 |
What exactly is a socialist? A democrat? A communist?
The New York Times? Or all three!
|
After all, isn't that what the race was all about?
For the progressive socialist liberal democrats, it is all about fairness and equality. Really, just remember all of the slave labor camps that the Russians had and how they murder millions in the name of inclusion(obedience) and equality(capitulation).
Intersectionality at work?
It's great that the Russians sent up women, Asians and blacks before America. The Russians knew they had to do something like this as they were running out of members of these ethnics groups in the labor camps.
The liberal socialist democrats love this, they are getty and proud of their friends the communists, good and true socialists who understand community and inclusion, where everyone has the right to starve to death equally or being executed for having independent thoughts.
The progressive socialists democrats have always tried to hide their connection to the old Soviet Union, but now they are coming out of the closet proclaiming their affiliation, a brotherhood with the communists and are proud to tell the world who and what they are.
Of course The New York Times has a long history of communing with communists and other tyrants like the German fascists from the twentieth century. It's that now they come out and pound their collective chests to prove it.
Always remember not to think too much about elections, do I vote socialist democrat or vote for freedom, it just confuses the situations and you might make a big mistake that will end up causing you to have freedom and liberty for a little while longer.
Socialists love freedom. They are all about giving you the freedom to do what you are told as they knew what's best for you. The consequences will be dire if you decide otherwise.
Once Again, The New York Times Has Glowing Coverage of a Communist Regime
Editor’s note: In its coverage of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, The New York Times published a series of pieces critical of the U.S. space program, including an article titled “How the Soviets Won the Space Race for Equality.” Promoting that article, the Times tweeted, “America may have put the first man on the moon, but the Soviet Union sent the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit—all years before the U.S. would follow suit.”
America may have put the first man on the moon, but the Soviet Union sent the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit — all years before the U.S. would follow suit https://nyti.ms/32whRUC
Unfortunately, this is far from the only time the Times has been a cheerleader for communism. The following article was first published in 2017. It seems communism is back in vogue at The New York Times.
A sad but common issue in the modern West is that progressives have created a fanciful and distorted picture of socialism to make it seem like an intriguing alternative to American-style capitalism.
Ikea socialism—with Sweden as the model—is an utterly distorted, but at least understandable, example for leftists to trot out as a demonstration of success. And it’s even a bit amusing how they try to dance around the fact that Venezuela—which is utterly collapsing and egregiously abusing human rights—is a socialist country they praised just 10 years ago.
Socialism Has Destroyed Venezuela
But The New York Times now has actually found a way to create fanciful notions of Soviet-style authoritarianism—and whimsical tales of its influence in America—in a new section dedicated to the “Red Century,” which explores “the history and legacy of communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution.”
Romanticized Tyranny
While some of the pieces explore the horrors and failures of communist rule, others delve into topics that would seem funny if the subject matter weren’t so horrifying. For instance, the Times ran what can aptly be described as a “puff piece” on Vladimir Lenin, the man who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and is linked to the death and murder of millions of people.
The article, titled “Lenin’s Eco-Warriors,” paints the man as some kind of Siberian John Muir, and incredibly concludes that leaving “landscapes on this planet where humans do not tread” was the Soviet dictator’s “legacy.”
As absurd as that piece was, the Times managed to outdo itself with another article on, no joke, “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism.” This piece is an idealized account of how life under an absolutist government could be liberating and possibly a better model for the feminist movement.
The author wrote:
''Those comrades’ insistence on government intervention may seem heavy-handed to our postmodern sensibilities, but sometimes necessary social change—which soon comes to be seen as the natural order of things—needs an emancipation proclamation from above.''
The absurdly romanticized account of life under tyrannical government explains little of the hopelessness of a system where an individual has no hope and no future.
These examples certainly weren’t the first, or the worst, instances of the Times engaging in communist revisionism. One of the most egregious examples of “fake news” in the mid-20th century was conducted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Walter Duranty in the 1930s.
Fake News
Duranty, who was the Times’ Moscow bureau chief, wrote a series of glowing pieces about the USSR’s policies under General Secretary Josef Stalin in 1931. While millions of people were starving in Ukraine, Duranty reported back that things were going swimmingly under the communist regime despite a few bumps in the road.
“Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please,” Duranty wrote. “Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.”
He attacked reports that portrayed the Soviet policies in a negative light as “malignant propaganda.”
Though the total number of deaths due to forced starvation in the Holodomor is unknown, estimates are generally around 3 million from 1932 to 1933.
Despite his blatant misreporting, Duranty was never stripped of his Pulitzer and has still been listed on the Times’ honor roll.
It would be good on The New York Times if it ran a piece about Duranty’s egregious reporting and disinformation campaign that gave Americans a distorted picture of communist reality, but, alas, that hasn’t happened amid the various fables about socialist “successes.”
It may seem easy to dismiss The New York Times accounts as eyerolling fantasies of the left trying to defend a broken ideology, but the danger of this historical revisionism is real.
Dangerous Historical Fantasy
A worrying study sponsored by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials are generally clueless about communism. “Just 37 percent of millennials had a ‘very unfavorable’ view of communism, compared to 57 percent of Americans overall,” according to a Daily Signal report.
Perhaps even worse, a full third of millennials say they think that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Stalin.
Historical ignorance of communism’s crimes is ultimately dangerous.
‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale
As The New York Times joins with others to peddle a warped image of what communism is really about, generations that have never witnessed its horror may be lulled into buying the clichéd line that “real communism has never been tried.”
As historian Sean McMeekin wrote in his book, “The Russian Revolution,” after communism’s “century of well-catalogued disasters … no one should have the excuse of ignorance.”
Communist revival is growing in Western countries even as it is nearly extinct in places it was tried. This is folly fueled by historical blindness.
“Today’s Western socialists, dreaming of a world where private property and inequality are outlawed, where rational economic development is planned by far-seeing intellectuals, should be careful what they wish for,” McMeekin wrote. “They may just get it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment