Trending Topics:

92d St Y speaker decried those who ‘suck the cocks of Jew-haters’

on 32 Comments


I don’t know the context for this explosion, but Gawker published it in 2011:

Check out what Commentary’s John Podhoretz said to Max Blumenthal on Twitter yesterday! “Whatever their flaws, they don’t suck the cocks of Jew-haters and murderers, Maxie boy.” He later apologized and deleted that tweet. Still, the point is that John Podhoretz likes to talk about the cocks of Jew-haters.

Podhoretz later apologized. But the tweet is preserved here:

People have been recirculating the tweet because Podhoretz will be speaking at the 92d Street Y next week, alongside Jane Eisner of the Forward. “Jewish Leaders to Engage on What It Means to Be Pro-Israel.”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, David Harris, John Podhoretz will discuss Israel, Iran, Jewish communal politics December 16, at 8:15PM at 92Y

NEW YORK—With the spotlight on Israeli-Palestinian and Iranian negotiations—two areas in which the US and Israel have common stake, if not always shared vision—four leading American Jewish voices from across the political spectrum will come together to discuss what it means to be pro-Israel in America.

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami will join American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris and Commentary Magazine editor John Podhoretz for a community conversation moderated by Jane Eisner, editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward. The event will take place on Monday, December 16 at 8:15pm at 92Y.

Note that the 92d Street Y cancelled an appearance by Gaza doctor/author Izzeldin Abuelaish, whose three daughters were killed by Israeli onslaught but somehow forgave the act, because a Jewish counterpart bowed out and it couldn’t have a Palestinian solo-ing on the main stage. (So much for Jewish IQ.)

And here’s a question for Podhoretz: Commentary’s mission statement, on its website, states its dedication to “the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.” And neoconservatism has historically decried the fall of civility, blaming the vulgarity of popular culture on a decline in religious faith and the growth of government. Now Podhoretz is Exhibit A in degradation, coarseness and contempt for civility. What happened on the way to the forum?

Update: Original post left the impression that Podhoretz had just tweeted that abuse to Blumenthal. He did so in 2011. It’s getting fresh life because of Podhoretz’s role as a Jewish leader.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. annie
    December 11, 2013, 12:46 pm

    i noticed a bunch of tweets about this last night. these rgtwg people who are continually promoted as speakers representing the jewish community, they can say anything and be forgiven. nobody kicks them out. they merely utter faux paxes and get recycled back into the discourse.

  2. miriam6
    December 11, 2013, 1:01 pm

    And here’s a question for Podhoretz: Commentary’s mission statement, on its website, states its dedication to “the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards.” And neoconservatism has historically decried the fall of civility, blaming the vulgarity of popular culture on a decline in religious faith and the growth of government. Now Podhoretz is Exhibit A in degradation, coarseness and contempt for civility. What happened on the way to the forum?

    So says ‘Holier than’ thou Philip Weiss – but wait!

    Could this new sanctimonious Weiss be the same one who saw fit to include this on his website?

    Who applauded SNL on their vulgar ‘comedy routines’ accusing pro Israel folk of being ‘donkey fellators’?

    Who knew! Donkey fellator is anti-Semitic trope

    More on SNL’s fellate-a-donkey for Israel skit

    Podheratz is evidently not the first to lower the tone of political / and specifically M.E discourse into the base language of the gutter.

    Philly Weiss and SNL got there FIRST!

    • Cliff
      December 11, 2013, 5:21 pm

      A short vulgar tweet (much like Podhoretz in life) is less defendable, miriam666.

      The SNL skit led up to the donkey-joke. The point is that Israel Firsters and their bought-and-paid-for Congressmen are careerists and sell-outs.

      Podhoretz and cultists like you are wrong on the history and facts and reality.

      So even though you can indeed ‘point score’ on the superficial similarities – it always comes back to the reality on the ground.

      If both sides are calling each other fascists, you might say that it’s wrong to do so for ‘both sides’. But if one is actually behaving like a fascist then it could and should be brought up.

      tl;dr: Podhoretz is wrong. SNL and Phil are right. Hence, the joke is ok (and it didn’t even depend on that punchline, the lead-up to the joke is the context).

      Podhoretz made no joke. He’s just a short vulgar angry Zio like you.

