The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Countries the NYT Cares About
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the beginning of 2010 through the end of April of 2019, the number of articles in The New York Times containing at least one mention of countries deemed subjectively among the world’s most important by this writer:

France topping the charts is a bit surprising. The arts, maybe? [edit: Britain comes out on top–I’d initially naively tried “Great Britain” and “United Kingdom” and found both to have fewer returns than “England” and so used the latter for the place before realizing the retrospectively obvious. The graph and table have been updated accordingly]. Israel arguably gets some amount of ‘undue’ coverage given its size and location, but it’s not nearly as predominant as “ZOG“-types probably assume to be the case. Saudi Arabia seems to get too little. Given that Mexico and Canada border the US, they might be expected to merit more ink than they do. Overall, though, the distribution looks pretty reasonable.

Country Mentions
Britain 75,486
France 73,877
China 67,241
Germany 52,703
Russia 49,441
Italy 40,573
Japan 38,272
Mexico 34,674
Spain 31,857
Canada 29,822
Israel 26,890
Australia 25,826
India 25,350
Iraq 23,113
Syria 21,960
South Africa 21,418
Afghanistan 20,975
Iran 20,601
Turkey 18,303
Brazil 16,958
Egypt 14,512
North Korea 12,018
Sweden 11,674
Cuba 10,307
Libya 8,598
Saudi Arabia 8,580
Austria 7,205
Hungary 5,341
Venezuela 5,005
Turkmenistan 232
 
• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy • Tags: International, Media 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I’m surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don’t buy the argument that a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that about many countries.

    Israel arguably gets some amount of ‘undue’ coverage given its size and location, but it’s not nearly as predominant as “ZOG“-types probably assume to be the case.

    Naïve analysis, it’s not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under what conditions. The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT’s special treatment of Israel.

    • Replies: @216

    the UK is the strongest ally of the US
     
    Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.

    It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc
     
    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a dictatorship.

    Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks in rural areas.

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so out of support for Assad.

    The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs for the entirety of its existence.
    , @mark green
    Israel gets by far the most coverage if one throws in these related terms: 'Holocaust' and 'anti-Semitism'.

    These are just two of the political pillars which elevate the Zionist state's unique status in American life.

    , @anon

    I’m surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore.
     
    Italy is ranked 8th-9th worldwide in GDP, considerably ahead of, for example, Russia

    because of their poor performance in WWII i used to think they were just a minor player similar to Romania, Bulgaria etc but they're not

  2. 216 says:
    @Thulean Friend
    I'm surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don't buy the argument that a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that about many countries.

    Israel arguably gets some amount of ‘undue’ coverage given its size and location, but it’s not nearly as predominant as “ZOG“-types probably assume to be the case.
     
    Naïve analysis, it's not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under what conditions. The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT's special treatment of Israel.

    the UK is the strongest ally of the US

    Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.

    It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc

    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn’t vote doesn’t make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a dictatorship.

    Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks in rural areas.

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don’t do so out of support for Assad.

    The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs for the entirety of its existence.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn’t vote doesn’t make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    Kind of depends on how you define democracy, doesn't it?

    Ancient Athens is routinely classified as a democracy despite perhaps at most 30% of the adult population having the franchise.

    Democracy is rule by the demos, so who you include and exclude from the demos is pretty important.
    , @reiner Tor

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing
     
    But that makes it worse, not better, than the South African Apartheid. Most people surely would choose to be oppressed (while living standards would keep slightly improving and their population and ethnic majority in the area growing) over being booted out with a few suitcases and without compensation for their possessions (including land, houses, animals).
    , @jim jones
    And the US failed to help us during the Falklands War
  3. anon[441] • Disclaimer says:

    This is more a list detailing where the NYT’s readership wants to do business and vacation. The countries below number ten on that list are mostly involved in geopolitical stuff, so they can’t avoid publishing material in relation to it. However, Mexico ranks highly because it has nice beaches and liquor. China and Germany get mentioned because they are industrial powerhouses. France tops the list because their readership likes to imagine themselves as cultured and wealthy.

