“Renegade”: Breitbart continues its fall…
…and slides right into the mainstreaming of subtle (and maybe not even so subtle) anti-Semitism.
David Horowitz wrote an article on Breitbart criticizing Bill Kristol for his nevertrumperism, and Breitbart titled it “Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew.” Two things to note. The first is that this was not necessarily (or even probably?) David Horowitz’s choice for a title, because it’s not usually the writer who chooses the title, it’s the editors, and the text of Horowitz’s article—though certainly critical of Kristol—doesn’t contain very much that would support the “renegade Jew” appellation. So although we really don’t know how involved Horowitz was in the title if at all, we certainly know that some editor or editors at Breitbart were. However, the Breitbart article has been republished at Horowitz’s own site, complete with title and no disclaimer, so it is safe to say that Horowitz certainly has not distanced himself from it.
The second thing to note is that if you look at the comments to the Breitbart piece, just a quick perusal will tell you how the title managed to unleash a gush of anti-Semitism. It doesn’t take much, really, and in this case some of the most rabid Trump supporters who hang out on Breitbart can easily combine their hatred and need to destroy anyone who would dare defy Trump with a latent (and sometimes not-so-latent) anti-Semitism.
None of this is an accusation that Trump himself is anti-Semitic, by the way. I actually don’t think he is. But I can safely say that some of his alt-right promoters and their followers are.
If you Google the word “renegade” you’ll find the following definition and synonyms:
noun
a person who deserts and betrays an organization, country, or set of principles.
synonyms: traitor, defector, deserter, turncoat, rebel, mutineer…adjective
having treacherously changed allegiance…
synonyms: treacherous, traitorous, disloyal, treasonous, rebel, mutinous
Strong, strong word. And somewhat ironic, since Horowitz himself is a neocon (political changer, that is, from radical left to right, and who I’ve written about before on this blog) extraordinaire. Kristol, as the son of neocon elder statesman Irving Kristol (now deceased), was born into conservatism and as far as I know has been a conservative his whole life.
In the case of Trump support or non-support (and for the record, I am sympathetic to both sides at this point, now that Trump is almost certainly going to be Hillary Clinton’s opponent), Kristol has been against Trump from the start and very clear about it, and he’s searching for a possible third-party alternative he believes might actually be a viable candidate, not supporting Hillary Clinton.
This Slate piece pretty much sums up the oh-so-clever game that Breitbart (the site—not the man, who is deceased and cannot comment) is playing here:
In [the article]…Horowitz rails against Kristol and “a small but well-heeled group of Washington insiders” who are hoping to arrange a conservative third-party candidacy. A paragraph seemingly tacked on at the end accuses Kristol of putting world Jewry in danger by potentially splitting the Republican vote and empowering Democrats who are soft on radical Islam. It’s enough, perhaps, to give Breitbart plausible deniability [for the title]; the site can claim it’s calling out Kristol on behalf of Jews, rather than calling him out as a Jew.
Really, though, what Breitbart is doing here is playing a double game, covering anti-Semitism with a tacky sheen of philo-Semitism. To define someone as a “Renegade Jew” in a column about scheming elites written for an audience full of white nationalists is to signal to the sewers. The comments under the piece suggest that Breitbart’s readers got the message.
At present, as I write these words, there are 5360 comments to the Horowitz piece at Breitbart. I’m certainly not going to read them all, or even most of them. But I did skim quite a few and there is no doubt that although a great many are of the “we hate elitists like Kristol who would oppose Trump” type, quite a few are specifically in the anti-Jewish category. One example of the latter:
Trump rose up against the Jewish media and Jewish Hollywood and Jewsih power. HE is almost defined by his defiance of it. From Bill Kristol to Ben Shapiro to Bill Maher to Murdoch. They all hate and wil always hate Trump. Most are biding their time but soon very soon the back stabbing begins.
