In the first part of this series, I wondered whether the institutional media’s Trump-bashing was actually an elaborate propaganda maneuver devised to covertly promote his candidacy. The main point was that the trivial, shallow platitudes being thrown at him could only be counter-productive, and it would be surprising if that was indeed inadvertent.
Last week we got a near-certain confirmation of that hypothesis, namely with the Star of David / Trump is antisemitic tale.
Nobody in his right mind could believe Trump is indeed judeophobic. Even a morbidly obese, Kardashian-loving teenager couldn’t believe it. Or an octogenarian gadget-enthusiast retired veterinarian. Or a testicle-severed bathroom militant. Even the deepest-living algae wouldn’t buy it.
As is utter common knowledge, Trump is an Israel apologist, supports Benjamin Netanyahu, and passionately parrots AIPAC’s sombrest ravings. He has served as a grand marshal at New York’s annual Salute to Israel Parade. He was honored with an award at the annual gala for the Algemeiner. But of course, his support of extremist Israeli policies says nothing about his feelings about Judaism; many Jews are not zionist, and most zionists are not Jewish. It is indeed judeophobic to amalgamate zionism and Judaism, so let’s put that aside.
As to his actual Jewish ties, they are numerous: his grandchildren and daughter are Orthodox-Jewish. The latter married the son of New York Jewish real estate mogul Charles Kushner. Trump himself developed his fortune in New York City real estate. Michael Cohen, a Jewish American lawyer, is his special counsel and his organisation’s executive vice president. And of course there’s nothing wrong with all that in itself; but it invalidates the idea that he somehow displays prejudice towards Judaism.
The accusation is based on a poster his campaign published that supposedly pictures the Shield of David in a bad way. Do the test: show the poster to someone who hasn’t heard about the controversy (probably outside the US), and ask them “what do you see in this picture?”, then “what do you find offensive in this picture?”.
They don’t see it.
So, no normal human being can possibly be offended by this false accusation. Admittedly, there still exists people who may get offended on behalf of other people who they believe get offended. But they can only be a small number (philanthropic assumption). And nobody can possibly, by himself, be truly offended by such a nonsensical claim.
So what’s the point of making it then? It obviously makes no sense.
The point is simple: that billboard, “Hillary Clinton, Most Corrupt Candidate Ever”, was bombarded upon the public for two consecutive days. Local, national and international television, social media (by all major news organisations and millions others), newspapers, magazines, etc. The average American must have seen the poster a half-dozen times at least. This happened on the very same week-end as the FBI saying, in substance, “Hillary Clinton is corrupt but we won’t be pursuing her”. The message is clear and imprinted. It is impossible that such a news cycle won’t result in tremendous gains for Donald Trump.
Part 3 is here.