    • Replies: @Miro23

    This is more a list detailing where the NYT’s readership wants to do business and vacation. The countries below number ten on that list are mostly involved in geopolitical stuff, so they can’t avoid publishing material in relation to it. However, Mexico ranks highly because it has nice beaches and liquor. China and Germany get mentioned because they are industrial powerhouses. France tops the list because their readership likes to imagine themselves as cultured and wealthy.
     
    No news is good news. Check out the European countries that aren't on the list - and where you aren't likely to find the NYT readership doing business or on vacation.
  4. @anon
    This is more a list detailing where the NYT's readership wants to do business and vacation. The countries below number ten on that list are mostly involved in geopolitical stuff, so they can't avoid publishing material in relation to it. However, Mexico ranks highly because it has nice beaches and liquor. China and Germany get mentioned because they are industrial powerhouses. France tops the list because their readership likes to imagine themselves as cultured and wealthy.

    This is more a list detailing where the NYT’s readership wants to do business and vacation. The countries below number ten on that list are mostly involved in geopolitical stuff, so they can’t avoid publishing material in relation to it. However, Mexico ranks highly because it has nice beaches and liquor. China and Germany get mentioned because they are industrial powerhouses. France tops the list because their readership likes to imagine themselves as cultured and wealthy.

    No news is good news. Check out the European countries that aren’t on the list – and where you aren’t likely to find the NYT readership doing business or on vacation.

  5. A lot of the stories about France are probably fairly negative, dealing with the exceptional wave of Islamic terrorism over the last few years (though more generally France still seems to retain a lot of cultural prestige because of its glorious past among American journalists…or maybe American elites feel a sort of special affinity for a fellow “proposition nation”, which makes France seem more superficially familiar to Americans than other European countries).
    The relatively low values for “England” (which I suppose stands for Britain…not the same thing) are surprising, given such fundamental issues as the Scottish independence movement and Brexit.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    "Britain" gets 75, 486 results:
    https://www.nytimes.com/search?endDate=20190430&query=Britain&sort=best&startDate=20100101

    Which renders the low results for "England" meaningless...in reality Britain tops results (which lines up with my perceptions that for American journalists Britain and France are the only European countries which really matter).
  6. “Britain” yields 75,486 results.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Don't have time right now but will fix later. Swore I did "Great Britain" and got a result lower than England so did England instead since many articles contained both. Sorry!
  7. @German_reader
    A lot of the stories about France are probably fairly negative, dealing with the exceptional wave of Islamic terrorism over the last few years (though more generally France still seems to retain a lot of cultural prestige because of its glorious past among American journalists...or maybe American elites feel a sort of special affinity for a fellow "proposition nation", which makes France seem more superficially familiar to Americans than other European countries).
    The relatively low values for "England" (which I suppose stands for Britain...not the same thing) are surprising, given such fundamental issues as the Scottish independence movement and Brexit.

    “Britain” gets 75, 486 results:
    https://www.nytimes.com/search?endDate=20190430&query=Britain&sort=best&startDate=20100101

    Which renders the low results for “England” meaningless…in reality Britain tops results (which lines up with my perceptions that for American journalists Britain and France are the only European countries which really matter).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Language (and cultural) differences just make it easier to report on other anglosphere stories. Same reason British newspapers report a lot on Australia or the US than on the rest of Europe. London is also the world capital for news media.
  8. @Thulean Friend
    I'm surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don't buy the argument that a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that about many countries.

    Israel arguably gets some amount of ‘undue’ coverage given its size and location, but it’s not nearly as predominant as “ZOG“-types probably assume to be the case.
     
    Naïve analysis, it's not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under what conditions. The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT's special treatment of Israel.

    Israel gets by far the most coverage if one throws in these related terms: ‘Holocaust’ and ‘anti-Semitism’.

    These are just two of the political pillars which elevate the Zionist state’s unique status in American life.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Over the same time period, "Holocaust" gets 5,168 and "anti-Semitic" gets 2,187. If we add those to the total (which seems like quite a stretch), it bumps Israel up a couple of spots, still behind Mexico.
  9. Anon[282] • Disclaimer says:

    “I’m surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore.”