    • talknic
      December 12, 2013, 8:39 am

      @miriam6 “accusing pro Israel folk”

      Wrong! Pro Greater Israel folk. There’s a vast difference between those who support Israel acting illegally outside its sovereign territory and those of us who support Israel abiding by International Law

    • annie
      December 12, 2013, 11:14 am

      So says ‘Holier than’ thou Philip Weiss – but wait!

      miriam, you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. mondoweiss’s mission statement says nothing about dedication to “the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness ….” and we already know commentary’s idea of “critical standards” is supporting apartheid. also it’s neoconservatism, not mondoweiss that’s “historically decried the fall of civility, blaming the vulgarity of popular culture on a decline in religious faith and the growth of government.”

      therefore, it’s absolutely fair game to point out their hypocrisy. whereas we make no bones about ” applauding SNL on their vulgar ‘comedy routines’ accusing pro Israel folk of being ‘donkey fellators’…..we revel in it!

      and from a journalistic perspective, it doesn’t matter to me which team is engaged in “suck the cocks” lingo, whether it’s commentary or SNL, we’ll cover both. that’s the opposite of hypocrisy.

    • Taxi
      December 12, 2013, 11:40 am


      You should be thanking Phil Weis for giving you a public platform to fellate the donkey all you like, here on MW.

      Hasbara, which is what you peddle, is the ultimate act of “fellating the donkey”.

      • jayn0t
        December 14, 2013, 7:18 pm

        I guess that’s another way of saying Miriam has a big mouth.

      • Taxi
        December 15, 2013, 12:00 am

        “Big” is such a small word to describe miriam’s mouth.

        Blows my mind how anyone can fellate the donkey and talk at the same time. Quite the trick huh. It’s what I would call a stunning display of oral acrobatics.

      • seafoid
        December 15, 2013, 12:18 am

        One feature of American culture I just love is the roast.

        I’d love to see Zionism roasted. There is so much nonsense to parody.
        It would probably be more of a box set than a single program.

      • W.Jones
        December 15, 2013, 2:09 am

        Yo Mama So Zionist on Youtube

    • annie
      December 12, 2013, 12:55 pm

      and another thing miriam, something that seemed to fly right past your head..podhoretz, throwing his mighty weight around, aimed his ire at max, (below the belt). whereas SNL’s skit so mirrored the confirmation hearings in congress, everybody got a great kick out of that skit which made it hysterical. wheras podhoretz’s ‘humor’ was so uncalled for he immediately regretted it, deleted it, and and tried to make it disappear.

      but interestingly, you’re targeting phil? this is your ‘big catch’ and you come armed with supporting links! as if anyone is going to be forgetting how we were on the front lines or that we would back away from it or be ashamed. seriously miriam, is that all you got?

      sorry, i have to agree w/taxi here. your concern is glaringly transparent.

      • jayn0t
        December 14, 2013, 7:10 pm

        Podhoretz’s tweet is simply abuse which says more about him than Blumenthal, who is not as anti-Israel as he appears. The joke about donkeys on Saturday night live was as vulgar, but not abuse, it was parody, exaggerating (slightly) the subservience of politicians to the lobby.

      • miriam6
        December 14, 2013, 8:10 pm

        The joke about donkeys on Saturday night live was as vulgar, but not abuse, it was parody, exaggerating (slightly) the subservience of politicians to the lobby.

        No – the SNL sketch was supposed ‘satire’ of the abusive lowest order – as is your juvenile insult directed at me elsewhere on this page.

        In any case – your point about ‘subservience’ is disproved by the recent deal America made with Iran over the nuclear issue.

        After all – MW itself made a big song and dance about the efforts of the supposedly all powerful Lobby to derail the deal.

        But of course America went ahead and did it’s own deal regardless of Israeli / Lobby misgivings.

        Thus proving that Noam Chomsky is perfectly right when he states that the power of the Lobby is overstated.

        That America follows it’s own strategic interests and kicks the Lobby to the kerb if the Lobby contradicts American interests.

        So – not only was the ‘parody’ SNL skit vulgar – it was also WRONG.

      • Walid
        December 15, 2013, 3:16 am

        “power of the Lobby is overstated”

        I also think so; the lobby is simply the crutch used by most in the Congress to let Israel have its way in exchange for all the great cash they are getting. It’s the “lobby’s making me do it” thing. Nobody can make the US do anything against its will, not even the Jewish lobby, and it was just made evident twice, on Syria and on Iran.