Here’s a comment to the Breitbart article that analyzes the phenomenon (although the commenter appears to think that Hororwitz himself wrote the headline—which, as I already said, is not necessarily correct):
I think most of the anti-semitic [comments at Breitbart] are real–but it’s less of a reflection on Trump supporters than it is on subset of Breitbart readers who are Trump supporters. Just read the comments in stories unrelated to Trump where a central figure (especially a liberal one) is Jewish. Unfortunately Horowitz [or Breitbart, or a combination of the two] opened up the floodgates here by playing the Jew card…
I expect that these floodgates will remain open.
This “renegade Jew” stuff is also a subset of another phenomenon we will see escalating with Trump’s candidacy and which is very familiar from Obama’s presidency and from politics in general, one that the mainstream media has long employed against Republican candidates running against their favored Democrats: that these opponents or critics are not just people who disagree, they are enemies whose reputations are to be destroyed.
[ADDENDUM: An update to this post can be found here.]
Haven’t noticed it as a trend but I had a disturbing encounter with it recently at the Breitbart blog “Big Hollywood.” They posted a trailer for the latest Woody Allen movie, and immediately the comments section for that post got a small wave of knee-jerk-y “pervert!” posts. That’s fine: I’m not going to sanction pedophilia, and if you think Allen is a pervert, you should condemn him (although I’ve noticed that on the Internet–like on IMDB– the people who are most obsessed with pedophilia, seeing pedophiles under every bed, tend to be the least educated among the commentariat). But one guy’s comment on Allen was “Marxist, Jewish, communist.” He slipped in “Jewish” as if that were also evil. I commented back, pointing out his bigotry; and in turn he called me a pedophile. He also saw as evidence of pedophilia my comment that I liked both Woody Allen movies and Steve Carell, so this new movie already had my interest. No kidding: that’s how stupid this guy was. But what bothered me most is that none of the other commentators called him out on his Jew-hating.
Horowitz used the same title when he posted the article at his Frontpage Magazine Blog today. Many of his commenters there are pretty over the top about his favorite topics, and they don’t seem all that knowledgeable either. I used to browse through commennts at several places, but I’m finding that harder to do with the rabid Trumpsters and other groups.
You have the best commenters I know of: thoughtful and seeking knowledge instead of know-it-all screamers. Thanks, Neo.
Think how insufferable Brietbart and Fox will be if Trump wins.
I’m now convinced that given all of Hillary’s struggles that Obama will allow Lynch to indict Hillary after the convention. Then Biden steps in to save the day.
I remain sick about the fact that I will have to vote for Trump. Crap like this is why.
Both John Podhoretz, on the right, and Jeffrey Goldberg, on the left, have noted on Twitter that the anti-Semitic tweets they’ve received since the Trump phenomenon began has grown to a very, very large number.
‘I remain sick about the fact that I will have to vote for Trump.’
Voting for Trump is a really bad idea. Here’s why.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/05/14/trump-offers-preview-his-authoritarian-presidency/hAs3oWxIznjrwcIdERDT0H/story.html
Trump played the conspiracy card at every chance. He didn’t himself do anti Semitic stuff but his birther And other jibes made it possible for this rise. More important is his tolerance of things done in his name. I suspect much of it is trolls but the enthusiasm of public figures is disappointing
I followed the link to the piece at FrontPage just now and Horowitz has an update. He wrote the renegade line and he meant it. Here’s the last part of the update:
In mounting a Third Party run which would split the Republican vote and elect Hillary, Bill Kristol seems to be forgetting that the Iranians and their Jew-hating allies are openly preparing a second Holocaust in the Middle East (and then for the rest of us). Obama, Hillary, Huma Abedin and the Democrats are the chief enablers of this already planned Holocaust. Splitting the Republican vote and electing Hillary is a betrayal of the Jews in an hour in which their backs are to the wall. Hence the designation renegade for those who are planning a Third Party run, and for which I make no apologies.