    That’s because the Italians have good ethnic foods and still make fashionable clothes and cars for rich people. Thus, the Upper Class readers of the Times want to hear about it. Bulgaria? Not so much. It’s not always the case that the “news” agencies tell people what to think. Often, they merely write what they know their audience wants to read.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Everyone likes Italy. Lively culture and politics too.
  10. South Africa getting mentioned so much is surprising, given that it is not a very large or important country, is in an unimportant region and is not undergoing a war or revolution. Also, you’d think NYT readers would want to forget about it since it’s harmful for their narrative.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    South Africa stands in for the whole of Sub Saharan Africa. Media and financial firms that cover that region are all based there as it is only part of that region that has infrastructure and is vaguely livable.
  11. @Anon
    "Britain" yields 75,486 results.

    Don’t have time right now but will fix later. Swore I did “Great Britain” and got a result lower than England so did England instead since many articles contained both. Sorry!

    • Replies: @German_reader

    Swore I did “Great Britain”
     
    "Great Britain" isn't used that commonly, "Britain" is.
    And "Britain" and "England" obviously aren't interchangeable, given the issues of devolution, the Scottish independence movement, the question of the Irish border because of Brexit.
    Englishness is also much more of an ethnic identity than the more supra-national and civic Britishness (ethnic minorities generally prefer to call themselves "British", though I suppose there might eventually be concerted attempts to change this and erode the meaning of "English" as well).
  12. @German_reader
    "Britain" gets 75, 486 results:
    https://www.nytimes.com/search?endDate=20190430&query=Britain&sort=best&startDate=20100101

    Which renders the low results for "England" meaningless...in reality Britain tops results (which lines up with my perceptions that for American journalists Britain and France are the only European countries which really matter).

    Language (and cultural) differences just make it easier to report on other anglosphere stories. Same reason British newspapers report a lot on Australia or the US than on the rest of Europe. London is also the world capital for news media.

  13. @Crypto-Brythonic
    South Africa getting mentioned so much is surprising, given that it is not a very large or important country, is in an unimportant region and is not undergoing a war or revolution. Also, you'd think NYT readers would want to forget about it since it's harmful for their narrative.

    South Africa stands in for the whole of Sub Saharan Africa. Media and financial firms that cover that region are all based there as it is only part of that region that has infrastructure and is vaguely livable.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I was wondering why SA was listed as well. Your explanation makes sense if an article is counted if it contains: "reporting from SA."
  14. @Anon
    "I’m surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore."

    That's because the Italians have good ethnic foods and still make fashionable clothes and cars for rich people. Thus, the Upper Class readers of the Times want to hear about it. Bulgaria? Not so much. It's not always the case that the "news" agencies tell people what to think. Often, they merely write what they know their audience wants to read.

    Everyone likes Italy. Lively culture and politics too.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    Italy is actually pretty important imo, given its potential to bring the Euro down. Also very important country for immigration issues, and highly interesting (and alarming for the NYT crowd) political changes with the rise of Salvini and the Lega-MS5 government.
  15. @Audacious Epigone
    Don't have time right now but will fix later. Swore I did "Great Britain" and got a result lower than England so did England instead since many articles contained both. Sorry!

    Swore I did “Great Britain”

    “Great Britain” isn’t used that commonly, “Britain” is.
    And “Britain” and “England” obviously aren’t interchangeable, given the issues of devolution, the Scottish independence movement, the question of the Irish border because of Brexit.
    Englishness is also much more of an ethnic identity than the more supra-national and civic Britishness (ethnic minorities generally prefer to call themselves “British”, though I suppose there might eventually be concerted attempts to change this and erode the meaning of “English” as well).

    • Replies: @Crypto-Brythonic

    though I suppose there might eventually be concerted attempts to change this and erode the meaning of “English” as well
     
    There are. For instance, Pakistani 'conservative' (and fan of Ayn Rand) Sajid Javid describes himself as English
  16. @LondonBob
    Everyone likes Italy. Lively culture and politics too.

