring to the fact that Clinton's friend owns the allegedly-anti-Putin The Economist is not anti-semitic, regardless of her (married) name or whatever conspiracies exist about the family she married into. Also, thanks to Wikileaks bringing it to my attention, the relevant articles from The Economist. Sound reportage and analysis, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 In this case, as Ran says, Lynn de Rothschild actually is the CEO of the holding company which owns The Economist and, since she's a de Rothschild by marriage, I'm not entirely sure she's Jewish either. I suppose on that basis it's not definitively antisemitic suspicion of secret Jewish cabals exerting 'influence' with no basis in fact. Still I rather doubt it's actually true and conspiracy theories about the de Rothschilds, given the history involved, aren't a good look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 30 minutes ago, Ran said: I'm very well aware of the Rothschild family. But the reference is to a controlling owner of The Economist being a bosom-buddy of Clinton (and providing a quote from de Rothschild to this effect) and this, Wikileaks claims, is one factor making The Economist a biased sourced regarding Putin. That is the sum total of their claim. Cool, I'm not all that familiar with the whole Rothschild conspiracy thing (as a post-WWII phenomena anyway) and had to Google it, so I'm not up on what anyone else might already know. Assange talks about the Rothschilds in reference to the global banking conspiracy which, he says, drives more corruption than the military industrial complex and suppresses the press to hide the ill-gotten riches of a cabal of the wealthy. I guess maybe he thinks it's just a conspiracy of bankers and not Jewish bankers...but then there's stuff like this. Using the echoes is not a good sign. Dunno. Maybe Jewish bankers really are running a global shadow government to hide the assets they pilfer from developing countries and war profiteering. Or maybe they aren't, in which case it probably would be anti-semitic to echo the same stuff people argued as justification for the Holocaust, even if the person saying it was advocating no such thing. No simple answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Ran said: I'm very well aware of the Rothschild family. But the reference is to a controlling owner of The Economist being a bosom-buddy of Clinton (and providing a quote from de Rothschild to this effect) and this, Wikileaks claims, is one factor making The Economist a biased sourced regarding Putin. That is the sum total of their claim. Is de Rothschild not one of the owner's of the magazine? There's nothing anti-semitic in criticizing a person for their political bias or connections, if your criticism isn't motivated by or predicated on their ethnicity or religion. One might as well have called Wikileaks out for being sexist for all the value the claim has. (I think Wikileaks are these days in Putin's pocket and the only thing their tweet did is remind me to pay a visit to see if I could read the contents of the issue.) Don't be naive dude. This is not the first time they've pulled out the "secret jewish cabal" conspiracy theory shit. At the very best, they are only dogwhistling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I'd say at very best it's leveling a dubious critique. At _worst_ it's dog-whistling. Given that they're in Putin's pocket and given that the editor is Clinton's bestie, how would you have formulated that attack if you were in the same position as Wikileaks? Or would you-as-Wikileaks-twitter-person have gone, "Meh, she's part of the Rothschild family, can't possibly criticize for fear of being called an anti-semite"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 26 minutes ago, Ran said: I'd say at very best it's leveling a dubious critique. At _worst_ it's dog-whistling. Given that they're in Putin's pocket and given that the editor is Clinton's bestie, how would you have formulated that attack if you were in the same position as Wikileaks? Or would you-as-Wikileaks-twitter-person have gone, "Meh, she's part of the Rothschild family, can't possibly criticize for fear of being called an anti-semite"? A really easy way to NOT dogwhistle is say that Clinton is best friends with the Economist owner, and not mention her name at all. By saying "Rothschild" in any capacity, it's a pretty big dogwhistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I'd say exactly what I meant, instead of insinuating vague attacks that leave readers to draw their own conclusions. Like if I wanted to say that Lynn de Rothschild was using the magazine to foment anti-Putin fear to boost her friend Hillary's campaign, I'd say so. And if instead I meant the Rothschilds support Hillary as a sympathizer of their global shadow government advancing the interests of the corrupt elite, I'd say so. And if the leader of a group regularly said the latter, I might take him at his word. Whether *that* idea - the global shadow government run by Jewish bankers thing - is anti-semitic is, I think, the real question on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 I mean, really, @Ran - look at the actual responses in this tweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Kalbear said: A really easy way to NOT dogwhistle is say that Clinton is best friends with the Economist owner, and not mention her name at all. By saying "Rothschild" in any capacity, it's a pretty big dogwhistle. As I noted, Rothschild's e-mail says nothing about her ownership of the Economist. The only way most people would know that would be by Wikileaks actually saying so in their tweet. And you and I very well know that even if the tweet was "the Economist owner "loyal adoring pal" to Clinton" and then linked the e-mail with Rothschild's signing off, it would still be considered "anti-semitism" for the temerity of saying anything connected to a Rothschild because OMG dog-whistle; it would still draw the same responses from conspiratorial crackpots and anti-semites, and apparently guilty-by-association is a thing. So should the Rothschilds change their name? No. Should the Rothschild name grant an automatic immunity from criticism? No. People throw around vituperative labels with far too low a bar these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Like WikiLeaks said "Tribalist symbol for establishment climbers? Most of our critics have 3 (((brackets around their names))) and have black-rimmed glasses. Bizarre." But yeah, generally speaking, that's probably true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 4 hours ago, Ran said: I'd say at very best it's leveling a dubious critique. At _worst_ it's dog-whistling. Given that they're in Putin's pocket and given that the editor is Clinton's bestie, how would you have formulated that attack if you were in the same position as Wikileaks? Or would you-as-Wikileaks-twitter-person have gone, "Meh, she's part of the Rothschild family, can't possibly criticize for fear of being called an anti-semite"? Maybe they should have not previously established a pattern of anti-semitic tweets instead? There's no getting away from the fact that at the very least the phrasing and complaint dog-whistles for the kind of anti-semitic conspiracy theorising they've already shown a penchant for. Ya keep wanting to view this in isolation for some reason. Assange himself has previously made noise about conspiracy theories and jewish connections. There was the hastily deleted tweet from earlier this year talking about the same kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Conspiracy theories are easy to generate because once you move in certain circles, people are connected. Hillary being linked to the Rothschild family. So what? They move in the same circles. People could make conspiracy theories about me. I am 2 degrees of separation from a convicted serial killer. I am also 2 degrees away from a cop killer, and a murdered son of a mob boss. Don't read too much into people's relationships and who they know. I am sure that Hillary at some point has interacted with Putin. None of this makes her part of a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 1 minute ago, maarsen said: Conspiracy theories are easy to generate because once you move in certain circles, people are connected. Hillary being linked to the Rothschild family. So what? They move in the same circles. People could make conspiracy theories about me. I am 2 degrees of separation from a convicted serial killer. I am also 2 degrees away from a cop killer, and a murdered son of a mob boss. Don't read too much into people's relationships and who they know. I am sure that Hillary at some point has interacted with Putin. None of this makes her part of a conspiracy. Nah, I think that's pretty well pegged you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Did I mention the fraud and dubious financial dealings going on at my place of work that have made headlines in Canada's national paper, and that I am involved in, on the angel's side? Still think I am pegged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, maarsen said: Did I mention the fraud and dubious financial dealings going on at my place of work that have made headlines in Canada's national paper, and that I am involved in, on the angel's side? Still think I am pegged? Even more now, yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Even more now, yep Damn, that's me. Just a pane of glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Just now, maarsen said: Damn, that's me. Just a pane of glass. Admit it, you're the unnamed worker at PRN who deleted all of Clinton's emails, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 51 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Admit it, you're the unnamed worker at PRN who deleted all of Clinton's emails, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.