Pingback:Life Update: Moving from Berkeley to Vietnam for 2 Years | Travel Plan
For Trump supporters, it’s them against The World and everyone else in The World is either (1) an elitist establishmentarian or (2) bamboozled by elitist establishmentarians. “Renegade” doesn’t really have the negative dictionary meaning in common parlance. “Renegade” can be a good thing, like “Outlaw” can be a good thing. It’s sort of rock n roll and romantic. Basically meaning Person Who is Not Bamboozled Nor Establishment Nor Elitist. Outside the law. I am not a Trump Fan, and I do know that a percentage of Trump Fans have … issues, including but not limited to an obsession with “tribe” and massive resentment based on having internalized the progressive race/class/gender/identity group of your choice- mongering. And so, naturally, given the overlap with the progressive crowd, there are a lot of anti-semites. But, honestly, I don’t read the title of the article as anti-semitic so much as Trump-centric.
FYI, Horowitz has updated his article and claimed full responsibility for the headline.
In part, he writes:
“Breitbart is not responsible for the headline or the phrase “Renegade Jew.” I am. Some illiterate anti-Semites have picked up on the phrase without understanding it. Some neo-conservatives have called me names as well, displaying their own brand of inarticulate hate without bothering to respond to the actual argument of my piece.”
I think we’re at the deckchairs stage of our former republic.
To Steve D’s point, that’s probably in my top 5 reasons for not voting for Trump – he has repeatedly signaled that he will use the power of the Federal Government against people who disagree with him/don’t support him.
To paraphrase another blogger (Ace, I think) – I didn’t join the conservative movement to become a totalitarian.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that anti-Semitism would pop its ugly head out of a campaign run on blame and scapegoating. It’s been there for a long time in the comments at zerohedge. The other day they published an article on Vincente Fox’ vulgar responses to Trump’s wall. Fox predicted outright war and other retaliation should Trump attempt it. The comment section was uglier than Fox’ goading. He’s opening a Pandora’s box.
Let’s see, the Dems have the BDS movement, ostensibly just against Israel, but in reality there’s significant anti-Semitic component. Now this. Ugh!
Other Chuck:
Yeah, the fever swamp that is the comments section at zerohedge was brought to my mind as well.
Where I am, I have the dubious luxury of not having to vote for Trump, as Oregon will not break for a Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime. It is truly dispiriting to see all the “Bernie” bumper stickers and yard signs everywhere around Portland, and I mean everywhere…
Glad to see someone else gets it. Too bad Ben Rhodes is blind. See below:
“Iranians and their Jew-hating allies are openly preparing a second Holocaust in the Middle East (and then for the rest of us). Obama, Hillary, Huma Abedin and the Democrats are the chief enablers of this already planned Holocaust.”
Its interesting that you put up the definition, but NOT the etymology of RENEGADE (which is Obama’s secret service code name too).
1580s, “apostate,” probably (with change of suffix) from Spanish renegado, originally “Christian turned Muslim,” from Medieval Latin renegatus, noun use of past participle of renegare “deny” (see renege). General sense of “turncoat” is from 1660s. The form renegate, directly from Medieval Latin, is attested in English from late 14c. As an adjective from 1705.
But the Title makes methink of Poor old Woody Allen…
jew eat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprg
i find it funny in that it all depends on HOW you read the sentence which can be taken several ways DEPENDING on where you decide to divide the meaning and whether your looking for offense.
if your looking for offense… then it means the subject of the sentence is a renegade to judaism..
but if you look at it as a noun, the person can be a renegade who happens to be a jew
is it a desert topping or is it a floor wax?
its both, a dessert topping and a floor wax
given the article, its a man who happens to be jewish who is going against the system (of which a lot of smart people, many of them jews, particpate in)
but would i call it antisemitism? given the stuff i have read that actually is, and the stuff from tin hatters that is confused version of antisemitism making little distinction between practicing, not practicing, and someone with a jewish person 4 generations back in their family.
[edited for length by n-n]
A joke that does the same thing as the title:
(but only works when you say it out loud given different words that sound alike)
whats long and hard and full of seamen?
a submarine, get your mind out of the gutter..
the funny thing is that given the ease with which we want to assume the negative, people often cant find an alternative answer that is possitive or lacking the meaning.
one side of the entendre is overwhelming..
there are lots of “tricks” that people exploitin brain games… or cons… or ambiguous attraction
its human nature to be drawn to things out of place, things “not right”, things that demand expansion to be understood, etc.
its the less clinical side of obssessive compulive disorders…
Tangentially, I visited Breitbart for the first time in months the other night. On a post about Cruz filing papers for his 2018 re-election campaign, the comment section was a tsunami of vicious, libelous hatred for Cruz, his record, his wife, his father, re-visiting every scurrilous slur used by Trump, the National Enquirer, Alex Jones and every other conspiracy nutjob site. They even wanted him primaryed and defeated by a “real conservative”.
I thought that once Trump wrapped up the nomination, these attacks would subside. I now believe Trump is floating Cruz among his VP choices just for appearances, to show his attempts at “uniting” the party when he has no intention of considering him.
You can expect the anti-Semitic attitudes to escalate from his flock as well.
When I read the title, I took it to mean that Horowitz was a Jewish renegade for opposing the majority of American Jews, who are either leftists or liberals. Evidently that was not Horowitz’s intent.
Kristol is arguably an indirect renegade to Israel but no more so than Israelis who think that appeasing Muslims will lead to peace.
I suspect the fuel fanning the flames of antisemitism among Brietbart’s readers is Jewish liberality, which is strongly supportive of the Left. Any minority viewed as traitors is going to elicit a strong emotional reaction and for many, hate.
The rationale is that the nation with arguably the least amount of antisemitism is today’s America and this is how the Jews reward it, with betrayal.
That’s not justification but a possible explanation.
“Lord, what fools these mortals be!” William Shakespeare, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”
I gave up on Breitbart back in December when it turned into trump mode. You with strong stomachs who venture to read articles and comments, please let me know when it stops being djt 24/7. I don’t think all trumpians are Jew haters or white nationalists, nor alt-right nihilists. Many of the fan boys are simply frustrated. From my pov, I want nothing to do with trump or the trumpians.
Cornhead,
A vote for a 3rd party for POTUS is not a vote for hrc. A vote for djt is not a vote for hrc. Come November 1st IF djt is within the polling margin of error in Iowa I might hold my nose and vote for the donald, then again no I will not.
GB:
I suspect the fuel fanning the flames of antisemitism among Brietbart’s readers is Jewish liberality, which is strongly supportive of the Left.
No. There is a contingent of white supremacists, nativist, bigoted Jew haters who support Trump. His campaign has brought them out from under the rocks where they usually stay at places like stormfront. I don’t want to sound like your typical leftist, but the common thread uniting them with the alt-right is unrelenting hate combined with a reactionary desire to tear it all down. Deport the Mexicans, then why not the Jews? It was no accident that Trump used the phrase “America First” as a dog whistle. He knows exactly what he is doing.
It seems like the world is just too confusing for people to think about rationally anymore. They turn to scapegoats or messiahs.
T. O. Chuck,
In your opinion, had Cruz taken Trump’s positions but a bit more diplomatically, would it have brought out that same contingent?
Had a disagreement with a friend who asked if most of the opposition to Obama all this time was really just due to the fact that he was black.
I told him that there are some very good reasons to be against his policies, and that a majority certainly would be in that camp.
But, in light of our recent huge disappointment (with our discovery that so many vocal “conservatives” were NOT beholding to their stated principles when it counted), I followed up by saying that there appears to be many people who may well be hiding behind those principled arguments.
We don’t know anymore.
.
Gave up on Brietbart completely after 2012 election. They banged the “RINO!” drum so hard and incessantly (they were not the only ones), that by the nomination it soured any desire to vote GOP amongst a large swath of would be voters – probably includes most of the “new” voters Trump “brought in”.
.
Trump courts controversy to keep on the front page, or on the TV news. Part of any demagogic populist’s strategy is to find someone to “blame”. Supporters then just “run with it”.
Trump “inoculated” himself from the most extreme his supporters take this all to, by saying he is merely being “strong”, a “winner!”, and “telling the truth, unfiltered by Political Correctness”, even though Trump clearly is cultivating it by his tone and his connotation.