    Italy is actually pretty important imo, given its potential to bring the Euro down. Also very important country for immigration issues, and highly interesting (and alarming for the NYT crowd) political changes with the rise of Salvini and the Lega-MS5 government.

  17. @German_reader

    Swore I did “Great Britain”
     
    "Great Britain" isn't used that commonly, "Britain" is.
    And "Britain" and "England" obviously aren't interchangeable, given the issues of devolution, the Scottish independence movement, the question of the Irish border because of Brexit.
    Englishness is also much more of an ethnic identity than the more supra-national and civic Britishness (ethnic minorities generally prefer to call themselves "British", though I suppose there might eventually be concerted attempts to change this and erode the meaning of "English" as well).

    though I suppose there might eventually be concerted attempts to change this and erode the meaning of “English” as well

    There are. For instance, Pakistani ‘conservative’ (and fan of Ayn Rand) Sajid Javid describes himself as English

  18. There is no my country. We are not important to them. Thank God.

  19. @LondonBob
    South Africa stands in for the whole of Sub Saharan Africa. Media and financial firms that cover that region are all based there as it is only part of that region that has infrastructure and is vaguely livable.

    I was wondering why SA was listed as well. Your explanation makes sense if an article is counted if it contains: “reporting from SA.”

  20. France’s prominence is proof that the fine and applied arts are important in influencing the esteem in which something is held, even though people mock the study of the arts after a certain age. People urge their progeny to take an interest in something that rakes in the dough. They always want their kids to take art lessons when young, though, before they hit the age when the all-important thing is jumping through the hoops to get a job that ensures a posh-zip-code house, granting their parents’ bragging rights. Deep down, they know that things like artistic greatness are more transcendent until ransacked or carelessly consumed by fire, anyway.

    • Replies: @anon
    Oh, for heaven's sake, it's France's 246 kinds of cheese. Everybody's god is their belly, especially those who deny it.
  21. @Endgame Napoleon
    France’s prominence is proof that the fine and applied arts are important in influencing the esteem in which something is held, even though people mock the study of the arts after a certain age. People urge their progeny to take an interest in something that rakes in the dough. They always want their kids to take art lessons when young, though, before they hit the age when the all-important thing is jumping through the hoops to get a job that ensures a posh-zip-code house, granting their parents’ bragging rights. Deep down, they know that things like artistic greatness are more transcendent until ransacked or carelessly consumed by fire, anyway.

    Oh, for heaven’s sake, it’s France’s 246 kinds of cheese. Everybody’s god is their belly, especially those who deny it.

  22. @Thulean Friend
    I'm surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore. The EU is controlled by France and Germany and the UK is the strongest ally of the US, though that came under question during the Obama years. I don't buy the argument that a lot of dysfunctional politics is the reason (so a lot to write about). You can say that about many countries.

    Israel arguably gets some amount of ‘undue’ coverage given its size and location, but it’s not nearly as predominant as “ZOG“-types probably assume to be the case.
     
    Naïve analysis, it's not so much how often Israel is being mentioned but under what conditions. The coverage the NYT gives it is massively favourable compared to a counter-factual if Israel had been a White christian-majority country trying to keep itself that way by instituting a White christian-only immigration policy etc. Judaism is an ethnic religion after all. It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc. How often it is mentioned is not a debunking of the NYT's special treatment of Israel.

    I’m surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore.

    Italy is ranked 8th-9th worldwide in GDP, considerably ahead of, for example, Russia

    because of their poor performance in WWII i used to think they were just a minor player similar to Romania, Bulgaria etc but they’re not

    • Replies: @Matra
    Italy also had a lower profile during the Cold War than West Germany, the UK, or France, despite being NATO members with similar population.
  23. The New York Times wanted to import Syrians from the CIA and Obama created civil war in Syria and flood them into Detroit.

    The anti-White and anti-Christian globalizer slobs at the New York Times did not suggest flooding the Obama/CIA Syrians into Israel.

