Skip to comments.Meditation on a Blood Libel -- A Yiannopoulos Blood Libel
Posted on 05/05/2019 1:00:54 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
On April 19, 2019, Frontpage Mag published Milo Yiannopoulos lamentation on the burning of the Notre Dame Cathedral. While I share his grief over this irreplaceable loss to Western Civilization and Christianity, I was shocked to discover that he felt the necessity to trash the Jews. He did so under the convenient cover that he is a Jew -- as he states, through matrilineal descent. But, more significant than his bloodline, his belief system seems to be Catholic as evidenced by his adoration of the Virgin Mary:
Marythe Our Lady of Notre Dameis proof of the incarnation. It is her body through which God becomes incarnate and it is she through whom the Word became incarnate and who is taken as a patron by educators. Notre Dame was built to support this understanding, a belief unique to Christianity. Jews deny that Jesus is Christ, which is why, in the story of her dormition, they attack the bier as the apostles carry Mary to her tomb and why they are described as blind. The Talmud is explicit about this rejection of Christ. But Mary prays for them and wants them to convert anyway. She never calls for violence against her fellow children of Abraham.
The cathedral burning, as he correctly states
is an especially Christian tragedy. It is a tragedy emblematic of the rapid destruction of Western civilization in the past few decades, a visual reminder of the inferno that has already gutted the Academy.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Nothing in there comes off as worship of Mary.
Worship God - Venerate Mary - know the difference.
He's clever and asinine by turns, and tends to undercut even his best points with genuinely self-defeating fluff stuff.
Or worse, lightminded libels.
It's exasperating to see him indulging in anti-Semitic crap. Leave that to Ilhan Omar, kid.
Jews deny that Jesus is Christ...how is that controversial? Isn’t that a statement of fact? How is that anti-Semitic?
Reading the article reveals Y accepted as fact that a Jew tried to burn three Christian boys.
So, having read the original Frontpage editorial by Milo, I can confidently say that this article’s title is histrionic. In no way does the original article rise to the threshold of blood libel, much less anti-Semitism.
There are plenty of things to criticize Milo on (his obstinacy with regards to the sin of Sodom, for one), but as far as this instance goes, anti-Semitism isn’t one of them.
But that’s not a blood libel. Like, literally not a blood libel.
Substitute the Jewish father in that story with any other stripe of pagan, heretic, apostate, or schismatic, and the thrust would still be the same: the miraculous intervention by Mary to save a non-Christian child from death.
That’s a fair assessment. But it is easy to see why Y might be seen as Jew-hating; he’s just not very judicious.
IDK who this Vanessa Jones person is, but the glassblower story she wrote about is not a blood libel. this story has nothing to do with Jews misusing blood.
The blood libel has to do with the canard that Jews used the blood of Christians (usually children) for Passover matzoth.
It does not help that Jones is confused and inaccurate. A jew taking communion with symbolic instruments is a sin, but has nothing to do with the blood libel.
It does not help that the Frontpage editors/fact-checkers let this gross inaccuracy go through.
And when I wrote “sin”, I meant a sin for Jews.
I think Milo's comments followed his typical pattern of wandering off into loose, light-minded non-sequiturs. These serve no grand theory, whether high or low; he apparently scatters them about because they attracted him interest for a moment, or because he likes to ding people in order to keep up his bona-fides as an Equal Opportunity Offender.
So, yeah. Much ado over very little.
"Jewish power is the ability to SHUT DOWN debate."
--Gilat Atzmon, former IDF, Israeli
I clicked over to Milo’s original essay and read that, too.
To my eye, the sudden reference to Jews seems completely gratuitous to me.
Maybe Milo is trying to be even handed, referring to Jews after a long discourse on Christians and Muslims?
In any event, he comes off as a writer who wants to say negative things about Jewish persons, so he invents a reason to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.