He may not specifically be anti-semite, but he also noticeably doesn’t distance himself from it, nor call for such from his supporters (agree w DirtyJobsGuy).
This is a sign of the “Chaos” that is rearing its ugly head, and will surely follow Trump into the WH, if we voters let him. (the Other Chuck gives an interesting example of what might be – Vincente Fox).
.
@Cornhead – Biden is not much of a an improvement over Clinton.
He is merely “less corrupt” (i.e. he doesn’t have a charitable piggy bank). But, he will probably carry through a more Obama-leaning administration than Clinton would, and do more to cement O’s “legacy”.
But, yes, might make voting for a conservative alternative (if there comes to be one), or libertarian a wee bit easier for some.
Still see the Chaos from Trump as being the greatest threat on the horizon.
On January 14 Peter Wehner wrote a piece for the NY Times, “While I Will Never Vote for Donald Trump” which holds up quite well. Nothing about Trump or his campaign has changed much since. A key quote:
…Many of Mr. Trump’s most celebrated pronouncements and promises – to quickly and “humanely” expel 11 million illegal immigrants, to force Mexico to pay for the wall he will build on our southern border, to defeat the Islamic State “very quickly” while as a bonus taking its oil, to bar Muslims from immigrating to the United States – are nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts.
Are they “nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts” or are they a calculated, disingenuous scheme to bring out the worst elements in our society, attach them to the Republican Party thereby thoroughly discrediting it, while at the same time funding it with $200,000,000 from Carl Icahn and Sheldon Adelson? What kind of a sick irony is this?
Mr. Wehner goes on about Trump, the man:
He is erratic, inconsistent and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty that manifested itself in how he physically mocked a Times journalist with a disability, riduculed Senator John McCain for being a P.O.W., made a reference to “blood” intended to degrade a female journalist and compared one of his opponents to a child molester. [Dr. Carson]
So we should be surprised at what kind of gutter people are attracted to his campaign?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/opinion/campaign-stops/why-i-will-never-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1
Big Maq –
There’s one other tactic that Trump frequently uses. He’ll malign someone by talking about “what people say” regarding the person. Then if he gets called on the comments, he retreats behind “I’m not the one who said it. I’m merely passing along what other people are saying.”
The Other Chuck:
You have Donald nailed with the article from Peter Weher. I gave up on Trumpbart in March. They get no clicks from me.
Anti-Semites in Donald’s camp? “I’m shocked! shocked!”
After all Donald does run casinos, although into the ground sometimes.
BG:
Look, I’m talking about calling Mexicans rapists and murderers, not just illegal aliens, about his jingoistic appeals, the use of key phrases like “America First”, his willingness to use torture, his unbridled public disrespect of and lies about his opponents, his flaunting swagger, his threats, his admiration for thuggery, and his general authoritarian streak. Ted Cruz is in another league entirely, no comparison. Of course he wouldn’t have attracted the same element, policy or not. And they wouldn’t have been emboldened.
Sorry, GB I don’t mean to gang up on you, and I’m not implying that ALL Trump supporters are low-lifes. There are legitimate reasons to vote for Trump, but no reason whatsoever to admire him.
An update to this post can be found here.
I call the white nationalists former or current Democrats. Since it was the Dems who funded the KKK and owned that action group for some time, until the Dems dropped them around the time Southern Democrats floated over to Reagan.
It’s the same crowd the Dems floated John Kerry to appeal to, a white war criminal.
That failed, so Dems are now throwing out their broken black slaves and white welfare serfs, and replacing them with Mexicans. And now that the former Dems have been dropped, they are now free to crowd to their next patron.
@junior – excellent example of his self “inoculation”.
So is Trump a plant to win the election for Hillary or a totalitarian in a nice suit who wants to be der Fuehrer? Or is he a guy who can’t be trusted because he has no real positions whatsoever? Would you NeverTrumpers please get your stories straight?!
And going to the New York Times and the Boston Globe to get pseudo-psychological diagnoses of Trump and then talk about “conservatives abandoning their principles” is actually laughable.
“Republican circular firing squad! Ready! Aim! . . .”