      • jayn0t
        December 15, 2013, 12:33 pm

        The Iran ‘deal’ says Iran can’t have nukes and Israel can. That’s not a defeat for the lobby. (A longer comment of mine from yesterday hasn’t been approved for some reason, though it’s not abusive or anything).

      • jayn0t
        December 15, 2013, 12:27 am

        So, Miriam… the ‘deal’ whereby Israel gets to keep its nukes but Iran can’t have any is an example of America NOT being subservient to the Lobby? Israel and its Lobby are clever. They make it sound like Israel has been defeated when it has been victorious. They complain that retreating to Israel’s 1967 borders would be a setback. In fact, it would be the setting in stone of the ethnic cleansing which created the Jewish state. The Lobby attacks people like Max Blumenthal, the BDS movement, and other wobbly critics of Israel, in hysterical and obscene language, thereby giving them unearned credibility.

      • jayn0t
        December 15, 2013, 5:01 pm

        Oh… it has been approved. Thx.

  3. Krauss
    December 11, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Podhoretz is notorious for many things. Just a few months ago he was the MC of an event honoring Dick Cheney “for his services to the nation”.

    He has a habit of attacking everyone and anyone as “anti-Semitic [insert vulgar word here]”. That tweet he sent to Max was not an aberration, it was the norm.

    Yet I can’t say I think he’s really influential. Even within the GOP, the neocons are losing ground. Sites like Daily Caller are opposing the Israel lobby, publishing articles by Jack Ross(“Rabbi Outcast” who writes frankly about AIPAC and the role of the neocons.

    The problem is that, fundamentally, Podhoretz is a liberal New York Jew who is far-right on Israel. That’s his only issue. On everything else he is a liberal. Sure, on government’s size etc he’s basically a Reagan democrat, but the neocons have always argues for a larger role for the welfare state within the GOP. This was one of their foundational traits.

    Why? Because they were essentially left-wing Jews who wanted to carve out a home for Zionism in the GOP. The problem is that these people have no roots in the Republican party. This was again evidenced when Erick Erickson tweeted that Jennifer Rubin(blogger at WaPo) was only in the GOP to promote Israel – which was true.

    She attacked him as an anti-Semite and he retracted his (truthful) statement but the fact remains, most of the senior conservatives know these people only care about Israel and have tried to hijack the GOP to serve the cause of Zionism. True, there are genuine conservative Jews like Mark Levin who are also strong Zionists, but their Zionism is secondary or even tertiary to their political identity.

    • Scott
      December 11, 2013, 5:06 pm

      The problem is that, fundamentally, Podhoretz is a liberal New York Jew who is far-right on Israel. That’s his only issue. On everything else he is a liberal.

      I think this isn’t as true as it once was, esp. re the neocons in general. They have certainly made their peace with Wall Street and its increasingly dominant role, from which neocon publications (and Israel lobby favored politicians) have received enormous benefits. And they are “tough on crime” (I voted for Giuliani too, for that matter.) They are anti-union, as, apart from some admirable progressive activists, there are few Jews left in unions. On cultural issues –immigration, etc. they are liberals. As for his feelings about gay rights issues, who knows what conclusion to draw? Interesting that note about Erick Erickson and Jen–I had missed that.

      • Krauss
        December 11, 2013, 5:50 pm

        I disagree with much of what you say. Let me explain.

        Being pro-Wall Street is not really something limited to the right. Most of the democratic establishment are pro-Wall Street, just like the neocons. Who – as I wrote earlier – have no base. They never had any base.

        They are funded by Wall Street tycoons who care about Israel and maintaining a pro-Wall Street bias in the GOP. This has allowed them to run much of the conservative press, a fact that is now slowly fading from them as the internet has allowed grassroots Republicans much more say(red state, daily caller, even breitbart to some extent. Ben Shapiro is a Zionist much like Mark Levin, it’s a secondary or even tertiary identity for him).

        So on Wall Street, I see no signficant difference between the neocons and the Clintonian democrats. Also, much of the money being given to the neocons are given by people like Singer, Loeb and other Zionists on Wall Street who care mostly about money and Israel. Money, in the sense that they get to keep the relaxed rules on Wall Street intact, and the danger is that there will be a populist Republican who goes against Wall Street without expanding the government – their deepest fear.

        On social issues. You mentioned immigration, where they’ve been pushing amnesty for many years. They were Bush II’s best friend on amnesty(didn’t help back then anyway).

        On stuff like gay rights etc they are very close to my position. Not very close to the GOP base.

        I’ll concede that crime is probably the only area where they are on the right. But that’s not necessarily because they are conservatives. There is a lot of racial tension between blacks and Jews, especially in New York. We’ve seen a wave of attacks on Jews by blacks in light of these so-called “knockout games”, especially Orthodox Jews.

        Also, a lot of neocons did move to the right during the ’68 race riots when many Jewish shopkeepers were targeted, which just accelerated the flight to the lily-white suburbs and away from the inner cities where many Jews had previously lived. (Many also moved to the Upper West Side and similar places and out of the poorer parts of New York City).

        But if Jews had not been disproportionally attacked by blacks, would the neocons have moved to the right on crime? I don’t think so.
        One should view their stance on crime the same way one should view their stance on Israel: they perceive it as self-interest from a racial standpoint. They don’t consider the matter on its principles, is it right or is it right, especially for the general population?

        Also, a final note. The neocons have always been less agitated about removing the power of the government. Which is different from reducing the size of the government. Why? Because there are very few of them. And they get employment in the Beltway nexus, so in some ways, they have a vested interest in a relatively bloated government apparatus.

        My view of them remain the same: they are, by and large, an alien implant within the Republican body and that body is slowly but surely rooting them out. The country is now deeply skeptical of intervention.

        The GOP establishment under Bush II, which was the worst from a GOP standpoint in 50 years or more, was heavily neoconservative. The future of the party belongs to the Ron Paul faction. So on social issues, the neocons will see more young Republicans move towards them, but they are not in the GOP because of social issues, but despite them.

        On issues such as foreign intervention, their entire raîson d’étrè, they are getting badly outflanked and outgunned.

        They will continue to stay within the GOP, better to stay inside the house than to freeze outside of it, but their influence will continue to become marginalized. Just look at the attacks Podhoretz launched on the GOP strategy on Obamacare. I support Obamacare, but I read some of his stuff on the law and it was obvious he supports it, yet he can’t come clean with it. Instead he tried to attack the Republican opposition against the law based on their supposed tactics in order to stave off pressure on the law, much like Norman Finkelstein is always attacking us on “tactics”, but deep down we all know he hasn’t quite shaken off his youthful Zionism, much like Chomsky.

  4. eljay
    December 11, 2013, 1:49 pm

    >> RT @jpodhoretz @MaxBlumenthal Whatever their flaws, they don’t suck the cocks of Jew-haters and murderers, Maxie boy.

    Now get over here and fellate this donkey!

  5. goldmarx
    December 11, 2013, 2:50 pm

    John Podhoretz is no liberal. He is a neo-con who opposes affirmative action (like German Righty) and trade union ascendancy.

  6. lysias
    December 11, 2013, 5:10 pm

    John Podhoretz inherited his homophobia from his family.

    • American
      December 15, 2013, 8:59 am

      Bad Rachel is dead.

      Rachel Abrams (1951-2013)
      last updated: June 11, 2013

      Emergency Committee for Israel: Founding Board Member
      The Weekly Standard: Former Contributor/Blogger

      Rachel Abrams, who passed away in June 2013, was a writer who served on the board of the right-wing Emergency Committee for Israel. Known for her sharp tongue and vitriolic rhetoric, Abrams was the author of the blog Bad Rachel, which periodically made headlines for its over-the-top condemnations of liberals, Palestinians, critics of Israel, and anyone who happened to disagree with her views. Eulogizing Abrams’ passing, the Washington Free Beacon called her “a writer who did not care about politically correct convention,” and praised her “gift for saying the things the rest of us were not supposed to say with verve and wit.”[1]

      Abrams was the member of a well-established family of neoconservative writers, pundits, and government officials. Her husband was Elliott Abrams, a veteran of both the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations who was convicted (and later pardoned) for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal; her mother, Midge Decter, has served on the board of the Center for Security Policy and was a founding member of the Project for the New American Century and the Reagan-era Committee for the Free World; her step-father, Norman Podhoretz, is a former editor of the magazine Commentary and a widely recognized trailblazer of the neoconservative movement (Norman’s son from another marriage, John Podhoretz, is currently editor of Commentary); and her sister, Ruthie Blum Leibowitz, is a columnist for the conservative Jerusalem Post.