    Tweet from 2015:

    • Replies: @anon
    Anti-Christian globalizer? Christianity itself is globalist. For God so loved the world. Go ye into all the world. If Whites are to have nationalist faith to preserve their genetic heritage, they're going to have to repatriate the Seat of their God back from Jerusalem and quit assisting a Jewish Rabbi to save all the world.
  24. I have a feeling these rankings might change a little, if you could limit it to the front page or the news section.

    If the broadest scope of terms were used as ethnic identifiers (such as antisemitism), it is an interesting question who would come out on top, and what the rankings might be within the US and without. Though, of course, they probably don’t use many true ethnic identifiers – the European nationalities pretty much having been subverted to mean anyone who successfully invaded those countries.

  25. I wonder what the order would be if normalized by population. China and India would move down. Guess who would move up?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That would be an interesting project, though for the sake of thoroughness I'd feel obligated to track every single country in the world. It's on the tentative queue.
  26. @anon

    I’m surprised Italy that gets much coverage, given that it is not really a major European power anymore.
     
    Italy is ranked 8th-9th worldwide in GDP, considerably ahead of, for example, Russia

    because of their poor performance in WWII i used to think they were just a minor player similar to Romania, Bulgaria etc but they're not

    Italy also had a lower profile during the Cold War than West Germany, the UK, or France, despite being NATO members with similar population.

  27. No Sub Saharan nations on the list. I guess the NYT doesn’t care as much about the plight of the negro as they pretend to.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I didn't look at every single country, just ones I thought would be among the putatively "most important". I will do a more thorough cataloging in the future.
  28. @mark green
    Israel gets by far the most coverage if one throws in these related terms: 'Holocaust' and 'anti-Semitism'.

    These are just two of the political pillars which elevate the Zionist state's unique status in American life.

    Over the same time period, “Holocaust” gets 5,168 and “anti-Semitic” gets 2,187. If we add those to the total (which seems like quite a stretch), it bumps Israel up a couple of spots, still behind Mexico.

    • Replies: @mark green
    I stand corrected. (But if you toss in 'Jewish' as well as 'anti-Semitic', that may put the Jewish state in first place).
  29. @HI
    I wonder what the order would be if normalized by population. China and India would move down. Guess who would move up?

    That would be an interesting project, though for the sake of thoroughness I’d feel obligated to track every single country in the world. It’s on the tentative queue.

  30. @MikeatMikedotMike
    No Sub Saharan nations on the list. I guess the NYT doesn't care as much about the plight of the negro as they pretend to.

    I didn’t look at every single country, just ones I thought would be among the putatively “most important”. I will do a more thorough cataloging in the future.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    Oh - I misunderstood - I thought you just listed them in order of appearance.
  31. anon[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    The New York Times wanted to import Syrians from the CIA and Obama created civil war in Syria and flood them into Detroit.

    The anti-White and anti-Christian globalizer slobs at the New York Times did not suggest flooding the Obama/CIA Syrians into Israel.

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/641680235566661632

    Anti-Christian globalizer? Christianity itself is globalist. For God so loved the world. Go ye into all the world. If Whites are to have nationalist faith to preserve their genetic heritage, they’re going to have to repatriate the Seat of their God back from Jerusalem and quit assisting a Jewish Rabbi to save all the world.

    • Replies: @Mike P.
    Who is asking a given country to be God?
  32. @anon
    Anti-Christian globalizer? Christianity itself is globalist. For God so loved the world. Go ye into all the world. If Whites are to have nationalist faith to preserve their genetic heritage, they're going to have to repatriate the Seat of their God back from Jerusalem and quit assisting a Jewish Rabbi to save all the world.

    Who is asking a given country to be God?

  33. I suspect the high ranking for Russia is due to the NYT coverage of the Russia-gate hoax. Otherwise, who in Manhattan cares about Russia? (Okay, maybe in Brooklyn).

    As for Israel, well, you know… Probably ranks #1 if you do the list on a per capita basis.

    This story would be more important if the NYT hadn’t fallen into the Prog-Left black hole, where if you don’t agree with their Party Line nothing in that paper makes any sense. And no intellectual illumination can escape.