Richard,
Door number 3; plus in over his hair and surprised to be on the cusp of nomination. I will admit I started out thinking door number 1, but now door 3 seems more likely. Not that it matters. I come from the salt of the earth; people who do the heavy lifting, people who produce the food on everyone’s table. I have no need to apologize. And, I will not vote for djt.
Kindly, if you rationalize voting for the donald in November, it is you who needs to “get your story straight”.
Various places have noted the Boston Globe’s sudden concern with unchecked executive power.
The Other Chuck, I wish to take issue with your reference to ‘America First’ as a dog whistle. I believe in America First. The Dems seem to think in terms of ‘America Who? What?’
In other words – America dead last.
I think we need to place the concerns for our country and fellow citizens (even the TWANLOC among us) as one of the highest goods. If this attracts haters, so be it, but the idea is important nonetheless.
Juli:
The dog whistle of “America First” is historical. It was the name of a movement prior to WW2 that sought to keep the U.S. neutral. One of the leaders of this group, Charles Lindbergh, was an admirer of Hitler and the Nazis, was a friend of Hermann Goering who escorted him as a special guest to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, received a medal from the Nazi government, and had planned to move to Berlin shortly before the start of the war in 1938. As one of the most prominent leaders of the America First Committee, he allowed himself to become a tool of the Nazi war machine, which he greatly admired.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html
Every neo-Nazi, white supremacist knows the significance of the term. That it has a double meaning is perfect for Trump. He’s a master at the “what, not me, I wasn’t referring to THAT when I used the term” evasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
In fairness to Lindbergh, once the US finally entered the war, Lindbergh served as a volunteer civilian consultant (Roosevelt refused to let him back into the military), flying combat missions in the Pacific in an “advisory” role, and assisting US aviators in learning to better handle their aircraft.
But before Pearl Harbor, yeah…
parker:
Donald Trump is a crass, crude, vulgar, arrogant, narcissistic, infantile, ill-informed assh*le.
and compared to Hillary, he’s a saint.
Simple as that.
Those who give a President their power, will be held to account for the way that power is used.
Unless people think there’s some kind of Faustian loophole they can use to get out of it.
Don’t be silly, Chuck.
Trump isn’t using “America First” as an arcane reference to a war that over 90% of Americans (sadly) know almost nothing about — it would be lost on them, even if he were a Nazi, which is just ridiculous. Tacky and overbearing, yah, but not a Nazi, for crying out loud.
“America First” is, simply, the antidote to the “America Last, America Worst!” garbage we’ve been getting for years on end from our internal enemies. It’s really quite simple, actually.
Another point that bears repeating is that the Powers That Be are all lined up against Trump — but they’re quite ready to carry Hildabeast’s cathedral-length train.
Petulance isn’t a game plan.
There’s nothing silly about what Chuck wrote. Neither he nor you nor I know what’s in Trump’s mind. We don’t know what Trump’s aware of about the slogan “America First” or what he’s ignorant of. I will tell you this, however:
(1) If you Google “America First” the reference to WWII comes up right away. Do you not think that a candidate, when choosing a slogan, Googles it to find out if anyone else is using it or has used it? As far as I know, it’s standard procedure to do so. As I said, we don’t know whether Trump knew the history of the expression, but it would be logical to think he did, or someone among his entourage and advisors did.
(2) It is a fact that—whether Trump is personally simpatico with them or not (and I don’t think he is)—he has a strong following among neo-Nazis and white supremacists. He has been rather cagey and coy with that group—not embracing them outright, but often refusing to completely or strongly condemn them or disavow them. Now, you are probably correct that most Americans are unaware of the history of “America First,” but one group that probably is aware of the history is this particular subset of Trump supporters, and they would be delighted at the slogan. So if it was chosen with any awareness of its history (certainly a possibility), it would have particular appeal to this segment of Trump supporters.
As I said, neither I nor you nor Chuck knows what’s actually in Trump’s mind here. But there is nothing whatsoever about what Chuck alleged that’s silly. To quote him:
All likely to be true.