      “If her parents Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz and the late Irving Kristol were the intellectual leaders of neoconservatism,” wrote Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin after Abrams’ death, “then Rachel was the heart and soul that bound so many together.”[2]

      Abrams served on the board of the Emergency Committee for Israel, a Noah Pollack-led advocacy group established in mid-2010 in part to counter the Mideast policies of President Barack Obama. Other board members have included William Kristol, editor and founder of the Weekly Standard and cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative; and Gary Bauer, a well-know Christian Zionist who leads the lobby groups American Values and Keep Israel Safe and serves on the executive board of John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel.

      Abrams debuted her blog Bad Rachel in February 2010. Mostly tongue-in-cheek commentary and parodies of liberal officials, her commentary fervently defended the state of Israel and often angrily criticizes anyone who disagrees with her views.

      For instance, in an April 2012 post flagged by the Beacon, Rubin directed a fiery invective at liberal Jews and critics of Israel on Holocaust Remembrance Day. “[W]hile you’re whispering your ‘love’ for Israel in the tongue of anti-Semitism,” she wrote, “while you’re sniffing the scent of our blood, we’ll be counting our dead, and when we’re done with that, we’ll be reminding you never to forget the mighty hand and the outstretched arm—and the long memory—of the Israeli Defense Forces.”[3]

      In October 2011, after the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who had been captured by Hamas in 2006, Abrams wrote on her blog: “Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your heart. … Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.”[4]

      This tirade prompted popular conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan to nominate Abrams for a “Malkin Award,” which his blog awards “for shrill, hyperbolic, divisive and intemperate right-wing rhetoric.” (Sullivan cited Right Web’s profile of Abrams in characterizing her as a “neocon doyenne.”)[5]

      In another revealing blog entry, Abrams described how she and her husband got lost while driving back from an Israel settlement in the occupied West Bank. “We are lost on an unfamiliar road in a part of Jerusalem neither one of us recognizes,” she wrote. “Uphill to our left is what looks like a techy office area; downhill to our right is the Zionist Racist Apartheid Wall. As we pass along at warp speed I say out loud to Mr. Leadfoot, the only person within earshot, ‘F*** you, Arabs!’ Then rant on in my head so as not to further irritate an already irritated driver who hates getting lost and almost never does so: ‘This partition was their choice. They could have had their state sixty-three years ago, if only they’d accepted the original partition instead of going to war against the Jews. Blah, blah, blah.’ I’d be pacing back and forth if not for being trapped in a car.”[6]

      After President Obama won re-election in November 2012, defeating Mitt Romney and running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Abrams was predictably bitter, writing: “We Jews have frequently enjoyed risking our own future in elections … and we’ve successfully done so once again.”[7]

      Observers often noted Abrams’s tendency to place the term “Palestinians” in quotes, as if to question whether the Palestinians exist as a people and thus call into question their claim to Palestinian lands.[8] Additionally, as Daniel Luban of the Inter Press Service noted in 2009, Abrams “constantly adopts the argot of the Israeli settler movement by referring to the West Bank as ‘Judea and Samaria.’”[9]

      Unsurprisingly, Abrams was harshly critical of the Obama administration’s policies toward Israel. After the March 2009 meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, she wrote, “What happened at yesterday’s meeting between Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama was no more than a return to the U.S. policy of pressing Israel to endanger herself for the sake of whichever ‘strategic interest’ happens to be paramount at the moment—today it is our diplomatic opening to Iran that may be imperiled by a lack of progress on the establishment of a Palestinian state—and, of course, that ever-desirable, always-elusive siren, ‘peace.’”[12]

      Abrams was long a critic of Democratic Party politicians, whom she derided as the “educated, left-leaning, affluent professional class.” In 1994, in the midst of the Whitewater affair, she wrote in the conservative Washington Times,“I know something about Bill and Hillary Clinton right now. I know how their stomachs churn, how their anxiety mounts, how their worry over their defenseless child increases. I know their inability to sleep at night and their reluctance to rise in the morning. I know every new incursion of doubt, every heartbreak over bailing friends, every sting and bite the press gives, every jaw-clenching look at front-page photographs of Robert Fiske Jr., the special prosecutor. I know all this, and the thought of it makes me happy.”[16]