  34. LOL! I love how the mentions take a plunge and Turkmenistan is there going; “hey, we’re important too!”

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed, no world leader is more important than President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov!
  35. @Audacious Epigone
    I didn't look at every single country, just ones I thought would be among the putatively "most important". I will do a more thorough cataloging in the future.

    Oh – I misunderstood – I thought you just listed them in order of appearance.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That would be a better list. The initial question I had in my mind was really Mexico vs Israel, but I expanded on it. I'll devote a significant chunk of time soon to do a complete per capita global listing.
  36. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Oh - I misunderstood - I thought you just listed them in order of appearance.

    That would be a better list. The initial question I had in my mind was really Mexico vs Israel, but I expanded on it. I’ll devote a significant chunk of time soon to do a complete per capita global listing.

  37. @Talha
    LOL! I love how the mentions take a plunge and Turkmenistan is there going; "hey, we're important too!"

    Peace.

    Indeed, no world leader is more important than President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov!

    • LOL: Talha
  38. @Audacious Epigone
    Over the same time period, "Holocaust" gets 5,168 and "anti-Semitic" gets 2,187. If we add those to the total (which seems like quite a stretch), it bumps Israel up a couple of spots, still behind Mexico.

    I stand corrected. (But if you toss in ‘Jewish’ as well as ‘anti-Semitic’, that may put the Jewish state in first place).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    "Semitic" dominates the "anti-" prefix, that's for sure.
  39. As another has pointed out, a per capita analysis would shift Israel comfortably to the top. Sure, population is in a sense already factored into the question of what makes a country newsworthy, but every other country above Israel on the list has a far larger population, even Canada, which is also one of only two US border countries, of course. And all the Mid-East countries not far below Israel interest NYT readers primarily because of wars and enmities fomented by the ‘Pow-ah Brokers’ within their readership, if you get my drift. Much larger, wealthier and religiously more important Saudi Arabia is way down the list because they were comfortably sidelined with Judeo-Muslim values decades ago. (Right, Anthony and Huma?) I’d say the list substantially strengthens the case of us ‘ZOG types’, not weakens it.

  40. Logan says:
    @216

    the UK is the strongest ally of the US
     
    Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.

    It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc
     
    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a dictatorship.

    Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks in rural areas.

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so out of support for Assad.

    The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs for the entirety of its existence.

    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn’t vote doesn’t make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    Kind of depends on how you define democracy, doesn’t it?

    Ancient Athens is routinely classified as a democracy despite perhaps at most 30% of the adult population having the franchise.

    Democracy is rule by the demos, so who you include and exclude from the demos is pretty important.

  41. @216

    the UK is the strongest ally of the US
     
    Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.

    It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc
     
    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a dictatorship.

    Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks in rural areas.

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so out of support for Assad.

    The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs for the entirety of its existence.

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing

    But that makes it worse, not better, than the South African Apartheid. Most people surely would choose to be oppressed (while living standards would keep slightly improving and their population and ethnic majority in the area growing) over being booted out with a few suitcases and without compensation for their possessions (including land, houses, animals).

    • Replies: @216
    The Arabs lost on the field of battle in 1948.

    South Africa actually won on the battlefield in Angola, the ANC did not win a guerilla war, they won at the negotiating table.
  42. @reiner Tor

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing
     
    But that makes it worse, not better, than the South African Apartheid. Most people surely would choose to be oppressed (while living standards would keep slightly improving and their population and ethnic majority in the area growing) over being booted out with a few suitcases and without compensation for their possessions (including land, houses, animals).

    The Arabs lost on the field of battle in 1948.

    South Africa actually won on the battlefield in Angola, the ANC did not win a guerilla war, they won at the negotiating table.

  43. @216

    the UK is the strongest ally of the US
     
    Australia is probably a better candidate for that title. The UK sat out Vietnam, and the US turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising for decades.

    It also continues to define it as a democracy despite being a de facto apartheid state etc
     
    Apartheid was democratically enacted. That most people couldn't vote doesn't make it any less democratic. Democracy is not the same as universal suffrage.

    In the corporate media, Russia is routinely described as a dictatorship because there is no change in party governance. By that standard, South Africa post-1994 is also a dictatorship.

