Dumbest Slur Against Occupy Wall Street Evah

Ken AshfordCorporate Greed, Economy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

It started with a David Brooks column in the New York Times yesterday.  Here's an excerpt:

Unfortunately, the country has been wasting this winter of recuperation. Nothing of consequence has been achieved over the past two years. Instead, there have been a series of trivial sideshows. It’s as if people can’t keep their minds focused on the big things. They get diverted by scuffles that are small, contentious and symbolic.

Take the Occupy Wall Street movement. This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.

If there is a core theme to the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent.

This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite.

See that second paragraph?  It's actually the fourth paragraph in Brooks' column.  And it mentions, as an aside, that the Occupy Wall Street movement was sparked by an ad in Adbusters, and that seven years ago, the magazine did an expose on rich Jews.  What that articles has to do with Occupy Wall Street, is anybody's guess.

But that was enough for Fox News to take the ball and run with it:

And now the meme has spun out of control.

Yes, apparently every anti-Semite reads Adbusters, and so when Adbusters put an advertisement in there about Occupy Wall Street, the anti-semites came out in force.  (*roll eyes*)

Of course, getting labelled anti-Semite is easy these days.  Being critical of Israel's policies, especially its expansion into Gaza, is enough to be called an anti-semite.  Pretty silly really. Especially when the article asked a question that many, on the right and left, asked: Why were we not allowed to discuss the neocons' emphasis on protecting Israel? (And that would include neocons like Brooks?)