      • jayn0t
        December 15, 2013, 5:23 pm

        Thanks for this good news. Rachel “not p.c.” Abrams once referred to Palestinians as “slaughtering, death-worshipping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women — those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins”, quoted in

  7. DICKERSON3870
    December 11, 2013, 5:21 pm

    RE: “Check out what Commentary’s John Podhoretz said to Max Blumenthal on Twitter [back in 2011]! ‘Whatever their flaws, they don’t suck the cocks of Jew-haters and murderers, Maxie boy.’ He later apologized…” ~ Gawker (back in 2011)

    MY COMMENT: “Everyone knows” that John Podhoretz is an über ass····! That’s just the way the Pod People* are. They all have Poddy mouths!

    ANOTHER ILLUSTRATIVE TWEET BY JOHN PODHORETZ: “Congratulations, donors to Columbia University, for paying this monstrous fuckhead’s salary!” ~ Tweeted on 5/14/13 by John Podhoretz, the Editor-in-Chief of Commentary magazine, using a photo of a very young boy
    FOR BACKGROUND, SEE: “Exile and the Prophetic: Joseph Massad strikes again”, by Marc H. Ellis,, 11/17/13
    LINK –

    ADDITIONAL COMMENT: The more I think about this tweet, the more I wonder what kind of sick, twisted individual would send out a tweet using language like “fuckhead” right next to a photo of a very young boy (whether of him, his son or someone else)? It’s almost perverse, like some kind of quasi-pedophilia; or perhaps an odd type of child porn; or maybe some kind of emotional child abuse. I’m certainly no psychiatrist, but I think this is far more serious than just “acting out”.

    * TAGLINE: “They come from another world. Spawned in the light years of space. Unleashed to take over the bodies and souls of the people of the world.”
    Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Pod People) –
    Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Official Trailer (1956) [VIDEO, 02:20] –

  8. bilal a
    bilal a
    December 11, 2013, 10:47 pm

    Probably full of hatred from all his childhood emasculation and bullying, like his father: odd that he substitutes all ‘whites’ for his Jewish Brooklyn comrades, and ‘blacks’ for those he does not want to integrate with. [John Pod talking to Baldwin, Commentary]

    My Negro Problem-and Ours” at 50

    then proceeded to tell him a few stories about my childhood encounters with black thugs of my own age and about the resentment and bitterness and even hatred with which this experience had left me. It had also left me, I said, with an irritable attitude toward all the sentimental nonsense that was being propagated about integration by whites who knew nothing about blacks and by blacks who imagined that all their problems would be solved by living next door to whites. The trouble went deeper than the integrationists seemed to understand; there was something almost psychotic in the relation of whites to blacks in America, resembling in its imperviousness to rational analysis or political action the feeling of Christian Europe toward the Jews. You yourself, I went on, have told us that all blacks hate whites, and I am here to tell you that all whites are twisted and sick in their feelings about blacks.

  9. LarryDerfner
    December 12, 2013, 9:24 am

    Ironic comment coming from a chickenhawk.

  10. Citizen
    December 12, 2013, 7:28 pm

    The image of sucking cocks must have inflamed him so, he released that dripping hot tweet despite classy Commentary. He certainly looks the part, eh?

  11. Djinn
    December 12, 2013, 11:47 pm

    Off topic but not really…anyone else a bit sick of the cock sucker slander, it’s only pejorative because the people who do it tend to be women or homosexual.

    Can well off hetero white men EVER come up with an insult that isn’t sexist or homophobic?

    • Sumud
      December 14, 2013, 7:45 pm

      Not off-topic at all, and my thoughts exactly. Whatever way he meant it he’s being either sexist or homophobic. Not acceptable.

      And what’s with calling Max “boy”, is he channeling white supremacists also…?

  12. just
    December 13, 2013, 8:31 am

    What a disgusting tweet by a disgusting tweeter.

    Let your true colors burn brightly, Johnny Boy. I know you kissed your odious mama with that mouth– do you also kiss your kiddies with it?


Leave a Reply