    Whites were never the majority in South Africa, only in the cities (most of which carry Western names, some rebadged with convoluted local names post-1994). The goal of apartheid was to keep blacks in rural areas.

    Jews have been the supermajority in Israel since the ethnic cleansing in the 1948 war. The apartheid comparison only makes sense wrt to the West Bank and the Golan Heights. In the West Bank, Jews are a minority that overrides the self-determination of the Arab majority. In the Golan, IIRC its 50-50, where the Druze Arabs could become Israeli citizens but don't do so out of support for Assad.

    The South African parliament had no black MPs (1948-1994), the Knesset has had Arab MPs for the entirety of its existence.

    And the US failed to help us during the Falklands War

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Whilst the French did, at the insistence of Mitterrand whilst referencing the British support of the Resistance. Actually France and Britain have been close allies since the Crimean War.
    , @Joe Stalin
    Bull.

    "America shared satellite and signals intelligence, plus Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and Stinger hand-held missiles — though this was denied at the time."

    "One of the first things the US offered was fuel for the British Task Force and aircraft at the mid-Atlantic staging post of Ascension Island, which Britain leased to America."

    "“The underground fuel tanks were empty when the Task Force turned up in mid-April 1982,” recalls Major General Julian Thompson, then commanding the main Royal Marines assault force. The leading assault ship, HMS Fearless, did not have enough fuel to dock when it arrived off Ascension. The Americans diverted a supertanker to fill up the Navy’s tanks."

    “The local Pan Am airline manager, Don Coffee, told us his president had told him that we had to make everything possible available to British forces. He said he wasn’t referring to President Reagan, but the President of Pan Am,” said Major General Thompson.

    "The intelligence telegrams show that the CIA knew from satellite surveillance that Argentinian army forces in Goose Green were between 400 and 600, whereas the British commander Lt-Col H Jones thought they would be far fewer when he gave orders for the battle."

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cia-files-reveal-how-us-helped-britain-retake-the-falklands-7618420.html

    "Pentagon officials were asked about the U.S. role in the Falklands campaign--which began with the Argentine seizure of the islands on April 2 and ended June 14 after the British recaptured them--in the aftermath of a detailed report on the extent of U.S. help that appears this week in the respected British magazine The Economist.

    "The magazine said the Falklands campaign "could not have been mounted, let alone won, without American help."

    "Pentagon officials confirmed many of the details in the report, including the fact that the United States repositioned a spy satellite, using up scarce fuel and thus shortening the satellite's life in space, from its Soviet-watching orbit in the Northern Hemisphere to a place over the South Atlantic where it could provide intelligence to the British fleet.

    "The officials said American intelligence information, provided by means other than just satellites, probably made the key difference between winning and losing because the Argentine attacks on the Royal Navy would have been even more effective if the British had not had the information.

    "Pentagon officials spoke of extraordinary coordination between the American and British services. The United States supplied 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel diverted from U.S. stockpiles, along with hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, airfield matting, thousands of rounds of mortar shells and other equipment, they said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/?noredirect=on
  44. @jim jones
    And the US failed to help us during the Falklands War

    Whilst the French did, at the insistence of Mitterrand whilst referencing the British support of the Resistance. Actually France and Britain have been close allies since the Crimean War.

  45. @mark green
    I stand corrected. (But if you toss in 'Jewish' as well as 'anti-Semitic', that may put the Jewish state in first place).

    “Semitic” dominates the “anti-” prefix, that’s for sure.

  46. @jim jones
    And the US failed to help us during the Falklands War

    Bull.

    “America shared satellite and signals intelligence, plus Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and Stinger hand-held missiles — though this was denied at the time.”

    “One of the first things the US offered was fuel for the British Task Force and aircraft at the mid-Atlantic staging post of Ascension Island, which Britain leased to America.”

    ““The underground fuel tanks were empty when the Task Force turned up in mid-April 1982,” recalls Major General Julian Thompson, then commanding the main Royal Marines assault force. The leading assault ship, HMS Fearless, did not have enough fuel to dock when it arrived off Ascension. The Americans diverted a supertanker to fill up the Navy’s tanks.”

    “The local Pan Am airline manager, Don Coffee, told us his president had told him that we had to make everything possible available to British forces. He said he wasn’t referring to President Reagan, but the President of Pan Am,” said Major General Thompson.

    “The intelligence telegrams show that the CIA knew from satellite surveillance that Argentinian army forces in Goose Green were between 400 and 600, whereas the British commander Lt-Col H Jones thought they would be far fewer when he gave orders for the battle.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cia-files-reveal-how-us-helped-britain-retake-the-falklands-7618420.html

    “Pentagon officials were asked about the U.S. role in the Falklands campaign–which began with the Argentine seizure of the islands on April 2 and ended June 14 after the British recaptured them–in the aftermath of a detailed report on the extent of U.S. help that appears this week in the respected British magazine The Economist.

    “The magazine said the Falklands campaign “could not have been mounted, let alone won, without American help.”

    “Pentagon officials confirmed many of the details in the report, including the fact that the United States repositioned a spy satellite, using up scarce fuel and thus shortening the satellite’s life in space, from its Soviet-watching orbit in the Northern Hemisphere to a place over the South Atlantic where it could provide intelligence to the British fleet.

    “The officials said American intelligence information, provided by means other than just satellites, probably made the key difference between winning and losing because the Argentine attacks on the Royal Navy would have been even more effective if the British had not had the information.

    “Pentagon officials spoke of extraordinary coordination between the American and British services. The United States supplied 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel diverted from U.S. stockpiles, along with hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, airfield matting, thousands of rounds of mortar shells and other equipment, they said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/?noredirect=on

    • Replies: @Talha
    Great info, thanks!!! Had no clue.

    Peace.
  47. @Joe Stalin
    Bull.

    "America shared satellite and signals intelligence, plus Sidewinder air-to-air missiles and Stinger hand-held missiles — though this was denied at the time."

    "One of the first things the US offered was fuel for the British Task Force and aircraft at the mid-Atlantic staging post of Ascension Island, which Britain leased to America."

    "“The underground fuel tanks were empty when the Task Force turned up in mid-April 1982,” recalls Major General Julian Thompson, then commanding the main Royal Marines assault force. The leading assault ship, HMS Fearless, did not have enough fuel to dock when it arrived off Ascension. The Americans diverted a supertanker to fill up the Navy’s tanks."

    “The local Pan Am airline manager, Don Coffee, told us his president had told him that we had to make everything possible available to British forces. He said he wasn’t referring to President Reagan, but the President of Pan Am,” said Major General Thompson.

    "The intelligence telegrams show that the CIA knew from satellite surveillance that Argentinian army forces in Goose Green were between 400 and 600, whereas the British commander Lt-Col H Jones thought they would be far fewer when he gave orders for the battle."

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/cia-files-reveal-how-us-helped-britain-retake-the-falklands-7618420.html

    "Pentagon officials were asked about the U.S. role in the Falklands campaign--which began with the Argentine seizure of the islands on April 2 and ended June 14 after the British recaptured them--in the aftermath of a detailed report on the extent of U.S. help that appears this week in the respected British magazine The Economist.

    "The magazine said the Falklands campaign "could not have been mounted, let alone won, without American help."

    "Pentagon officials confirmed many of the details in the report, including the fact that the United States repositioned a spy satellite, using up scarce fuel and thus shortening the satellite's life in space, from its Soviet-watching orbit in the Northern Hemisphere to a place over the South Atlantic where it could provide intelligence to the British fleet.

    "The officials said American intelligence information, provided by means other than just satellites, probably made the key difference between winning and losing because the Argentine attacks on the Royal Navy would have been even more effective if the British had not had the information.

    "Pentagon officials spoke of extraordinary coordination between the American and British services. The United States supplied 12.5 million gallons of aviation fuel diverted from U.S. stockpiles, along with hundreds of Sidewinder missiles, airfield matting, thousands of rounds of mortar shells and other equipment, they said.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/?noredirect=on

    Great info, thanks!!! Had no clue.

    Peace.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS